Range Complex Management Plan • Volume II NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX FINAL DRAFT AUGUST 2007 Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Volume II
FINAL Draft
Prepared for:
COMMANDER, U.S. FLEET FORCES
and
COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC FLEET Pearl Harbor, HI
and
Commanding Officer Engineering Field Activity, Northwest Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contract # N68711-02-D-8043
August 20, 2007 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. VOL II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 The Northwest Training (NWT) Range Complex Management Plan 3 (RCMP) is developed under the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces 4 (USFF)/Pacific Fleet Tactical Training Theater Assessment and 5 Planning (TAP) program to ensure that the Northwest Training 6 Range Complex (NWTRC) is sustainable and capable of supporting 7 Navy readiness training for the foreseeable future.
8 STRATEGIC VISION
9 The USFF strategic vision for the NWTRC is to provide sustainable 10 and modernized ocean operating areas, airspace, ranges, range 11 infrastructure, training facilities, and resources to fully support the 12 Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) in accordance with assigned 13 roles and missions. For purposes of Fleet training, the NWTRC 14 includes training operations that occur at the Naval Undersea 15 Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport Range Areas including Dabob, 16 Keyport and Nanoose range sites. The NWTRC is the principal 17 backyard range for surface, submarine, aviation, and Explosive 18 Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units located at Naval Air Station (NAS) 19 Whidbey Island, Naval Station (NS) Everett, Naval Base Kitsap – 20 Bremerton, Naval Base Kitsap – Bangor, and Puget Sound Naval 21 Shipyard. 22 23 While the Navy has not yet designated all range sites to be Joint 24 National Training Capability (JNTC) certified, strategic planning for 25 the NWTRC should proceed in anticipation of its role as a part of the 26 JNTC system of ranges. 27 28 The required roles and missions to support the strategic vision for the 29 NWTRC are defined as warfare areas and levels of training, as listed 30 in Figure ES-1. The complex is required to support training in seven 31 Navy Primary Mission Areas: Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti- 32 Surface Warfare (ASUW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Mine 33 Warfare (MIW), Strike Warfare (STW), Electronic Combat (EC), 34 and Naval Special Warfare (NSW). These roles and missions are 35 based on requirements as determined by USFF and do not reflect a 36 range complex’s capabilities.
ES-1 VOL II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Training Level Warfare Area Basic Intermediate Advanced AAW 2 3 ASUW 2 2 ASW 1 2 EC 1 3 MIW 1 2 NSW/EOD 1 2 STW 2 3
2 Figure ES-1. Navy Prioritized Roles and Missions
3 RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS
4 The principal focus of the NWTRC RCMP is training and test 5 operations that support the Navy Fleet Readiness Training Plan and 6 Naval Special Warfare training. The NWTRC is most readily used 7 by and therefore most valuable to local units. Expansion of these 8 units as well as new platform capabilities will likely cause an 9 increase in operations at NWTRC. For example: 10 The P-8 capability to control the Broad Area Maritime 11 Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) 12 will contribute to the increase in UAV training missions in 13 addition to future requirements for UAV platforms such as 14 Fire Scout, Global Hawk, and Predator. 15 Additional Guided Missile, Nuclear Powered Submarine 16 (SSGN) homeported at Bangor will increase the level of 17 future ASW, NSW, and UAV operations. 18 The newly completed Collaborative Test and Evaluation 19 Capability (CTEC) at NUWC Keyport, enabling units to 20 perform live, virtual, and constructive Test and training 21 exercises, will enable USW/ASW/MIW Test, Training, 22 Experimentation, and Evaluation (T2E2) to be accomplished 23 anywhere, anytime.
24 The NWTRC also provides sites for non-fleet training operations 25 such as those conducted by the Oregon National Guard (ORNG). 26 The ORNG’s proposal to construct and operate two new live-fire 27 weapons training ranges at the NWSTF Boardman will increase 28 operations, allowing use of the ranges for unit training year-round.
29 CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT &INVESTMENT STRATEGY
30 The current Range Complex capabilities were analyzed and 31 compared to the required range capabilities listed in the most recent 32 edition of the Required Capabilities Document (RCD). Based on this 33 analysis, severe and moderate capability shortfalls have generated
ES-2 VOL II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 priority ONE (1) and TWO (2) investment recommendations as 2 shown in Figure ES-3: 3 Action Range Complex Capability Gap Investment Recommendation Priority Numerous increased roles and 1 Increase the size of the RCC Staff. responsibilities for the Range Complex Coordinator (RCC) staff. NWTRC lacks current 1 Complete environmental planning for environmental coverage for NWTRC operations. operations conducted. Lack of multi-axis Electronic 2 Acquire Electronic Warfare emitters for Warfare emitter capability in the NWSTF Boardman and for Pac Beach. NWTRC. Impacts both surface ship and aircraft Electronic Combat training. NWTRC lacks adequate 2 Acquire high-fidelity tracking capability for instrumentation to provide replay NWTRC. and debrief capabilities for aircrew. 4 Figure ES-3. Capabilities Assessment and Investment Strategy
5 ENCROACHMENT ANALYSIS
6 The Northwest Training Range Complex encroachment analysis 7 identified seven severe impacts caused by airborne noise and/or 8 operational constraints at the Seaplane Base Demolition Training 9 Range. There are 75 moderate impacts from six additional 10 encroachment issues, namely: maritime sustainability, airspace 11 restrictions, urban growth, water quality, cultural resources, and 12 range transients. A summary is presented in the following table.
Range Encroachment Impacts Considered Severe Seaplane Base Demolition 2 impacts due to Airborne Noise Training Range Encroachment Impacts Considered Moderate 7 impacts: Maritime Sustainability, Urban Growth, and Operational Range Sites Airspace Restrictions 25 impacts: Maritime Sustainability, Water Quality, and NUWC Keyport Range Sites Range Transients 43 impacts: Maritime Sustainability, Cultural Resources, EOD Range Sites Airborne Noise, Urban Growth, and Range Transients 13 Figure ES-4. Encroachment Impacts
14 NON-INVESTMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
15 Additional strongly recommended initiatives developed in this 16 RCMP, include:
ES-3 VOL II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Environmental, Natural Resources & Land Use Management 2 Engage in discussions with the National Marine Fisheries 3 Service regarding the Southern Resident killer whale critical 4 habitat regulations. 5 Engage in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 6 Management Plan review process. 7 Ensure that Oregon Army National Guard actions are 8 consistent with Navy Operational Range Clearance policies 9 and Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment 10 at NWSTF Boardman. 11 Implement NAS Whidbey Island AICUZ and NWSTF 12 Boardman RAICUZ recommendations. Develop revised 13 RAICUZ for NWSTF Boardman if deemed necessary. 14 Review and update the cooperative management agreement 15 with The Nature Conservancy at NWSTF Boardman. 16 Develop and negotiate approved de minimis activities in each 17 coastal state that will not require additional coordination 18 under CZMA; and 19 Review Navy range SOPs & instructions to ensure that 20 operating procedures address all environmental, resource 21 management & land use constraints prescribed by relevant 22 plans, permits, agreements, real estate instruments, and other 23 compliance documents. 24 Data Management 25 Develop and implement a Range Complex data collection 26 plan.
27 OUTREACH
28 Stakeholder outreach recommendations are specifically designed to 29 address the existing or anticipated encroachment and sustainability 30 challenges of the NWTRC. Areas in which strategic outreach and 31 communication can support overall range encroachment 32 management primarily involve: 33 Marine resource and marine mammal protection efforts, 34 Land use planning decisions, 35 Range transients, 36 Airspace encroachments, 37 Environmental stewardship programs and pollution 38 prevention measures, and 39 Urban encroachment and noise issues. 40 41 Recommended communication efforts designed to address 42 encroachment issues and promote sustainability objectives include: 43 Develop a joint Fleet/Regional outreach program to maintain, 44 expand, and improve relationships with NOAA, NMFS, state 45 regulatory agencies, and NGOs that have the ability to
ES-4 VOL II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 positively or negatively impact Navy marine training 2 operations. 3 Continue a proactive approach to marine mammal and marine 4 resource issues by participation in Advisory Councils and 5 working groups; seek opportunities to partner with regulatory 6 agencies and NGOs in marine mammal protection programs. 7 Solidify relationships and foster additional cooperative 8 partnerships with regulatory agencies and NGOs for 9 establishing buffer zones, and implementing land 10 conservation and species and habitat protection programs. 11 Proactively work with local elected officials, planning 12 agencies, Native American tribes and nations, and community 13 members in the region to minimize range transients and urban 14 encroachment issues. 15 Sustain civic and community organization support for the 16 Navy’s significant regional and community contributions. 17 Garner positive media coverage of the Navy mission, range- 18 related issues, community activities, and environmental 19 stewardship and cleanup programs through an active media 20 outreach program. 21 22 The crucial factor for the successful development and 23 implementation of a range complex-wide strategic outreach program 24 is internal coordination and accountability. Sharing information 25 among the various Installations, range users, public affairs, and 26 environmental planning divisions of the Commands, Region, and 27 Fleet is critical to facilitate a unified, consistent, targeted, 28 multifaceted, and sustained communication program. It is strongly 29 recommended that the NWTRC develop and implement a range 30 complex-wide Encroachment Outreach Plan (EOP), guided by 31 overarching Navy policy yet tailored to specific communication 32 objectives and encroachment and sustainability issues facing the 33 NWTRC. The EOP should be developed and implemented by an 34 EOP working group (with contractor assistance, as needed), a 35 subgroup of the Range Complex Management Team (RCMT). The 36 EOP working group should be comprised of COMPACFLT, 37 CNRNW, NAVSEA, Command, and Installation public affairs, 38 range, and environmental representatives, and meet quarterly. 39 40 Most members of the general public, government agencies, elected 41 officials, and NGOs are unaware of the many involved departments 42 and Commands or division of labor within the Navy regarding 43 encroachment issues. There is a significant need for one POC for 44 encroachment issues for the NWTRC. It is strongly recommended 45 that CNRNW establish one POC that is responsible for 46 communicating information to stakeholders or referring issues to the 47 appropriate subject matter expert or POC. A Regional Community 48 Plans & Liaison Officer working directly for the Regional 49 Commander would be a solution. This would go far in improving
ES-5 VOL II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 the accessibility of information to the public, reduce frustrations, and 2 ensure greater accountability. 3
4 ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES
5 The Range Complex Coordinator (RCC) will be responsible for 6 range complex sustainability management, and for optimizing its 7 capabilities. This RCMP outlines a robust series of sustainability 8 recommendations, and as the RCC organization matures, other 9 opportunities will present themselves. Implementing these, as well as 10 promulgating an overall range complex management program, will 11 require a qualified support staff able to devote considerable time and 12 resources. 13 14 A Range Complex Management Team (RCMT), composed of active 15 duty personnel, U.S. civil service employees and contractors, will 16 assist the RCC in this endeavor. The RCMT will draw its federal 17 members primarily from USFF, Commander, Navy Region 18 Northwest (CNRNW) and Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 19 Northwest, all of whom will report to the RCC as a collateral duty on 20 an as-needed basis. However, given manpower and funding realities, 21 the amount of time they can devote exclusively to establishing and 22 managing the RCC organization is limited. USFF currently has a 23 request for funding of a permanent RCC staff in POM 08. In the 24 interim, the Navy can most readily obtain the necessary support via 25 existing contract vehicles for the Range Complex Coordinator 26 Support Team (RCCST), a reach-back cell of contractors available to 27 all Pacific Fleet RCCs.
ES-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 ACRONYM LIST
3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Northwest Training Range Complex Sustainability Goals...... 1-2 5 1.1.1 Implementing Strategic Planning ...... 1-3 6 1.1.2 Formal Organizational Structures and Processes ...... 1-4 7 1.1.3 Encroachment Impacts and Solutions ...... 1-4 8 1.1.4 Using Best Practices in Range Design and Use ...... 1-5 9 1.1.5 Employing Use Metrics...... 1-5 10 1.1.6 Managing Natural and Cultural Resources Externally and Internally...... 1-6 11 1.1.7 Providing Community and Stakeholder Involvement ...... 1-7 12 1.2 Updating Schedule...... 1-7
13 CHAPTER 2 NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION 14 2.1 Military Mission ...... 2-1 15 2.1.1 Navy Operational Range Complex Mission...... 2-1 16 2.1.2 NAVSEA/NUWC Keyport Range Mission ...... 2-1 17 2.1.3 NSW...... 2-1 18 2.2 Northwest Training Range Complex Description ...... 2-3 19 2.2.1 Training Area Inventory and Ownership...... 2-3 20 2.2.2 Regional Setting...... 2-4 21 2.3 Navy Operational Range Complex Organization and Capabilities ...... 2-5 22 2.3.1 Range Complex Organizational Relationships...... 2-7 23 2.3.1.1 Budget Submitting Office...... 2-7 24 2.3.1.2 Host...... 2-7 25 2.3.1.3 Tenants...... 2-7 26 2.3.2 Range Complex Management Structure...... 2-7 27 2.3.2.1 Controlling Authority / Scheduling Authority...... 2-7 28 2.3.2.2 Staffing ...... 2-8 29 2.3.3 Range Complex Management Procedures...... 2-9 30 2.3.3.1 Control Procedures ...... 2-9 31 2.3.3.2 Range Scheduling Procedures...... 2-9 32 2.3.3.3 Range Safety Procedures ...... 2-10 33 2.3.3.4 Range Inspection Procedures...... 2-11 34 2.3.3.5 Coordination Procedures...... 2-11 35 2.3.4 NAVY OPERATIONAL Range Complex Assets ...... 2-12 36 2.3.4.1 Sea Space and Associated SUA...... 2-12 37 2.3.4.2 Scheduling ...... 2-25 38 2.3.4.3 Communications ...... 2-25 39 2.3.4.4 Meteorology...... 2-26 40 2.3.4.5 Targets and Target Arrays ...... 2-27 41 2.3.4.6 Instrumentation (including SESEF)...... 2-27 42 2.3.4.7 Opposition Forces...... 2-30 43 2.3.4.8 Other Infrastructure...... 2-30 44 2.4 NAVSEA / NUWC Keyport ...... 2-30 45 2.4.1 Range Complex Organizational Relationships...... 2-35 46 2.4.1.1 Budget Submitting Office...... 2-35
I TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.4.1.2 Host...... 2-35 2 2.4.1.3 Tenants...... 2-35 3 2.4.2 Range Management Structure ...... 2-35 4 2.4.2.1 Controlling Authority ...... 2-36 5 2.4.2.2 Scheduling Authority...... 2-36 6 2.4.2.3 Staffing ...... 2-36 7 2.4.3 Range Complex Management Procedures...... 2-36 8 2.4.3.1 Range Control Procedures ...... 2-36 9 2.4.3.2 Range Scheduling Procedures...... 2-36 10 2.4.3.3 Range Safety Procedures ...... 2-37 11 2.4.3.4 Range Inspection Procedures...... 2-37 12 2.4.3.5 Coordination Procedures...... 2-37 13 2.4.4 NUWC Keyport Range Assets ...... 2-37 14 2.4.4.1 Underwater Space and Associated Surface Area...... 2-37 15 2.4.4.2 Scheduling ...... 2-42 16 2.4.4.3 Communications ...... 2-42 17 2.4.4.4 Meteorology...... 2-43 18 2.4.4.5 Targets and Target Arrays ...... 2-43 19 2.4.4.6 Instrumentation ...... 2-44 20 2.4.4.7 Opposition Forces...... 2-45 21 2.4.4.8 Other Infrastructure...... 2-45 22 2.5 Naval Special Warfare Training Ranges ...... 2-45 23 2.5.1 NSW Advanced Training, Detachment Kodiak Island ...... 2-45 24 2.5.1.1 Scheduling ...... 2-45 25 2.5.1.2 Training Media...... 2-46 26 2.5.1.3 Training Area...... 2-46 27 2.5.1.4 Authorized Ordnance...... 2-50 28 2.5.1.5 Communications ...... 2-50 29 2.5.1.6 Targets and Scoring ...... 2-50
30 CHAPTER 3 CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS 31 3.1 Introduction to Range Complex Operations...... 3-1 32 3.1.1 Method for Determining Training Operations Included in the Northwest Training RCMP ..3-1 33 3.1.2 Operations Included in the Northwest Training RCMP ...... 3-1 34 3.1.3 Major Range Events Included in an RCMP ...... 3-3 35 3.2 Operations Description...... 3-3 36 3.2.1 Insertion/Extraction (NTA 1.1.2.4) ...... 3-3 37 3.2.2 Mine Neutralization (NTA 1.3.1)...... 3-4 38 3.2.3 Land Demolitions (NTA 1.4.4) ...... 3-6 39 3.2.4 Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Operations (NTA 1.5.6)...... 3-6 40 3.2.5 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) (NTA 2.2.3) ...... 3-8 41 3.2.6 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Operations (NTA 2.2.3) ...... 3-9 42 3.2.7 Bombing Exercise (Sea) (BOMBEX (Sea)) (NTA 3.2.1.1)...... 3-10 43 3.2.8 Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (MISSILEX (A-S)) (NTA 3.2.1.1) ...... 3-10 44 3.2.9 Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (Ship) (GUNEX (S-S) (Ship)) (NTA 3.2.1.1) ...... 3-11 45 3.2.10 Sink Exercise (SINKEX) (NTA 3.2.1.1)...... 3-11 46 3.2.11 Antisubmarine Warfare Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise (ASW TRACKEX/ASW 47 TORPEX) (NTA 3.2.1.2) ...... 3-12 48 3.2.12 Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) (NTA 3.2.3) (AFT 1.1.1) (MCT 3.2.6)...... 3-13 49 3.2.13 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Exercise (HARMEX) (NTA 3.2.4)...... 3-15
II TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3.2.14 Electronic Combat (EC) Operations (NTA 3.2.5)...... 3-15 2 3.2.15 Bombing Exercise (Land) (BOMBEX (Land)) (NTA 3.2.6) ...... 3-16 3 3.2.16 Surface-to-Air Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX (S-A)) (NTA 3.2.7) ...... 3-16 4 3.2.17 Marksmanship (NTA 3.2.8) (AFT 1.1.1) ...... 3-17 5 3.2.18 Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Low-Level Training and Air-to-Ground Gunnery Exercise 6 (GUNEX) (ART 2.5.4/2.5.5)...... 3-18 7 3.2.19 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Operations ...... 3-18 8 3.2.19.1 Submarine Post-Refit Sea Trials...... 3-19 9 3.2.19.2 Torpedo and Experimental Vehicle Testing ...... 3-19 10 3.2.19.3 Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Operations...... 3-20 11 3.2.20 Additional Navy and Army Tactical Tasks...... 3-21 12 3.3 Operations Summary...... 3-23
13 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL,NATURAL RESOURCES, AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT 14 4.1 Operations and Environmental/Resource Stewardship ...... 4-1 15 4.2 Environmental Compliance...... 4-2 16 4.2.1 Environmental Compliance Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders...... 4-2 17 4.2.1.1 Air Quality...... 4-3 18 4.2.1.2 Water Quality...... 4-5 19 4.2.1.3 Hazardous Waste...... 4-10 20 4.2.1.4 Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) Management...... 4-12 21 4.2.2 Environmental Compliance Documentation for Operations “At Sea”...... 4-15 22 4.2.3 Environmental Compliance Documentation for Operations at Estuarine and Land Ranges4-16 23 4.2.3.1 Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment (RSEPA)...... 4-16 24 4.2.3.2 Operational Range Clearance (ORC)...... 4-18 25 4.2.3.3 2000 Range Survey Results ...... 4-19 26 4.2.3.4 Air Quality Permitting ...... 4-20 27 4.2.3.5 Historical Range Use at Lake Hancock and Admiralty Bay...... 4-21 28 4.2.3.6 ESA, MMPA and the MSA ...... 4-22 29 4.2.4 Environmental Compliance Documentation at NUWC Keyport Ranges...... 4-26 30 4.2.4.1 Keyport Range Site...... 4-26 31 4.2.4.2 Quinalt Range Site...... 4-26 32 4.2.4.3 Dabob Bay Range Complex...... 4-26 33 4.2.4.4 Nanoose Range Site...... 4-27 34 4.2.5 Environmental Compliance Documentation at EOD and NSW Ranges...... 4-27 35 4.2.5.1 CERCLA Compliance ...... 4-27 36 4.2.5.2 Biological Assessments...... 4-29 37 4.2.5.3 NSW Ranges - Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility...... 4-34 38 4.2.6 Environmental Compliance Issues ...... 4-35 39 4.2.6.1 Offshore Ranges ...... 4-35 40 4.2.6.2 Inshore Areas...... 4-35 41 4.2.6.3 NUWC Keyport Ranges ...... 4-36 42 4.2.6.4 EOD and NSW Ranges...... 4-36 43 4.2.7 Environmental Compliance Documents...... 4-36 44 4.3 Environmental Planning...... 4-37 45 4.3.1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ...... 4-38 46 4.3.1.1 Washington Coastal Zone Management Program ...... 4-38 47 4.3.1.2 Oregon’s Ocean-Coastal Management Program...... 4-39 48 4.3.1.3 Alaska’s Ocean-Coastal Management Program ...... 4-40 49 4.3.1.4 California Coastal Management Program...... 4-41
III TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 4.3.2 Marine Resource Assessment...... 4-42 2 4.3.3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and EO 12114 ...... 4-43 3 4.3.3.1 Previous Environmental Planning...... 4-43 4 4.3.3.2 Ongoing Environmental Planning Efforts ...... 4-58 5 4.3.3.3 Scope of Future Environmental Planning Efforts...... 4-60 6 4.3.4 Environmental Planning Issues ...... 4-60 7 4.3.5 Environmental Planning Documents...... 4-60 8 4.4 Land Use Planning and Resource Management...... 4-62 9 4.4.1 State and Local Planning and Land Use Laws and Ordinances ...... 4-62 10 4.4.1.1 State Land Use Laws ...... 4-62 11 4.4.1.2 Local Land Use Laws ...... 4-64 12 4.4.2 Land Use Planning ...... 4-68 13 4.4.2.1 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) ...... 4-68 14 4.4.2.2 Range Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (RAICUZ) ...... 4-69 15 4.4.2.3 Regional Shore Infrastructure Planning (RSIP)...... 4-69 16 4.4.2.4 Real Estate Use and Agreements ...... 4-70 17 4.4.3 Resource Management ...... 4-73 18 4.4.3.1 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPS) ...... 4-73 19 4.4.3.2 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMPs)...... 4-77 20 4.4.3.3 Additional Studies and Plans ...... 4-78 21 4.4.4 Land Use Planning & Resource Management Issues/Recommendations ...... 4-80 22 4.4.5 Land Use Planning & Resource Management Documents ...... 4-80 23 4.5 Existing Range Environmental and Resource Management SOPs and Instructions...... 4-83 24 4.5.1 Protective Measures Assessment Protocol (PMAP)...... 4-83 25 4.5.2 Training Area SOPs and Instructions...... 4-85 26 4.5.3 Training Area SOP and Instruction Recommendations ...... 4-90 27 4.6 Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents ...... 4-90
28 CHAPTER 5 ENCROACHMENT AND SUSTAINMENT CHALLENGES 29 5.1 Encroachment Analysis and Methodology...... 5-1 30 5.2 Encroachment in the Northwest Training Range Complex...... 5-2 31 5.2.1 Frequency Encroachment ...... 5-3 32 5.2.1.1 Link 16 Restrictions...... 5-4 33 5.2.1.2 SPY-1 Restrictions...... 5-6 34 5.2.1.3 SPS-49 Radar Restrictions...... 5-7 35 5.2.1.4 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Restrictions...... 5-8 36 5.2.2 Maritime Sustainability ...... 5-9 37 5.2.2.1 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ...... 5-10 38 5.2.2.2 Active Sonar Mitigation Measures ...... 5-10 39 5.2.2.3 AN/SSQ-110 Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) Sonobuoy Employment 40 Restrictions...... 5-13 41 5.2.3 Airspace Restrictions...... 5-14 42 5.2.3.1 Electronic Reconnaissance...... 5-14 43 5.2.3.2 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) Live Fire...... 5-14 44 5.2.4 Urban Growth...... 5-15 45 5.3 Encroachment at Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Ranges ...... 5-15 46 5.3.1 Maritime Sustainability ...... 5-16 47 5.3.2 Water Quality...... 5-16 48 5.3.3 Range Transients...... 5-17 49 5.4 Encroachment at EOD Ranges ...... 5-17
IV TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5.4.1 Maritime Sustainability ...... 5-18 2 5.4.2 Urban Growth...... 5-19 3 5.4.3 Cultural Resources...... 5-20 4 5.4.4 Range Transients...... 5-20 5 5.5 Impending Encroachment Challenges...... 5-21 6 5.6 Encroachment Summary...... 5-21
7 CHAPTER 6 RANGE COMPLEX STRATEGIC PLANNING 8 6.1 Strategic Vision and Management Objectives...... 6-1 9 6.1.1 Strategic Vision...... 6-1 10 6.1.2 Management Objectives...... 6-1 11 6.1.2.1 Sustain...... 6-1 12 6.1.2.2 Upgrade...... 6-2 13 6.1.2.3 Modernize ...... 6-2 14 6.1.2.4 Transform...... 6-2 15 6.2 Strategic Mission...... 6-6 16 6.2.1 Attributes...... 6-7 17 6.2.2 Mission Needs...... 6-10 18 6.2.3 Roles and Missions of the Northwest Training Range Complex ...... 6-10 19 6.3 Factors Influencing Future Requirements and Operations ...... 6-12 20 6.3.1 Modernization ...... 6-12 21 6.3.1.1 New Mission Areas...... 6-12 22 6.3.1.2 New Weapon Platforms ...... 6-13 23 6.3.1.3 New Weapons and Sensor Systems ...... 6-15 24 6.3.1.4 New Instrumentation Technology...... 6-16 25 6.3.1.5 Improved Target Replication ...... 6-17 26 6.3.1.6 Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) Training ...... 6-17 27 6.3.2 Evolving Concept of Operations ...... 6-17 28 6.3.2.1 Doctrine ...... 6-17 29 6.3.2.2 Force Structure...... 6-18 30 6.3.2.3 Homebasing ...... 6-19 31 6.3.2.4 Training Strategy ...... 6-19
32 CHAPTER 7 RANGE COMPLEX CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT 33 7.1 Range Required Capabilities Document (RCD)...... 7-1 34 7.2 Capabilities Assessment Process...... 7-2 35 7.3 RCD Gap Analysis ...... 7-4 36 7.3.1 Capabilities Common to All Range Functions...... 7-4 37 7.3.1.1 Scheduling System...... 7-4 38 7.3.1.2 Meteorological (MET) System ...... 7-5 39 7.3.2 Capabilities in Support of Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)...... 7-5 40 7.3.3 Capabilities in support of Navy Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)...... 7-12 41 7.3.4 Capabilities in support of Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)...... 7-16 42 7.3.5 Capabilities in support of Navy Mine Warfare ...... 7-21 43 7.3.6 Capabilities in support of Navy Strike Warfare ...... 7-26 44 7.3.7 Capabilities in support of Navy Electronic Combat...... 7-33 45 7.3.8 Capabilities in support of Naval Special Warfare (NSW)...... 7-38 46 7.4 RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary...... 7-44
V TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 CHAPTER 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 2 8.1 Investment Recommendations...... 8-2 3 8.1.1 Environmental Coverage for Navy Operations at Northwest Training Range Complex ...... 8-3 4 8.1.2 Range Complex Coordinator Staff Increase...... 8-3 5 8.1.3 New Electronic Combat Targets ...... 8-3 6 8.1.4 New Range Instrumentation System ...... 8-4 7 8.1.5 NSW Live Fire Capability Near Puget Sound and at Kodiak Island, AK...... 8-4 8 8.1.6 Update RAICUZ for NWSTF Boardman...... 8-4 9 8.1.7 New Air-to-Ground Bomb Scoring System at NWSTF Boardman ...... 8-5 10 8.1.8 Redesigned Target Configuration at NWSTF Boardman...... 8-5 11 8.1.9 Large NEW Underwater Demolition Site ...... 8-5 12 8.1.10 Increased NEW Limits at Existing EOD Ranges ...... 8-5 13 8.1.11 Web-Enabled Operations Reporting and Scheduling System ...... 8-6 14 8.1.12 Air Target Services...... 8-6 15 8.1.13 Surface Targets...... 8-6 16 8.1.14 Offshore Range Instrumentation...... 8-7 17 8.1.15 EOD Surface Demolition Range at NWSTF Boardman ...... 8-7 18 8.2 Potential Future Range Complex Operations, Investments, & Recommendations that Require 19 Additional Environmental Planning ...... 8-7 20 8.2.1 Strongly Recommended Actions...... 8-7 21 8.3 Environmental, Natural Resources and Land Use Management Recommendations ...... 8-8 22 8.3.1 Strongly Recommended Actions...... 8-8 23 8.3.2 Highly Recommended Actions ...... 8-9 24 8.3.3 Recommended Actions...... 8-9 25 8.4 Encroachment Mitigation Recommendations ...... 8-10 26 8.4.1 Strongly Recommended Actions...... 8-10 27 8.4.2 Highly Recommended Actions ...... 8-10 28 8.4.3 Recommended Actions...... 8-11 29 8.5 Outreach Recommendations...... 8-11 30 8.5.1 Strongly Recommended Actions...... 8-11 31 8.5.2 Highly Recommended Actions ...... 8-14 32 8.5.3 Recommended Actions...... 8-15 33 8.6 Miscellaneous Recommendations ...... 8-16 34 8.7 Outstanding Range Complex Planning Issues...... 8-16
35 CHAPTER 9 ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES 36 9.1 Formal Northwest Training Range Complex Organization...... 9-1 37 9.2 Range Complex Command Structure...... 9-4 38 9.2.1 Range Complex Commander (RCC)...... 9-5 39 9.2.2 Range Complex Management Team (RCMT) ...... 9-6 40 9.2.3 Range Management at Boardman Range ...... 9-7 41 9.2.3.1 Recurring Maintenance...... 9-8 42 9.2.3.2 Range Refurbishment ...... 9-8 43 9.2.3.3 Sage-Scrub Management ...... 9-9 44 9.2.3.4 Devegetation ...... 9-9 45 9.2.3.5 Wildfires ...... 9-10 46 9.2.3.6 Operational Range Clearance ...... 9-11 47 9.2.3.7 Integration of Maintenance Activities ...... 9-12 48 9.2.4 Range Management at the NUWC Ranges ...... 9-12 49 9.2.4.1 Recurring Maintenance...... 9-12
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 9.2.4.2 Range Refurbishment ...... 9-13 2 9.3 Range Complex Support Commands ...... 9-13 3 9.3.1 Commander, Navy Region Northwest...... 9-13 4 9.3.2 Naval Facilities Engineering Command...... 9-15 5 9.4 Range Complex Planning...... 9-15 6 9.4.1 Fleet Enhanced Readiness Team...... 9-15 7 9.4.2 CNRNW Enhanced Readiness Team ...... 9-16 8 9.4.3 Range Complex Operations Environmental Planning Team...... 9-17 9 9.5 Data Collection and Data Management...... 9-17 10 9.5.1 Tactical Training and Testing Ranges Repository and Management System (T-RAMS) and 11 the Environmental Information Management System (EIMS)...... 9-17 12 9.5.2 Northwest Training Range Complex Data Management ...... 9-18 13 9.5.2.1 Operational Exercise Data ...... 9-19 14 9.5.2.2 Scheduling Data...... 9-20 15 9.5.2.3 Recommendations to Enhance Data Management...... 9-21
16 CHAPTER 10 OUTREACH 17 10.1 Introduction ...... 10-1 18 10.2 Demographics and Electoral Representation...... 10-2 19 10.2.1 Economic Contribution ...... 10-2 20 10.2.2 Island County, WA...... 10-3 21 10.2.3 Kitsap County, WA ...... 10-3 22 10.2.3.1 City of Silverdale, WA ...... 10-4 23 10.2.3.2 City of Poulsbo, WA...... 10-4 24 10.2.4 Snohomish County, WA...... 10-4 25 10.2.5 Jefferson County, WA...... 10-4 26 10.2.5.1 City of Port Townsend, WA ...... 10-5 27 10.2.6 Clallam County, WA...... 10-6 28 10.2.7 Grays Harbor County, WA...... 10-6 29 10.2.8 Whatcom County, WA...... 10-7 30 10.2.9 Skagit County, WA ...... 10-7 31 10.2.10 Snohomish County, WA...... 10-8 32 10.2.11 Pierce County, WA...... 10-8 33 10.2.12 Okanogan County, WA ...... 10-9 34 10.2.13 Ferry County, WA...... 10-9 35 10.2.14 Stevens County, WA ...... 10-9 36 10.2.15 Pend Oreille County, WA ...... 10-10 37 10.2.16 Lincoln County, OR ...... 10-10 38 10.2.17 Douglas County, OR ...... 10-10 39 10.2.18 Coos County, OR ...... 10-11 40 10.2.19 Curry County, OR ...... 10-11 41 10.2.20 Morrow County, OR...... 10-11 42 10.2.21 Del Norte County, CA...... 10-12 43 10.2.22 Humboldt County, CA ...... 10-12 44 10.2.23 Kodiak Island Borough, AK...... 10-13 45 10.2.24 Elected Officials...... 10-14 46 10.3 History of Outreach and Involvement ...... 10-16 47 10.3.1 Analysis of Current Stakeholder Relations ...... 10-16 48 10.3.1.1 Elected Officials...... 10-17 49 10.3.1.2 Regulatory and Government Agencies ...... 10-17
VII TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 10.3.1.3 Community, NGOs, and Media ...... 10-28 2 10.3.1.4 Native American Tribes and Nations...... 10-32 3 10.4 Outreach Objectives and Messages ...... 10-34 4 10.4.1 Outreach Objectives ...... 10-34 5 10.4.2 Strategic Messages...... 10-35 6 10.4.3 Strategy and Recommendations ...... 10-36 7 10.4.3.1 Internal Coordination...... 10-36 8 10.4.3.2 Elected Officials...... 10-38 9 10.4.3.3 Regulatory and Government Agencies ...... 10-39 10 10.4.3.4 Community, NGOs, and Media ...... 10-40 11 10.4.3.5 Native American Tribes and Nations...... 10-42 12 10.5 Points of Contact ...... 10-43 13 10.6 Metrics and Accountability ...... 10-43
14 CHAPTER 11 INVESTMENT STRATEGY 15 11.1 Range Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Process...... 11-1 16 11.1.1 Range Complex POM input...... 11-2 17 11.2 Modernization ...... 11-2 18 11.3 Operations and Maintenance ...... 11-3 19 11.4 Environmental ...... 11-3 20 11.5 Encroachment...... 11-4 21 11.6 Summary ...... 11-4 22 23 APPENDIX A TERMINOLOGY 24 APPENDIX B ENCROACHMENT ISSUES BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 25 APPENDIX C ENCROACHMENT SUMMARY MATRICES 26 APPENDIX D REQUIRED CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS MATRICES 27 APPENDIX E PERSONNEL DIRECTORY 28 APPENDIX F BIBLIOGRAPHY 29 APPENDIX G SUPPLEMENTAL OUTREACH INFORMATION 30
VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 TABLE OF FIGURES
3 Figure 1-1. The Northwest Training Range Complex...... 1-9 4 5 Figure 2-1. Northwest Training Range Complex Major Areas...... 2-2 6 Figure 2-2. Northwest Training Range Complex Inventory and Ownership...... 2-4 7 Figure 2-3. Regional Setting of the Northwest Training Range Complex...... 2-5 8 Figure 2-4. Navy Operational Range Attribute Summary ...... 2-7 9 Figure 2-5. Offshore Surface OPAREA, Warning Areas, and 100 Fathom Curve...... 2-13 10 Figure 2-6. Offshore Warning Areas ...... 2-14 11 Figure 2-7. Land and Inshore Water Space...... 2-16 12 Figure 2-8. Land, Inshore Water Space, and SUA...... 2-17 13 Figure 2-9. Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman Airspace ...... 2-18 14 Figure 2-10. Inshore Special Use Airspace...... 2-20 15 Figure 2-11. Admiralty Bay, Navy 7, and Navy 3...... 2-21 16 Figure 2-12. EOD Training Range Sites...... 2-22 17 Figure 2-13. MTRs in the Northwest Training Range Complex ...... 2-24 18 Figure 2-14. Military Training Route Summary...... 2-25 19 Figure 2-15. Range Scheduling Activities ...... 2-26 20 Figure 2-16. NAVSEA / NUWC Keyport Attributes ...... 2-32 21 Figure 2-17. NAVSEA / NUWC Keyport Range Sites ...... 2-33 22 Figure 2-18. SWIFT Portable Range (typical with Pingers)...... 2-34 23 Figure 2-19. SWIFT Portable Range (Non-Invasive Tracking, (no Pingers) ...... 2-34 24 Figure 2-20. NUWC Keyport Command and Control Systems...... 2-36 25 Figure 2-21. Keyport SWIFT System Capabilities...... 2-39 26 Figure 2-22. Dabob Bay Range Complex Capabilities and Instrumentation...... 2-39 27 Figure 2-23. CFMETR Site Capabilities and Instrumentation...... 2-40 28 Figure 2-24. Quinault Range Site Instrumentation ...... 2-41 29 Figure 2-25. NUWC Keyport Communications Systems...... 2-42 30 Figure 2-26. NSW Range Attributes on Kodiak Island, AK...... 2-47 31 Figure 2-27. NSW Training Sites on Kodiak Island...... 2-48 32 Figure 2-28. NSW Training Sites and Land Ownership, Kodiak, AK...... 2-49 33 34 Figure 3-1. Navy Training and Test Operations in the NWT RCMP ...... 3-2 35 Figure 3-2. Additional Army Universal Tasks...... 3-21 36 Figure 3-3. Additional Navy Tactical Tasks...... 3-22 37 Figure 3-4. Northwest Training Range Complex Operations—FY 2004 ...... 3-24 38 39 Figure 4-1. Oregon Water Quality Rules...... 4-8 40 Figure 4-2. NWSTF Boardman ORC 2005 Trailer Loaded with BDU-33s ...... 4-19 41 Figure 4-3. Proposed Critical Habitat for the Southern Resident Killer Whales ...... 4-25 42 Figure 4-4. EOD Training Area Distances from the Nearest Shoreline...... 4-30 43 Figure 4-5. Environmental Compliance Documents for NWTRC...... 4-37 44 Figure 4-6. Endangered & Threatened Species in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ...... 4-45 45 Figure 4-7. Average Aircraft Usage at CFMETR...... 4-51 46 Figure 4-8. Types of Underwater Vehicles Systems Tested at the Dabob Bay Range Complex ...... 4-54 47 Figure 4-9. Environmental Planning Documents for NWTRC...... 4-62 48 Figure 4-10. Land Use Planning and Resource Management Documents for NWTRC...... 4-82 49 Figure 4-11. NWTRC Training Area SOPs and Instructions ...... 4-83 50
IX TABLE OF CONTENTS/FIGURES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Figure 5-1. Encroachment Issue Summary...... 5-22 2 Figure 5-2. Number of Training Impacts and Severity per Training Factor...... 5-23 3 Figure 5-3. Number of Training Impacts and Severity per Training Factor...... 5-24 4 Figure 5-4. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Encroachment Issue...... 5-25 5 Figure 5-5. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Encroachment Issue...... 5-26 6 Figure 5-6. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Encroachment Issue and Range Area 7 ...... 5-27 8 Figure 5-7. Number of Moderate and Severe impacts per Encroachment Issue, without Range Area...5-28 9 Figure 5-8. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Factor and Range Area ...... 5-29 10 Figure 5-9. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Factor, without the Range Area....5-30 11 Figure 5-10. Summary of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts for the Northwest Training Range 12 Complex...... 5-31 13 Figure 5-11. Summary of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts for the Northwest Training Range 14 Complex...... 5-32 15 16 Figure 6-1. Navy Prioritized Roles and Missions for the Northwest Training Range Complex ...... 6-11 17 18 Figure 7-1. Action Priority Development ...... 7-4 19 Figure 7-2. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – Common Range Attributes, AAW, ASUW ...... 7-45 20 Figure 7-3. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – ASW, MIW ...... 7-46 21 Figure 7-4. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – STW ...... 7-47 22 Figure 7-5. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – EC ...... 7-48 23 Figure 7-6. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – NSW and EOD...... 7-49 24 25 Figure 8-1. Northwest Training Range Complex Investment Category Conversion Matrix ...... 8-1 26 Figure 8-2. Northwest Training Range Complex Investment Summary ...... 8-2 27 28 Figure 9-1. Existing NWTRC Organizational Relationships and Funding Support ...... 9-3 29 Figure 9-2. A Proposed NWTRC Organizational Structure and Funding Support Flow Diagram...... 9-4 30 Figure 9-3. REC States and DOD REC Office Addresses...... 9-14 31 32 Figure 10-1. Active NGOs within the NWTRC ...... 10-30 33 Figure 10-2. Results-Based Performance Measure Example...... 10-45 34 Figure 10-3. Activity-Based Performance Measure Example ...... 10-46 35 36 Figure 11-1. Northwest Training Range Complex Investment Summary ...... 11-5
X VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
° Degree ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned 2-D Two Dimensional Airspace 3-D Three Dimensional ATSDR Agency for Toxic A-A Air-to-Air Substances and Disease AAW Anti-Air Warfare Registry ACM Air Combat Maneuver AUV Autonomous Undersea ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Vehicle Program AV Autonomous Vehicle ACP Area Contingency Plan BA Biological Assessment ADAR Air Deployed Active BAMS Broad Area Maritime Receiver Surveillance ADCON Administrative Control BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard AEA Airborne Electronic Attack BDA Battle Damage Assessment AEER Advanced Extended Echo BHC Bird Hazard Condition Ranging BLM Bureau of Land Management AESA Active Electronically BOMBEX Bombing Exercise Scanned Array BOMIS Bottom Mounted AFB Air Force Base Instrumentation System AFR Air Force Range BOS Base Operating Support A-G Air-to-Ground BRAC Base Alignment and Closure AGL Above Ground Level BREM Bremerton AICUZ Air Installation Compatible C2W Command and Control Use Zone Warfare AIP ASW Improvement Program C4I Command, Control, AMCM Airborne Mine Communications, Computer, Countermeasures and Intelligence AMSP Advanced Multi-Static C4ISR Command, Control, Processing Communications, Computer, AMW Amphibious Warfare Intelligence, Surveillance, AOR Area of Responsibility and Reconnaissance AP/1A DoD Flight Information CAA Clean Air Act Publication, Special Use CAS Close Air Support Airspace CB Construction Battalion AP/1B DoD Flight Information CCD Coastal Consistency Publication, Military Determination Training Routes CDR Commander APZ Accident Potential Zone CD-ROM Compact Disk-Read Only ARNG Army National Guard Memory ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control CERCLA Comprehensive Center Environmental Response A-S Air-to-Surface Compensation and Liability AS Alaska Statutes Act ASUW Anti-Surface Warfare CFB Canadian Forces Base ASW Anti-Submarine Warfare CFFC Commander, U.S. Fleet AT Annual Training Forces Command
xi VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
CFMETR Canadian Forces Maritime CTEC Collaborative Test and Experimental and Test Evaluation Center Ranges CTEIP Central Test and Evaluation CFR Code of Federal Regulations Investment Program CMP Coastal Management Plan CTG Commander Task Group CNIC Commander, Navy CVN Nuclear powered Aircraft Installations Command Carrier CNO Chief of Naval Operations CWA Clean Water Act CNRNW Commander, Navy Region CWTF Cold Weather Training Northwest Facility CO Commanding Officer –Or- CZMA Coastal Zone Management Carbon Monoxide Act COMFLTFORCOM Commander, U.S. Fleet DARPA Defense Advanced Research Forces Command Programs Agency COMFLTFORCOMINST Commander, U.S. Fleet dB Decibel Forces Command Instruction DBRC Dabob Bay Range Complex COMNAVAIRPAC Commander, Naval Air DDG Guided Missile Destroyer Forces, US Pacific Fleet DECM Defensive Electronic COMNAVREDCOM Commander, Naval Countermeasures Readiness Command DEIS Draft Environmental Impact COMNAVREGNWINST Commander, Navy Region Statement Northwest Instruction DET Detachment COMNAVSURFGRU Commander, Naval Surface DEQ Department of Group Environmental Quality COMNAVSURFPAC Commander, Navy Surface (Oregon) Forces, US Pacific Fleet DEVRON Submarine Development COMPACFLT Commander, U.S. Pacific Squadron Fleet DIV Division COMPTUEX Composite Training Unit DLCD Department of Land Exercise Conservation and COMSECONDFLT Commander, Second Fleet Development COMSUBPAC Commander, Submarine DND Department of National Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet Defence (Canada) COMSUBTRAGRU Commander, U.S. DNL Day-Night Average Sound Submarine Training Group Level COMTHIRDFLT Commander, Third Fleet DoD Department of Defense COMVAQWINGPAC Commander, Electronic DoDINST Department of Defense Attack Wing Pacific, U.S. Instruction Pacific Fleet DOE Department of Ecology CONUS Continental United States (Washington) CPF Commander, U.S. Pacific DoN Department of the Navy Fleet DOS Demolition Operations CPO Chief Petty Officer Supervisor CRE Comprehensive Range DOT Department of Evaluation Transportation CSG Carrier Strike Group DPG Defense Planning Guidance CTD Conductivity, Temperature DREN Defense Research & & Depth Engineering Network DTG Date-Time-Group
xii VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
DTR Demolition Training Range FFG Frigate, Guided Missile E East FOC Full Operational Capability EA Environmental Assessment FONSI Finding of No Significant or Impact Electronic Attack FOSC Federal On-Scene EC Electronic Combat Coordinator EC&C Exercise Coordination and Ft Feet Control FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site ECM Electronic Counter-Measures FRTP Fleet Readiness Training ECT Electronic Combat Training Plan EER Extended Echo Ranging G-G Ground-to-Ground EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone GAO Government Accountability EFA NW Engineering Field Division, Office Northwest GIS Geographic Information EFA SW Engineering Field Division, System Southwest GMA Growth Management Act EFH Essential Fish Habitat GPS Global Positioning System EFSEC Energy Facility Site GUNEX Gunnery Exercise Evaluation Council GWOT Global War on Terrorism EIMS Environmental Information HAHO High Altitude, High Opening Management System HALO High Altitude, Low Opening EIS Environmental Impact HARM High-speed Anti-Radiation Statement Missile EMATT Expendable Mobile ASW HE-CVT High Explosive – Variable Training Target Timed EO Executive Order HE-ET High Explosive – EOB Enemy Order of Battle Electronically Timed EOD Explosive Ordnance HWSA Hazardous Waste Storage Disposal Area EODMU ELEVEN Explosive Ordnance ICRMP Integrated Cultural Disposal Mobile Unit Eleven Resources Management Plan EPA U.S. Environmental IDT Inactive Duty for Training Protection Agency IDTC Interdeployment Training EQC Environmental Quality Cycle Commission IEER Improved Extended Echo ERT Enhanced Readiness Team Ranging ESA Endangered Species Act IFR Instrument Flight Rules INRMP Integrated Natural Resources ESM Electronic Surveillance Management Plan Measures IOC Initial Operational EXTORP Exercise Torpedo Capability FAA Federal Aviation IPT Integrated Product Team Administration IR Installation Restoration –or- FACSFAC Fleet Area Control and Instrument Route Surveillance Facility ISR Intelligence, Search and FCLP Field Carrier Landing Reconnaissance Practice JKDDC Joint Knowledge FFA Federal Facility Agreement Development and FFC Fleet Forces Command Distribution Capability
xiii VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
JLOTS Joint Logistics Over the MOUT Military Operations in Urban Shore Terrain JMETL Joint Mission Essential Task MPMGR Multi-Purpose Machine Gun List Range JNTC Joint National Training MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, Capability and Sanctuaries Act JRFL Joint Restricted Frequency MPTR Multi-Purpose Training List Range JTFEX Joint Task Force Exercise MRA Marine Resources JUCAS Joint Unmanned Combat Assessment Aerial System MRUUV Mission Reconfigurable KE-ET Kinetic Energy – Unmanned Undersea Electronically Timed Vehicle KIB Kodiak Island Borough M&S Modeling and Simulation LAN Local Area Network MSG Message lb(s) Pound(s) MTCA Model Toxic Control Act LCDC Land Conservation and MTR Military Training Route Development Commission MU Mobile Unit LCS Littoral Combat Ship N North LF Low Frequency NAS Naval Air Station LFA Low Frequency Active NASWHIDBEY Naval Air Station Whidbey LMRS Long-term Mine Island Reconnaissance System NASWI Naval Air Station Whidbey LOA Letter of Agreement Island LQC Large Quantity Generator NAVAIR Naval Air Systems LSO Landing Safety Officer Command LVC Live, Virtual, or NAVMAG Naval Magazine Constructive NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems m Meter(s) Command MAMS Military Airspace NAVSTA Naval Station Management System NAVSKED Navy Scheduling System MARSA Military Aircraft NAVSURFWARCEN Naval Surface Warfare Responsible to See and Center Avoid Navy U.S. Navy MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NB Naval Base MC Munitions Constituents NCP National Contingency Plan MCAS Marine Corps Air Station NEPA National Environmental MCM Mine Countermeasures Policy Act MET Meteorological NESHAP National Emission Standards MILCON Military Construction for Hazardous MISSILEX Missile Exercise Air Pollutants MIW Mine Warfare NEW Net Explosive Weight mm Millimeter NFEC Naval Facilities Engineering MMA Multimission Maritime Command Aircraft (P-8) NIPRNET Non-secure Internet Protocol MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Router Network Act nm Nautical Mile(s) MOA Military Operating Area nm2 Square Nautical Mile(s) NMCI Navy/Marine Corps Intranet
xiv VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
NMETL Navy Mission Essential Task OCNMS Olympic Coast National List Marine Sanctuary NMFS National Marine Fisheries ODO Operations Duty Officer Service OEIS Overseas Environmental NMS National Marine Sanctuary Impact Statement NOI Notice of Intent OLF Outlying Landing Field NOLF Navy Outlying Landing OMP Operations and Management Field Plan NOTAM Notice to Airmen OPAREA Operating Area NOTMAR Notice to Mariners OPCON Operational Control NOx Nitrogen Oxide OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval NPL National Priorities List Operations NRO Navy Range Office OPNAVINST Office of the Chief of Naval NRT National Response Team Operations Instruction NS Naval Station OPFOR Opposition Force NSB Naval Submarine Base OPREP Operations Report NSFS Naval Surface Fire Support OR Oregon NSW Naval Special Warfare ORS Oregon Revised Statutes NSWC Naval Surface Warfare OSD Office of the Secretary of Center Defense NSWG Naval Special Warfare OSU Oregon State University Group PACNORWEST Pacific Northwest NTA Navy Tactical Task PAO Public Affairs Officer NSW Naval Special Warfare PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site NUTEC National Unmanned Inspection Undersea Vehicle Test and PCNW Pacific Northwest Evaluation Center PEOSUB Program Executive Office, NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Submarines Center PEOMUW Program Executive Office, NUWCDIVKPT Naval Undersea Warfare Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport PM Particulate Matter NWACP Northwest Area Contingency PMA Program Management, Air Plan PMAP Protective Measures NWAPA Northwest Air Pollution Assessment Protocol Authority POC Point of Contact NWSTF Naval Weapons Systems POL Petroleum, Oils, and Training Facility Lubricants NWTRC Northwest Training Range POM Program Objective Complex Memorandum PM Particulate Matter PRMARs Primary Mission Areas O&M Operations and Maintenance PTE Primary Training Elements OAR Oregon Administrative PUTR Portable Undersea Training Rules Range OC Operational PUTS Portable Undersea Tracking Communications System OCE Officer Conducting the QUTR Quinault Underwater Exercise Tracking Range OCMP Ocean-Coastal Management R2R Ranges to Readiness Program
xv VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
RAC Regional Airspace SDZ Surface Danger Zone Coordinator SEA Shore land and RAICUZ Range Air Installation Environmental Assistance Compatible Use Zone SEAD Suppression of Enemy Air RAM Rolling Airframe Missile Defenses RCA Range Condition SEAL Sea, Air, Land Assessment SECDEF Secretary of Defense RCC Range Complex Commander SEPA State Environmental Policy RCD Required Capabilities Act Document SESEF Shipboard Electronic RCMP Range Complex Systems Evaluation Facility Management Plan SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act RCMT Range Complex SIP State Implementation Plan Management Team SO2 Sulfur Dioxide RCRA Resource Conservation and SOCAL Southern California Recovery Act SOCOM Special Operations RCUR Range Complex Utilization Command Report SOF Special Operating Forces RCW Revised Code of Washington SOP Standard Operating RDT&E Research, Development, Procedure Test and Evaluation SOSC State On-Scene Coordinator RDX Royal Demolition SPECWAR Special Warfare Explosives SQG Small Quantity Generator REC Regional Environmental SQ NM Square Nautical Miles Coordinator SRAM System Replacement and RFMSS Range Facility Management Modernization Support System SROC Senior Readiness Oversight RMP Range Management Plan Council RNA Research Natural Area S-S Surface-to-Surface ROD Record of Decision SSBN Ballistic Missile, Nuclear RP Responsible Party Powered Submarine RPD Regional Program Director SSGN Guided Missile, Nuclear RRT Regional Response Team Powered Submarine RSEPA Range Sustainability SSN Fast Attack, Nuclear Environmental Program Powered Submarine Assessment S-SUB Surface-to-Submarine RSIP Regional Shore STW Strike Warfare Infrastructure Plan SUA Special Use Airspace RSZ Range Safety Zone SUBASE Submarine Base R&T Readiness and Training SUB-S Submarine-to-Surface RTKN Real Time Kill Notification SUB-SUB Submarine-to-Submarine S South SURTASS Surveillance Towed Array S-A Surface-to-Air Sonar System SAIA Sikes Act Improvement SWAG Shock Wave Generator Amendments T2 Training Transformation SARA Species at Risk Act (Canada) TADTAR Temporary Additional Duty SCUBA Self Contained Underwater Target funding Breathing Apparatus TAP Tactical Training Theater SDV SEAL Delivery Vehicle Assessment and Planning
xvi VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
TBD To Be Determined UUV Unmanned Undersea TENA Training Enabled Vehicle Architecture UXO Unexploded Ordnance TJS Tactical Jamming System VAQ Fixed wing Electronic TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load Attack aircraft TNC The Nature Conservancy VFR Visual Flight Rules TNT Trinitrotoluene VOC Volatile Organic Compound TORPEX Torpedo Exercise VP Fixed wing Maritime Patrol TRIMS Target and Range aircraft Information Management VR Visual Route System VTUAV Vertical takeoff and Landing TSDR Treat, Store, Dispose or UAV Recycle VQ Fixed wing electronic TSPI Time, Space & Position reconnaissance aircraft Information W West TYCOM Type Command W- Warning Area UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle WA Washington ULT Unit Level Training WAC Washington Administrative U.S. United States Code U.S.C. United States Code WADS Western Air Defense Sector USDA United States Department of WEBSCHED Web based Schedule Agriculture WI Whidbey Island USN United States Navy WPCF Water Pollution Control UTR Underwater Tracking Range Facility
xvii VOL II, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
xviii VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 1 INTRODUCTION
2 The Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT) sponsors this 3 Range Complex Management Plan (RCMP) for the Northwest 4 Training Range Complex (NWTRC). The RCMP is developed 5 under the Navy’s Tactical Training Theater Assessment and 6 Planning (TAP) program. As part of the TAP process, the RCMP is 7 developed in two volumes. Volume I is a Guidebook with general 8 background material, which provides a framework for installation 9 and range commanders to develop detailed sustainability plans. The 10 overall purpose of this Volume II is to ensure that the NWTRC is 11 sustainable and capable of supporting readiness training for the 12 foreseeable future. 13 14 The NWTRC RCMP Volume II provides empirical data, analysis, 15 and guidance concerning the specific ranges and operations within 16 the range complex. The objective of the guidance is to clearly 17 articulate a mission and a “commander’s intent” without prescribing 18 how the mission is to be accomplished. The primary purpose is to 19 guide actions to promote sustainability. The RCMP is intended to be 20 analytic rather than encyclopedic, outlining issues, presenting 21 observations, and proposing possible solutions for staff review and 22 action. To aid in the description of the NWTRC, the complex is 23 divided into four major geographic and functional subdivisions. The 24 following is a listing of each of the individual ranges, by major range 25 subdivision: 26 Offshore Area 27 o Pacific Northwest Ocean Surface/Subsurface Operating 28 Area 29 o W-237 (A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/J) 30 o W-93 (A/B) 31 o W-570 32 Inshore Area 33 o Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) 34 Boardman 35 - Boardman Military Operating Area (MOA) 36 - Restricted Area 5701 (R-5701) (A/B/C/D/E) 37 - R-5706 38 - Bombing Range 39 o Admiralty Bay Mining Range 40 - Chinook MOA (A/B) 41 - R-6701 42 - Navy 7 43 o Okanogan MOA (A/B/C) 44 o Olympic MOA (A/B) 45 o Roosevelt MOA (A/B) 46 o Darrington Operating Area (OPAREA) 47 o A-680 (Outlying Landing Field Coupeville) 48 o Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Survival Area
1-1 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Lake Hancock Target Range 2 o Navy 3 3 o VR-1350, -1351, -1352, -1353, -1354, and -1355 4 o IR-341, -342, -343, -344, -346, -348 5 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Ranges 6 o Keyport Range 7 o Dabob Bay / Hood Canal 8 o Quinault Range 9 o Nanoose 10 o Ediz Hook Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation 11 Facility 12 Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)/Naval Special Warfare 13 Ranges 14 o Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range 15 o Floral Point Underwater EOD Range 16 o Naval Magazine Indian Island Underwater EOD Range 17 o Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range 18 o Bangor EOD Demolition Training Range 19 o Kodiak Island Cold Weather Training Facility
20 1.1 NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX SUSTAINABILITY GOALS
21 Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3200.15, Sustainment of 22 Ranges and OPAREAs, defines range sustainment as “managing and 23 operating ranges to support their long-term viability and utility to 24 meet the National defense mission.” Range sustainment will: 25 Ensure that ranges are capable of supporting current and 26 future operational requirements while protecting human 27 health and the environment 28 Protect natural and cultural range resources 29 Promote understanding of readiness, safety, environmental, 30 and economic issues regarding range use and management 31 Consider stakeholder interests in range design, use, and 32 management, and 33 Facilitate the return of ranges to non-military uses 34 35 Volume I of the RCMP outlines an initial set of principles to achieve 36 range sustainability: 37 1. Strategic planning 38 2. Formal Organizational Structures and Processes 39 3. Clearly Defined Requirements 40 4. Identify Encroachment Impacts 41 5. Interdisciplinary Approach 42 6. Solutions to Encroachment 43 7. Use Best Practices in Range Design and Use 44 8. Use metrics 45 9. Manage Natural and Cultural Resources Externally and 46 Internally 47 10.Community and Stakeholder Involvement 48
1-2 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 TAP is the Navy’s program of record to ensure access to and the 2 sustainability of military training ranges and operating areas. As the 3 first document in the TAP process, the RCMP will contribute to 4 protecting the operational capability of the NWTRC from 5 encroachment, noncompliance with environmental regulations, 6 obsolescence of range infrastructure, and fragmented management. 7 The NWTRC RCMP is an integrated operational and environmental 8 planning document, designed to improve range sustainability by 9 identifying, preserving, conserving, and developing range resources 10 for future use. The NWTRCRCMP has several specific purposes: 11 Provide descriptions of ranges, OPAREAs, and training areas 12 Characterize a representative number of current range 13 training and testing operations 14 Develop Joint and individual Military Service strategic 15 visions for future range operations with a 10-year planning 16 horizon 17 Identify and analyze encroachment and sustainment 18 challenges 19 Provide recommendations for further environmental planning 20 Identify and analyze required capabilities (requirements) 21 shortfalls derived from military training and testing needs 22 Outline investment needs for maintenance, range 23 improvement and modernization, and discuss these in relation 24 to current Service investment initiatives.
25 1.1.1 Implementing Strategic Planning
26 Range sustainability requires strategic planning to ensure that the 27 NWTRC is providing the capabilities required by assigned roles and 28 missions in support of the strategic vision (see Section 6.1). This 29 planning must be guided by a set of defined principles that apply 30 directly to issues such as required growth, encroachment, and future 31 Navy training requirements. 32 33 The strategic vision outlined in Chapter 6 is derived from the Navy 34 integrated training and test range strategic study sponsored by Fleet 35 Forces Command. Highlights of this study that help to shape the 36 Range Complex’s strategic vision are as follows: 37 The study established a baseline of range inventory and 38 capabilities within the NWTRC. 39 Understanding that the range complex should be capable of 40 supporting the totality of training requirements for the Pacific 41 Northwest region, specific roles and missions were assigned. 42 The roles and missions then drive the range complex strategic 43 vision by creating the groundwork for a range capabilities 44 assessment. 45 The range capabilities assessment generates a fully 46 developed, well-justified investment strategy. 47
1-3 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 A June 2005 Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report 2 found that training capabilities are compromised by deteriorating 3 ranges and a lack of upgraded facilities. Among the range 4 sustainability recommendations, the GAO suggested the military 5 improve on its management of range funding by matching range 6 requirements with needs. The RCMP accomplishes this through the 7 capabilities assessment in Chapter 7, which ultimately leads to a 8 comprehensive investment strategy. 9 10 In addition to a fully developed, well-justified investment strategy, 11 the other major cornerstone of strategic planning is forward-looking 12 range complex operations environmental planning. This RCMP is 13 the foundational document for any subsequent National 14 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, providing a 15 thorough description of the ranges within the NWTRC, an analysis 16 of current and future operations conducted on these ranges, and a 17 baseline of environmental and land use management programs. The 18 operations analysis will support development of a range complex 19 proposed action and alternative for follow-on environmental 20 planning.
21 1.1.2 Formal Organizational Structures and Processes
22 Successful range complex sustainability management practices rely 23 on an organization with the structure, procedures, planning, methods, 24 coordination, and processes that address range sustainability issues. 25 Some of the many components crucial to this process include, but are 26 not limited to, a range information management system, data analysis 27 capability, clear definition of roles and responsibilities, well-defined 28 range procedures, and committed senior sponsorship. 29 30 Some of the organizations that provide the NWTRC with the assets, 31 infrastructure, management, and support to sustain the complex 32 include Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF), COMPACFLT, 33 Commander Naval Installations Command, Naval Sea Systems 34 Command, and Naval Air Systems Command. Chapter 9 provides 35 more detailed information on the relationships between these 36 commands and the NWTRC ranges.
37 1.1.3 Encroachment Impacts and Solutions
38 Preparing the NWTRC RCMP involved developing encroachment 39 matrices to describe encroachment impacts on the NWTRC ranges. 40 The encroachment impacts are evaluated against 11 environmental 41 issues affecting the ranges. 42 43 The matrices constitute a tool that range managers can use to 44 identify, isolate, and resolve those impacts most pressing on range 45 capabilities and the training mission. The matrix format helps to 46 focus range managers on the main issues while deemphasizing the 47 minor encroachment impacts.
1-4 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Encroachment mitigation is the logical follow-on to encroachment 3 identification. Range managers, environmental staffs, and operators 4 have the breadth and depth of knowledge to identify and analyze 5 encroachment and its impacts on training and testing. Likewise, they 6 are in the best position to develop and implement encroachment 7 mitigation solutions. The operators, in particular, are directly 8 affected by encroachment and gain the most from encroachment 9 mitigation. The different perspectives of and contributions by range 10 managers, environmental staffs, and operators provide 11 comprehensive encroachment analyses and holistic encroachment 12 mitigation solutions. 13 14 Secretary of Defense sustainable ranges guidance identifies areas in 15 which the services may pursue encroachment solutions. Office of 16 the Secretary of Defense intends for the services to support and 17 invest in these areas, which include: 18 Acquiring buffer zones or employing other mitigation 19 strategies around all ranges to support current and reasonably 20 foreseeable future operations 21 Developing and implementing quantification and reporting 22 processes for encroachment impacts 23 Developing service-wide range inventories and databases 24 covering all ranges 25 Revitalizing Air Installation Compatible Use Zone, Range 26 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone, and noise programs 27 Promoting urban growth management programs at local, 28 regional, state, and federal levels
29 1.1.4 Using Best Practices in Range Design and Use
30 Long-term range sustainability requires the implementation of best 31 practices not only in the use of the range but also in the modification 32 of existing ranges and the design of new facilities. This 33 implementation of best practices allows for more efficient land use 34 and minimizes the impact each range has on the environment. 35 36 The development of this RCMP has provided an opportunity for 37 range managers to examine the best practices of other ranges.
38 1.1.5 Employing Use Metrics
39 Data collection and data management have emerged as important 40 processes in sustainable range management. Range use metrics 41 determine the type of data that will be collected to support 42 operational, environmental, and investment planning. Environmental 43 planning cannot be completed without knowing what operations 44 occur on the range complex. Sustainment planning is severely 45 limited without understanding the encroachment impacts on range 46 operations and management. Correlating encroachment and
1-5 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 sustainment prerogatives with range capabilities and training 2 requirements facilitates investment planning. 3 4 Certain data categories are required for range management: 5 Range Descriptions 6 Current Operations 7 Environmental, Natural Resources, and Land Use 8 Management Programs 9 Encroachment and Sustainment Challenges 10 Range Complex Strategic Planning 11 Range Complex Capabilities Assessment 12 Project Recommendations 13 Organization and Processes 14 Community Involvement 15 Investment Plan 16 Geographic Information Systems 17 Supporting Documents 18 19 Each data group is composed of smaller collections of data, or data 20 elements that must be independent of the mitigating effects of 21 workarounds. Data must also expand beyond the traditional 22 collection process involving air activities, range events, and aircraft 23 sorties to a more expansive collection activity that includes the data 24 listed above. Once data is collected, compiled, and analyzed, the 25 data will provide range managers with quantifiable statistical 26 evidence of range complex capabilities, encroachment impacts, 27 sustainment imperatives, and investment shortfalls. 28 29 It is important that the metrics developed correspond to the range’s 30 sustainability goals and that they be relatively easy to document and, 31 if need be, conveyed to the public.
32 1.1.6 Managing Natural and Cultural Resources Externally and Internally
33 Natural and cultural resources must be managed externally and 34 internally. Ranges are influenced by external factors that must be 35 integrated with range management and operations. Community and 36 public planning have direct bearing on range activities. Regional, 37 State, and Federal efforts place the ranges into a larger context. 38 External pressures from all levels provide impetus for a 39 comprehensive regional ecosystem management approach to range 40 encroachment and sustainment. 41 42 Moreover, real property alternatives can provide buffer zone areas 43 and compatible use zones. Integrated natural and cultural resource 44 management plans, as alternatives to critical habitat designations and 45 the provisions of the Archeological Resources Protection Plan, serve 46 to reduce the impacts to critical habitat designations and eligible 47 archeological sites and artifacts. In addition, range modernization
1-6 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 efforts may identify alternative ways to use available land and range 2 resources. 3 4 Chapter 4 of this RCMP describes the existing plans, programs, 5 permits, and mitigation measures that provide responsible 6 stewardship of the natural and cultural resources entrusted to the 7 DoD’s care within the range complex.
8 1.1.7 Providing Community and Stakeholder Involvement
9 Community and stakeholder involvement are central to 10 sustainability. Military installations and ranges, with their military 11 members, families, and civilian employees, are part of local, 12 regional, and state communities. What happens on the ranges and in 13 the communities is of mutual interest to all military and civilian 14 stakeholders. 15 16 This RCMP fully supports this by describing the existing and 17 proposed outreach activities as well as suggested activity and results- 18 based outreach metrics for the NWTRC. The intent of Chapter 10 is 19 to detail how to create and maintain stakeholder partnerships through 20 regular, proactive dialogue and information exchange.
21 1.2 UPDATING SCHEDULE
22 USFF and COMPACFLT will update appropriate sections of RCMP 23 chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11 to ensure information related to changes 24 in mission, units, technologies, range operations, and sustainability 25 challenges is current. The update will facilitate the development of a 26 Program Objective Memorandum on a two-year cycle.
1-7 VOL II, CH 1INTRODUCTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
This page intentionally left blank
1-8 Figure 1-1. The Northwest Training Range Complex VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION
2 The Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) consists of 3 numerous individual training areas in the Pacific Northwest (Figure 4 2-1). The range complex includes ranges that extend westward in 5 the Pacific Ocean (to 250 nautical miles [nm] beyond the coast of 6 Washington, Oregon, and Northern California) and east to Idaho. 7 The NWTRC controls Military Training Routes (MTRs) that extend 8 as far south as the Fallon Range Complex, and Special Use Airspace 9 (SUA) to the north that borders on Canada. Naval Seas Systems 10 Command (NAVSEA)/Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) 11 Keyport, WA, has four underwater range sites designed for 12 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) that are 13 frequently used by Fleet units for training. The inventory includes 14 Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Advanced Training Detachment 15 Kodiak Island, AK.
16 2.1 MILITARY MISSION
17 2.1.1 Navy Operational Range Complex Mission
18 The mission of the Navy Operational Range Complex is to support 19 operational training and RDT&E by maintaining and operating 20 facilities and by providing services and material to support the 21 Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT), Commander, U. S. 22 Fleet Forces (USFF), and other operating forces. The Navy 23 Operational Range Complex includes the Offshore and Inshore 24 Areas. The Offshore areas support multi-unit events including 25 aircraft, surface ships and submarines. Inshore areas accommodate 26 unit level training.
27 2.1.2 NAVSEA/NUWC Keyport Range Mission
28 The mission of the NUWC Division Keyport is to conduct test, 29 evaluation, engineering, and maintenance for undersea warfare 30 systems, targets, countermeasures and sonar systems including 31 underwater unmanned vehicles (UUV). Secondly, NUWC Division 32 Keyport is responsible for the operation of the Navy’s complex of 33 undersea test ranges to evaluate the performance of undersea 34 weapons systems.
35 2.1.3 NSW
36 The mission of NSW Advanced Training Detachment Kodiak is to 37 train Sea, Air, Land special operations personnel (SEALs) how to 38 survive and conduct missions in harsh, cold weather.
2-1 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DAFIF & DNC and Navy doctrines and instructions. 3 Figure 2-1. Northwest Training Range Complex Major Areas
2-2 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.2 NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION
2 2.2.1 Training Area Inventory and Ownership
3 To aid in the description of the NWTRC, the complex is divided into 4 three major functional subdivisions. Each of the individual ranges 5 falls into one of these three major range subdivisions: 6 7 The Northwest Training Range Complex (Figure 2-1) consists of 8 the following areas: 9 Navy Operational Range Area, which includes all air, sea, 10 and undersea ranges west of the coastline, excluding the 11 Quinault Range Site which is a NUWC range site; the air, 12 land, sea, and undersea ranges inland of the coastline 13 including Puget Sound; and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 14 ranges, undersea and on land. 15 NAVSEA/Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport 16 range sites are the areas controlled by NUWC Keyport, 17 primarily for RDT&E operations. 18 The Naval Special Warfare, Advanced Training, Detachment 19 Kodiak, conducts cold weather training on property leased 20 from the USCG and on property owned by the state and 21 Native Indian Corporations. 22 23 Further information regarding these training areas, including 24 scheduling and controlling agencies, is presented in Figure 2-2. 25 SCHEDULING CONTROLLING TRAINING AREA AGENCY AGENCY NAVY OPERATIONAL RANGE Offshore Surface and Subsurface OPAREAs PACNORWEST Ocean Surface/Subsurface COMSUBPAC, COMSUBPAC OPAREA COMNAVSURFPAC (SUBOPAUTH) SUA Associated with Offshore OPAREAs W-237 (A-G) NASWI Seattle ARTCC W-237 H, J NASWI Oakland ARTCC Western Air Defense W-570 Sector (WADS), Seattle ARTCC McChord AFB W-93 WADS, McChord AFB Seattle ARTCC Targets and Land Ranges and Associated Restricted Areas Boardman Range NASWI Seattle ARTCC Boardman R-5701 / R-5706 NASWI Seattle ARTCC Boardman MOA (A,B) NASWI Seattle ARTCC EOD Range Sites Bangor EOD Demolition Training Range EODMU-11 & NASWI Floral Point Underwater EOD Range EODMU-11 & NASWI Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range EODMU-11 & NASWI
2-3 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
SCHEDULING CONTROLLING TRAINING AREA AGENCY AGENCY NAVY OPERATIONAL RANGE EOD Range Sites (continued) Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range EODMU-11 & NASWI NAVMAG Indian Island Underwater EOD Range EODMU-11 & NASWI Seaplane Base Survival Area NASWI SUA not Associated with Offshore OPAREAs, Targets or Ground Ranges Okanogan MOA (A,B,C) NASWI Seattle ARTCC Olympic MOA (A,B) NASWI Seattle ARTCC Chinook MOA (A,B) NASWI Seattle ARTCC Roosevelt MOA (A,B) NASWI Seattle ARTCC Darrington OPAREA NASWI Seattle ARTCC Admiralty Bay Mining Range R-6701 NASWI Seattle ARTCC MTRs (VR-1350 to 1355; NASWI Seattle ARTCC IR-341 to 344, 346, 348) Surface Ranges Navy 7 CNRNW Navy 3 CNRNW NAVSEA NUWC Keyport RANGE NUWC Keyport Range Site NUWC Keyport Dabob Bay Range Complex NUWC Keyport Canadian Forces Experimental Test Range NUWC Keyport CFETR (CFETR also known as Nanoose site) NUWC Keyport Quinault Range Site NSW NSW Center and NSW Advanced Training NSW Advanced Training Command, Kodiak Command, Coronado, CA Detachment 1 Source: 366 Report to Congress 2 Figure 2-2. Northwest Training Range Complex Inventory and Ownership
3 2.2.2 Regional Setting
4 The Northwest Training Range Complex encompasses offshore 5 Warning Areas, surface and subsurface OPAREAs extending from 6 the Strait of Juan de Fuca south to the 40o North latitude, near the 7 coastline of northern California. Inshore, the range includes a land 8 range, airspace, sea space, and undersea space from Puget Sound to 9 the north central plain of Oregon near the Columbia River. The 10 NUWC Keyport range sites are the only instrumented range space in 11 the Northwest Training Range Complex. Kodiak Island in the 12 Aleutian Chain is utilized by NSW for cold weather training. Figure 13 2-3 summarizes the regional setting for the Northwest Training 14 Range Complex.
2-4 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Feature Summary 126,888 nm2 of surface/subsurface ocean OPAREA 48,438 nm2 Special Use Airspace Training Space 47,982 acres of training land area 117,161 nm2 Deep ocean areas (> 100 fathoms) 9,727 nm2 Shallow ocean areas (< 100 fathoms) Fort Lewis, US Army base near Tacoma, WA McChord USAF Base near Tacoma, WA Fairchild USAF Base near Tacoma, WA US Coast Guard in Puget Sound Washington Air National Guard Frequent Non-Navy Users Oregon National Guard Reserve Components of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps Civilian aerospace companies Canadian Navy Ships and aircraft Seasonal temperatures Predominately westerly winds Climate in PACNORTHWEST Precipitation from 22 inches at NAS WI to over 200 inches in Olympic Mtns. Severe winter storms at sea Avg temp range November – April, 14o – 43oF Avg temp range May – October, 30o – 56oF Climate on Kodiak Island, AK Range of daylight hours, December 6.75, June 18.0 Range of precipitation, January 7.4”, July 3.7” Fort Lewis near Tacoma, WA McChord SUA Fallon Range Complex (550 nm southeast) Other regional range complexes Yakima Training Center, WA Saylor Creek, ID Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC) 1 Source: 366 Report to Congress 2 Figure 2-3. Regional Setting of the Northwest Training Range Complex
3 The Complex contains training media including: 4 Shallow ocean areas, less than 100 fathoms 5 Deep ocean areas, greater than 100 fathoms 6 SUA over the ocean 7 SUA over land and inshore water space 8 Marine water ways extending inshore from the ocean 9 47,982 acres (75 miles2) of land range at Naval Weapons 10 Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman 11 Radio Frequency Spectrum 12
13 2.3 NAVY OPERATIONAL RANGE COMPLEX ORGANIZATION AND CAPABILITIES
14 The Operational Range Complex includes the following: 15 All Special Use Airspace (SUA) in the NWTRC, Warning 16 Areas, MOAs, Restricted Areas and an Alert Area.
2-5 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Additionally, Military Training Routes and the Darrington 2 OPAREA are included. 3 The sea-space and under-sea space offshore called the Pacific 4 Northwest Surface/Subsurface OPAREA is included and 5 certain water space inside the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 6 designated for Navy use, is included. Additionally, an air-to- 7 ground target area on land in Oregon is included. 8 The Explosive Ordnance Disposal training sites are included. 9 10 The attributes of these training range sites are presented in 11 Figure 2-4. 12
Range Attribute Navy Operational Areas
Operational Elements Airspace Area (offshore & inshore) Warning Areas: 34,453 nm2 MOAs & Darrington Area: 13,963 nm2 Restricted Airspace: 339 nm2 Lower Limit Surface Upper Limit Unlimited Availability 24/7 Supersonic Ops in Warning Areas beyond 30 nm from the coast MTRs 6 IFR and 6 VFR MTRs Sea Space Area 126,949 nm2 (includes Surface/Subsurface OPAREA: 126,888 nm2; Navy 3 is 46 nm2; Navy 7 is 15 nm2) Availability 24/7 Vicinity to land Not contiguous except Navy 7 Other Offshore conventional ordnance as authorized by COMNAVSURFOR, COMSUBPAC and NAS Whidbey Is. Undersea Space Area 126,949nm2 (includes Surface/Subsurface OPAREA & Navy 3 and Navy 7) Availability 24/7 Description Subsurface OPAREA is high seas area, shallow water (<100 fathoms) near shore, vast majority is deep water. System of Systems Scheduling System Web-enabled database? Yes for COMNAVSURFOR ships No for Airspace, scheduled manually Pre-event module? No Real-time event module? No Post-event module? No Post-event msg generation? No Other SUBPAC scheduling is manual Communications System Voice Circuits Yes Secure Capabilities No Data-link No Weather Observing and Reporting (Met) System Met System Limited
2-6 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Range Attribute Navy Operational Areas
Target System Air Targets No Air to Ground Targets NWSTF Boardman (Oregon) Surface Targets SinkEx, periodic event Underwater Targets No Instrumentation System Tracking System Yes, 15E34B Electronic Combat Training Device for EA-6B and EP-3 aircraft in Darrington OPAREA High Fidelity Yes, 15E34B Low Fidelity Yes, 15E34B Scoring Yes, 15E34B Debriefing Yes, real time feedback and post flight debrief Other No Opposition Force (OPFOR) System Air OPFOR No Surface OPFOR No Subsurface OPFOR No EC Threat capability 15E34B Electronic Training Device 1 Source: SRS Technologies 2 Figure 2-4. Navy Operational Range Attribute Summary
3 2.3.1 Range Complex Organizational Relationships
4 2.3.1.1 Budget Submitting Office 5 Funding varies for each individual range (see funding discussion in 6 Chapter 9).
7 2.3.1.2 Host 8 The host organizations for the Navy Operational Range Area include 9 Naval Base Kitsap Keyport and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island 10 (NASWI).
11 2.3.1.3 Tenants 12 No tenant organizations have responsibility for the Navy Operational 13 OPAREA or Warning Areas.
14 2.3.2 Range Complex Management Structure
15 2.3.2.1 Controlling Authority / Scheduling Authority 16 Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC), San 17 Diego, California is designated as the Department of the Navy (DoN) 18 Regional Airspace Coordinator (RAC) and is the focal point and 19 central clearinghouse for all SUA matters that pertain to any DoN 20 Airspace related activity within their regional area of responsibility. 21 NASWI acts as a direct airspace liaison to the RAC and is 22 responsible for the scheduling and management of all airspace 23 matters that pertain to the PACNORWEST OPAREA.
2-7 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 PACNORWEST OPAREA support joint air/surface/subsurface 2 operations such as air-to-surface bombing, air-to-air firing, combat 3 tactics, intercepts, aerial refueling, instrument training, aerobatics, 4 formation flight training, and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) 5 training. 6 7 Commander, U.S. Naval Surface Forces (COMNAVSURFOR) 8 approves all US Navy surface ships that transit and conduct training 9 in the PACNORWEST Surface/Subsurface OPAREA. Submarines 10 that use this area are scheduled and managed by Commander, 11 Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMSUBPAC). 12 13 Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), known as Seattle 14 Center, is the controlling authority for W-237, W-93, and W-570, 15 while scheduling authority for W-570 and W-93 is the USAF WADS 16 at McChord AFB. 17 18 NASWI exercises administrative authority coordinating usage and is 19 the scheduling authority for aircraft in the SUA. NASWI works 20 closely with Seattle ARTCC to manage W-237, MOAs, ATCAAs, 21 MTRs and Restricted airspace. The detachment at Naval Weapons 22 Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman serves as a conduit 23 to NASWI Operations for requests from other Services. NASWI 24 publishes the schedule. 25 26 EODMU-11 and NASWI work together to schedule EOD training, 27 including training involving demolition charges.
28 2.3.2.2 Staffing 29 NASWI has a small staff of one Officer and four Enlisted personnel 30 who manage the schedules for SUA. This staff is part of the 31 Operations Department. 32 33 NWSTF Boardman has a small detachment assigned full time on the 34 property in Oregon: 2 Chief Petty Officers and 5 other enlisted 35 personnel, assigned from NASWI. This detachment responds to the 36 occasional grass fire, maintains Boardman firefighting equipment, 37 and provides some security by their presence on the range property. 38 The Navy personnel in the detachment at Boardman are from 39 Construction Battalion ratings plus one Hospital Corpsman. 40 41 Twenty eight enlisted Sailors of the Aviation Boatswain Mate rating 42 are assigned to NASWI to support special equipment for field carrier 43 landing practice (FCLP) training operations at both NASWI and 44 Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, 15 miles south of 45 NASWI. These Sailors maintain the Fresnel Lens Optical Landing 46 System, the arresting gear, and firefighting equipment at OLF 47 Coupeville, and occasionally serve in the tower as safety observers 48 during FCLPs. Personnel are routinely on duty at OLF Coupeville,
2-8 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Monday through Friday, depending on work assignments and 2 scheduled aircraft activity. 3 4 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eleven (EODMU-11) has 5 an Operations Officer, a Training Officer, and a Petty Officer that 6 coordinate events with NASWI. The Environmental Scientist at 7 NASWI is engaged with EOD training.
8 2.3.3 Range Complex Management Procedures
9 2.3.3.1 Control Procedures 10 The following section is a brief synopsis of procedures that must be 11 followed in order to safely operate in the Navy Operational Ranges. 12 Many of the airspace procedures are recorded in the NASWI 13 Instruction 3770.1C and the FACSFAC San Diego Instruction 14 3120.1E.
15 2.3.3.1.1 Airspace Controlling Procedures 16 NASWI publishes a schedule for all users’ awareness, issues Notices 17 to Airman (NOTAM) messages twice daily, and issues Notice to 18 Mariners (NOTMARS) as needed. Procedural control is complied 19 with in the Warning Areas, Military Operating Areas (MOAs) and 20 Military Training Routes (MTRs), such that aircraft check in and 21 check out with Seattle ARTCC on schedule. NASWI Schedules’ 22 Staff schedules the SUA (including Darrington and MTRs) and 23 advises Seattle ARTCC. The aircrews must file a flight plan to the 24 entry points on the MTRs and report progress along route in 25 accordance with Seattle ARTCC instructions. Flight crews advise 26 Flight Service Stations of their position periodically on the routes as 27 an advisory to civil aircraft in the area.
28 2.3.3.1.2 Surface and Subsurface Controlling Procedures 29 Navy Ships are scheduled to use water space in the PACNORWEST 30 OPAREA by contacting COMNAVSURFFOR or utilizing the 31 WEBSCHED system. 32 33 Submarines are scheduled to utilize underwater space in the 34 PACNORWEST OPAREA by COMSUBPAC, and Commander 35 Task Group (CTG) 14.9.
36 2.3.3.2 Range Scheduling Procedures 37 38 Users request scheduled periods of W-237 by contacting NAS 39 Whidbey Schedules Office by DoD message or telephone, in 40 accordance with FACSFACSD instruction 3120.1E and NAS 41 WHIDBEY IS INSTRUCTION 3770.1C. The schedule is not web 42 based, but NASWI distributes the schedule daily on a Local Area 43 Network to all squadrons & wings based at NASWI. 44
2-9 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Users request scheduled periods of W-570 and W-93 by contacting 2 Western Air Defense Sector, McChord AFB by DoD message or 3 telephone, in accordance with FAA publication AP/1A.
4 2.3.3.3 Range Safety Procedures 5 Safety precautions and regulations contained in FACSFACSD 6 instruction 3120.1E and NAS WHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 3770.1C 7 apply in the PACNORWEST OPAREA and the Warning Areas. 8 9 The following general rules apply to area clearances within the 10 PACNORWEST OPAREA: 11 The operational commander conducting an exercise shall be 12 satisfied that the range is clear prior to beginning the exercise. 13 Procedures to ensure a clear range may be established based 14 on visual and/or radar surveillance. The Officer Conducting 15 the Exercise (OCE) shall take into consideration all 16 applicable factors in arriving at the final decision, such as 17 urgency of the mission, density of air and surface traffic, 18 local visibility, distance offshore, type and expected 19 reliability of the ordnance and the availability, and accuracy, 20 reliability, and completeness of radar coverage. When 21 surveillance of the range is conducted partially or solely by 22 radar, surface and/or airborne, commanders shall ensure that 23 the radar is operated and monitored by well-trained 24 personnel. Regardless of what surveillance method is used, 25 there must be assurance that the RANGE IS CLEAR. 26 Surface or air firing exercises shall be suspended at any time 27 visual or radar warning indicates the presence of any vessel 28 or aircraft within firing range. 29 Firing exercises are permitted only within the offshore 30 warning areas approved by Commander, Submarine Forces, 31 U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMSUBPAC) Pearl Harbor, HI and 32 scheduled with NASWI. Exercises must be within the 33 area/target assigned. 34 During surface gunnery exercises involving a towed target, 35 two-way communications must be maintained between the 36 firing unit and the towing vessel. 37 No live depth charges or other live underwater ordnance shall 38 be dropped for exercise purposes except as authorized by 39 COMSUBPAC, Pearl Harbor, HI. 40 Air-to-air (A-A) missiles may be expended within the 41 offshore operating areas. Because of the varying 42 characteristics of missiles used, varying safety precautions 43 and attack methods must be followed. Each mission shall be 44 specifically briefed and necessary safety precautions applied. 45 No missile shall be fired when there is any possibility that it 46 will not fall in a safe area within the assigned operating area. 47 No missile will be fired when there exists a possibility that it 48 may be locked on anything other than the assigned target. 49 When head-on runs are used, both the target and firing
2-10 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 aircraft shall be under the positive control of a qualified Air 2 Intercept Controller. 3 Surface to Air (S-A) and Surface-to-Surface (S-S) missiles 4 may be expended within offshore operating areas. Because 5 of the varying characteristics of the missiles used by the 6 Navy, varying safety precautions and attack methods must be 7 used. Each mission or exercise shall be briefed and the 8 necessary safety precautions applied. No missile shall be 9 fired when there is a chance it will not fall in a safe area 10 within the operating area. 11 No ordnance shall be expended through overcast or over an 12 undercast, or when there is more than 0.3 (30%) cloud 13 coverage in the area, unless the criteria established in 14 OPNAVINST 3710.7T are met. 15 The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) 16 was established off the coast of Washington in 1994 as part of 17 the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This sanctuary 18 underlies the eastern portion of W-237A/B and includes a 5 19 nm buffer zone seaward. Restrictions include the following: 20 o No live ordnance; 21 o No bombing, live or inert; 22 o Flying less than 2000 ft within one nm of the Flattery 23 Rocks, Quillayute Needles, or Copalis National Wildlife 24 Refuge is not allowed; and 25 o Flying less than 2000 ft within one nm of the coastal 26 boundary (Shoreline to 1 nm seaward) is not 27 recommended.
28 2.3.3.4 Range Inspection Procedures 29 Inspection procedures apply only to NWSTF Boardman, the only 30 land range within the NWTRC. Inspections at Boardman have not 31 regularly occurred since the A-6 aircraft retired and range scoring 32 systems were removed. COMPACFLT recently contracted with a 33 civilian company to conduct Operational Range Clearance activities 34 at Boardman. Inert bomb shapes were vented and deemed harmless 35 by Navy EOD personnel, and a contractor removed the scrap metal.
36 2.3.3.5 Coordination Procedures 37 Military Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft 38 (MARSA) is a condition that applies to those aircraft operating 39 within the Warning Areas. If more than one unit is scheduled to 40 operate within a Warning Area, each unit will be briefed on the 41 vertical and/or lateral assignments of the other units by the NAS 42 Whidbey Island Range Schedules Division. 43 44 All operations within W-237 are subject to a Letter of Agreement 45 (LOA) between NAS Whidbey Island, Seattle ARTCC, and Oakland 46 ARTCC. The using and scheduling agency is NAS Whidbey Island. 47 No military operations are permitted within these Warning Areas 48 without prior approval.
2-11 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.3.4 NAVY OPERATIONAL Range Complex Assets
2 2.3.4.1 Sea Space and Associated SUA
3 2.3.4.1.1 Surface OPAREA and Warning Areas 237, 570 and 93 4 The Pacific Northwest Ocean Surface/Subsurface Operating Area 5 (PACNORWEST OPAREA) of 126,888 nm2 serves as maneuver 6 water space for ships and submarines to conduct training and to use 7 as transit lanes. This OPAREA extends from the Strait of Juan de 8 Fuca to the northern coast of California (approximately 510 nm), 9 from lying close to the shore or coast westward to 130o West 10 longitude (approximately 240 nm). COMSUBPAC schedules and 11 manages the subsurface water space for U.S. and allied submarines. 12 COMNAVSURFOR schedules U.S. Navy surface ships in this 13 OPAREA. 14 15 Navy Primary Mission Areas (PMA) supported by the 16 Surface/Subsurface OPAREA and three Warning Areas are: 17 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) 18 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) 19 Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) 20 Strike Warfare (STW) 21 Electronic Combat (EC) 22 EOD and NSW 23 24 The Special Use Airspace in the Offshore Area is comprised of three 25 Warning areas (Figure 2-5), all within the PACNORWEST 26 OPAREA. Figure 2-6 contains a description of these offshore areas. 27 28 W-237, extending westward from the coast of Washington State, is 29 divided into nine areas (A-H, and J) of designated airspace. The 30 Controlling agency for W-237 is Seattle ARTCC and the scheduling 31 agency is NAS Whidbey Island. U.S. and Allied ships and aircraft 32 conduct training in W-237 in Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Anti- 33 Surface Warfare (ASUW), Anti-Aircraft Warfare (AAW), Strike 34 Warfare (STW), Electronic Attack (EA) and Command and Control 35 Warfare (C2W). 36 37 W-570 is a smaller warning area off the central coast of Oregon. 38 The Controlling agency is Seattle ARTCC and the scheduling agency 39 is the Western Air Defense Sector (WADS), McChord AFB. P-3 40 aircraft from Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing TEN 41 (CPRW-10) at NAS Whidbey Island occasionally use this airspace 42 for reconnaissance training. 43 44 W-93 is located off the coast of Oregon, approximately 10 nm south 45 of W-570 and similar in size. It has the same controlling and 46 scheduling agencies as W-570, and is also used by CPRW-10 P-3 47 aircraft for reconnaissance training. 48
2-12 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DAFIF, Navy doctrines and instruction, ESRI, National Map, USGS. 3 Figure 2-5. Offshore Surface OPAREA, Warning Areas, and 100 Fathom Curve
2-13 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Area Hazardous Airspace Floor Ceiling 2 Ordnance (nm ) Operations Missiles: A-A; at least 10 nm MISSILEX; west of coastline GUNEX; W-237 A,B Surface FL 500 3,606 Guns: A-A; at least 10 nm BOMBEX west of coastline Bombs: inert & live Missiles: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S MISSILEX; W-237 C,D Surface Unlimited 3,219 Guns: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S GUNEX; Bombs: inert & live BOMBEX Missiles: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S MISSILEX; W-237 E Surface FL 270 1,843 Guns: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S GUNEX; Bombs: inert & live BOMBEX Missiles: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S MISSILEX; W-237 F,G Surface Unlimited 6,319 Guns: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S GUNEX; Bombs: inert & live BOMBEX Missiles: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S MISSILEX; W-237 H,J Surface FL 270 10,344 Guns: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S GUNEX; Bombs: inert & live BOMBEX Missiles: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S MISSILEX; W-570 Surface FL 500 4,470 Guns: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S GUNEX: Bombs: inert & live BOMBEX Missiles: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S MISSILEX; W-93 Surface FL 500 4,652 Guns: A-A; A-S; S-A; S-S GUNEX: Bombs: inert & live BOMBEX 2 Source: 366 Report to Congress, DoD Flight Information Publication AP-1A – Special Use Airspace 3 Figure 2-6. Offshore Warning Areas
4 2.3.4.1.2 Subsurface OPAREA Undersea Space 5 The PACNORWEST Surface/Subsurface OPAREA is approximately 6 126,888 nm2 off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and northern 7 California. The volume of undersea space varies with the sea floor 8 depth. The continental shelf drops off at various distances from the 9 coastline, as depicted by Figure 2-5. Some areas drop off as close as 10 8 nm west of the 100 fathom curve; other areas drop off at 37 nm 11 west of the curve. Surface/Subsurface OPAREA Undersea Space is 12 summarized as having the following: 13 14 An area of 126,888 nm2; 15 Shallow littoral waters less than 100 fathoms (600 ft); 16 Shallow offshore waters less than 100 fathoms (600 ft); 17 Deepwater ocean areas to 2560 fathoms (15,360 ft); and 18 Deepwater in the Strait of Juan de Fuca reaches 148 fathoms 19 (888 ft). 20 21 Submarine operations in this area include unit training and transit 22 lanes. ASW training involving aircraft and surface ships occurs in 23 the water space under W-237.
2-14 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.3.4.1.3 Land, Interior Water Space and SUA 2 Navy Operational land area, underwater and associated SUA 3 includes: 4 Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) 5 Boardman; 6 R-5701 and R-5706; 7 Boardman MOA; 8 Olympic, Okanogan, Roosevelt, Chinook MOAs; 9 Darrington OPAREA; 10 OLF Coupeville; 11 R-6701 & Navy 7; 12 Navy 3; 13 Lake Hancock (estuary) target range; 14 Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range; 15 Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range; 16 NAVMAG Indian Island Underwater EOD Range; 17 Floral Point Underwater EOD Range; 18 Bangor EOD Demolition Training Range; and 19 Seaplane Base Survival Area. 20 21 These range assets are inventoried in Figure 2-7, and the SUA in 22 Figure 2-9. Theses assets are geographically presented in Figure 2-8. 23 24 Navy Primary Mission Areas (PMA) supported by the Land, Interior 25 water space and Special Use Airspace are: 26 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) 27 Mine Warfare (MIW) 28 Strike Warfare (STW) 29 Electronic Combat (EC)
2-15 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Range Attribute Land and Inshore Water Space Airspace See Figures 2-8 and 2-9 Sea Space Area Total 61nm2, Navy 3 (46nm2) and Navy 7 (15nm2) 0.4nm2 EOD range sites combined Availability 24/7 Vicinity to land Navy 3 and Navy 7 are in the Strait of Juan de Fuca near Whidbey Island. EOD underwater sites are in Crescent Harbor, near Indian Island and in Hood Canal. Underwater Space Area 61 nm2 Navy 3 and Navy 7 combined 0.4nm2 EOD range sites combined Availability 24/7 Description Navy 3 and Navy 7 are small areas on NOAA charts (<100 fathoms) where Navy ships conduct unit level training. Land Area NWSTF Boardman is 47,982 acres Seaplane Base Survival Area is ~ 875 acres. Availability 24/7 Location Boardman is in North central Oregon near the Columbia River. Survival Area is adjacent to Crescent Harbor. Scheduling System Web-enabled database? No. Contact NASWI Schedules by phone, email or Naval message. Pre-event module? No Real-time event module No Post-event module? No Post-event msg generation? No Communications System Voice Circuits Boardman yes, with Seattle ARTCC and a phone line. Secure Capabilities No Data-link No Weather Observing and Reporting (Met) System Met System Yes, at NAS Whidbey Island Target System Air Targets No Air to Ground Targets Boardman: Bull’s-eye with 4 concentric rings at 100/500/1000/1500 ft. Offset bull of four metal trailers. Several vehicles including a tank. Surface Targets No Underwater Targets No Instrumentation System Tracking System No High Fidelity No Low Fidelity No Scoring No Debriefing No Opposition Force (OPFOR) System Air OPFOR No Surface OPFOR No Subsurface OPFOR No EC Threat capability No 2 Source: SRS Technologies 3 Figure 2-7. Land and Inshore Water Space
2-16 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DAFIF, Navy doctrines and instruction, ESRI, National Map, USGS. 3 Figure 2-8. Land, Inshore Water Space, and SUA
2-17 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman is 2 located in north-central Oregon near the Columbia River. Boardman 3 consists of 47,982 acres of relatively flat, mostly bare landscape. 4 The land area is predominantly rectangular, 12 by 6 miles as 5 depicted by the blue rectangle in Figure 2-9. Several air-to-ground 6 (A-G) targets remain in the range, although their scoring systems 7 have been removed. R-5701 and R-5706 and Boardman MOA are 8 located above NWSTF Boardman. 9 10 The Oregon National Guard (ORNG) frequently uses Boardman for 11 small arms live fire training by infantry and helicopter door gunners. 12 The ORNG is proposing to construct and operate two new live-fire 13 weapons training ranges at Boardman. One of the ranges is a 14 Multipurpose Machine Gun Range (MPMGR) and the other is a 15 Multipurpose Training Range (MPTR). The MPMGR would be 16 used to train soldiers in the use of various small arms, up to and 17 including .50 cal rifles and machine guns. The MPTR would be used 18 to train soldiers on foot and in vehicles in the use of various vehicle- 19 mounted and ground-deployed weapons, including small arms of up 20 to .50 cal, 25mm cannons, 40mm grenade launchers, TOW missiles, 21 and 120mm tank guns. The range is also used for training helicopter 22 gunnery crews using 5.56mm and 7.62mm machine guns. 23
24 25 Source: NGA DAFIF, Navy doctrines and instruction, ESRI, National Map, USGS. 26 Figure 2-9. Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman Airspace
2-18 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The preponderance of inshore Special Use Airspace in this complex 2 is in Washington State. It is geographically presented in Figure 2-8 3 and inventoried in Figure 2-10. The SUA includes four MOAs 4 (Olympic, Okanogan, Roosevelt and Chinook) and one Restricted 5 Areas (R-6701 over Admiralty Bay). Olympic MOAs are located 6 over the Olympic Peninsula, along the Washington State coast. 7 Okanogan and Roosevelt MOAs are located in north-central 8 Washington near the US-Canadian border. The Darrington 9 OPAREA is a block of airspace established by Letter of Agreement 10 with Seattle ARTCC, and is used for Electronic Countermeasures 11 training and Functional Check Flight missions by squadrons based at 12 NAS Whidbey Island. This area is not designated a MOA, but is 13 similarly treated. Chinook MOA is located over Admiralty Bay near 14 the south west coast of Whidbey Island. This MOA consists of two 15 small air corridors A and B, each 2nm wide, for aircraft to ingress 16 and egress the Admiralty Bay Mining Range (R-6701). 17 18 Admiralty Bay includes R-6701 and the Chinook A and B MOAs. 19 The MOAs provide approach corridors into the restricted area. OLF 20 Coupeville is used for FCLP for EA-6Bs from NASWI, as a 21 Parachute Drop Zone (DZ) for small units (EOD, NSW, Army SOF, 22 etc.), and as a Landing Zone (LZ) for helicopter operations including 23 heavy lift sling loads. An alert area (A-680) provides a 3-mile radius 24 area around the OLF. 25 26 Figure 2-11 depicts the range areas on and around central Whidbey 27 Island, including Admiralty Bay, R-6701 (Navy 7), Chinook MOAs, 28 Navy 3, and OLF Coupeville. Navy OLF Coupeville is located 9 nm 29 south of Ault Field, NAS Whidbey Island, on the same island. OLF 30 Coupeville consists of a 5,400-foot runway, a portable Fresnel Lens 31 Optical Landing System, arresting gear and firefighting equipment, 32 and an observation tower. OLF Coupeville is used primarily for 33 FCLP operations and military parachute operations. Besides 34 providing a runway for FCLPs, OLF Coupeville includes 664 acres 35 of undeveloped open space and agricultural out-leases. Other 36 military training operations conducted at OLF Coupeville include 37 helicopter training, parachuting, and ground training. Alert Area 680 38 is assigned to OLF Coupeville to inform non-participating pilots that 39 a high volume of pilot training and parachute operations are 40 conducted in the Area. 41 42 Admiralty Bay Mining Range/R-6701, is an over-water aerial mining 43 area that extends from the surface up to 5000ft MSL. The surface 44 exercise area beneath R-6701 (Navy 7) is located approximately 13 45 nm south of Ault Field, NAS Whidbey Island, on the west side of 46 Whidbey Island. Chinook MOA consists of two small corridors that 47 provide an ingress and exit route for aircraft using Admiralty Bay 48 Mining Range. The restricted airspace (R-6701) over Admiralty Bay 49 and Lake Hancock is used for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) 50 operations. Navy 7 is the surface area for Navy ships to conduct unit 51 training in Admiralty Bay.
2-19 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Avail- Scheduling Inshore SUA nm² Lower limit Upper limit ability Authority A-680 (OLF Coupeville) 28 Surface 3,000 ft MSL 24/7 NASWI Admiralty Bay Mining Range R-6701 (over 22 Navy 7) Surface 24/7 NASWI Chinook MOA (A,B) A: 23 5,000ft MSL SUA corridors for R- B: 33 6701 300ft MSL 24/7 NASWI Olympic MOA (A,B) A: 933 6000ft MSL FL180 24/7 NASWI Olympic ATCAA B: 708 FL180 FL500 24/7 NASWI FL230, higher alt Darrington OPAREA 2,126 10,000ft MSL avail on request 24/7 NASWI A: 9000ft MSL A: FL180 Okanogan MOA A:2639 B: 300ft AGL B: 9000ft MSL (A,B,C) B: 973 C: 752 C: 300ft AGL C: 9000ft MSL 24/7 NASWI Okanogan ATCAA FL180 FL500 24/7 NASWI A: 9000ft MSL A: FL180 Roosevelt MOA (A,B) A:3192 B: 300ft AGL B: 9,000ft MSL 24/7 NASWI B:2221 Roosevelt ATCAA FL180 FL500 24/7 Boardman MOA 4,000ft MSL 17,000ft MSL 24/7 NASWI 363 Boardman ATCAA FL180 FL200 24/7 NASWI R-5706 108* 3,500 ft 10,000 ft MSL 24/7 NASWI R-5701 A 79* SFC FL200 24/7 NASWI R-5701 B 11* SFC 10,000 ft MSL 24/7 NASWI R-5701 C 32* SFC 6,000 ft MSL 24/7 NASWI R-5701 D 22* SFC 10,000 ft MSL 24/7 NASWI R-5701 E 65* SFC 6,000 ft MSL 24/7 NASWI
TOTAL 14,013 * Lies beneath Boardman MOA, not counted in Total. 1 Source: 366 Report to Congress, DoD Flight Information Publication AP-1A – Special Use Airspace 2 Figure 2-10. Inshore Special Use Airspace
3 Lake Hancock (estuary) target range is considered closed for impact 4 operations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 5 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), but still used for UAV 6 training. It is located on Whidbey Island adjacent to Admiralty Bay. 7 The target range was utilized as early as 1943 and as late as 1971, for 8 air-to-ground training with practice rockets and bombs. 9 10 Navy 3 is a polygon of water space used by Navy ships for unit level 11 training. It is 46 nm2 in area, located 8 nm west of Ault Field, 12 NASWI, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is used for unmanned 13 underwater vehicles (UUV) and mine warfare (MIW) RDT&E.
2-20 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DAFIF, NOAA ENC, Washington DOT, ESRI, National Map, USGS. 3 Figure 2-11. Admiralty Bay, Navy 7, and Navy 3
4 Six small sites, depicted in Figure 2-12, support Explosive Ordnance 5 Disposal Mobile Unit Eleven (EODMU-11), stationed at NAS 6 Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base area). These sites are: 7 Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range, 8 Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range (DTR), 9 NAVMAG Indian Island Underwater EOD Range, 10 Floral Point EOD Underwater EOD Range, 11 Bangor EOD Demolition Training Range, and 12 Seaplane Base Survival Area. 13 14 The DTR sites are small areas on land, fortified with walls made of 15 earth and lumber, to contain expendable materials from demolition 16 charges. The training detonations are limited to 5 lb Net Explosive 17 Weight (NEW) by EODMU-11 to avoid complaints about explosion 18 noise. The underwater sites are used for swimmer training in Mine 19 Countermeasures. Charges at the site near Indian Island and at 20 Crescent Harbor are authorized up to 20 lb NEW, but limited by 21 EODMU-11 to 2.5 lb NEW. EODMU-11 limits underwater charge 22 size to avoid complaints concerning harm to fish. The EOD site near
2-21 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DNC, Navy, Kitsap County GIS Dept, ESRI, National Map, USGS 3 Figure 2-12. EOD Training Range Sites
2-22 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Indian Island is within or in close proximity to a U.S. Navy restricted 2 area. 3 4 Floral Point Underwater EOD Range is within a Navy restricted area 5 in Hood Canal. Underwater detonations at Floral Point are smaller, 6 usually less than 1 lb NEW. The Floral Point site is in 30 ft of water 7 and includes a metal frame embedded in the canal bottom. Charges 8 are attached to the frame at 3 to 8 ft above the bottom. 9 10 Seaplane Base Survival Area is approximately 875 acres of 11 undeveloped Navy property, located adjacent to Crescent Harbor. It 12 is used by small units (2000 personnel or less) for ground training, 13 tactical maneuver, land navigation, survival training, helicopter 14 operations on multiple landing zones (unimproved), boat landing 15 operations such as a raid, and a parachute drop zone (Survival DZ). 16 EODMU-11 conducts paradrop training in the drop zones in 17 Crescent Harbor, the Survival Area, and at OLF Coupeville. 18 NASWI search and rescue (SAR) helicopter crews practice confined 19 area landings in this area. Authorized ordnance includes blank small 20 arms ammo and inert grenades; some pyrotechnics (signal smoke and 21 flares etc.) may be authorized depending on fire danger level. A 22 communications land line (phone) is in place and can be activated 23 when requested.
24 2.3.4.1.4 Other SUA, Military Training Routes 25 Twelve Military Training Routes (MTRs) provide low level training 26 with allowed speeds of over 250 knots on segments as low as 200 27 feet above ground level (AGL). Six of the MTRs are Visual Routes 28 (VRs) and six are Instrument Routes (IRs). IR low-levels require an 29 instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, regardless of weather 30 conditions, and have a floor of 500 ft. VR routes have a 200-ft. 31 floor, can only be flown in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), 32 and do not require an IFR flight plan. All of these MTRs are 33 available on a continuous basis. They are 8 nm wide (4 nm either 34 side of track) and are flown in one direction only. Several terminate 35 at the Boardman MOA/target area. The Whidbey Island MTRs are 36 visually presented in Figure 2-13 and summarized in Figure 2-14.
2-23 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DAFIF, Navy doctrines and instruction, ESRI, National Map, USGS. 3 Figure 2-13. MTRs in the Northwest Training Range Complex
2-24 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 No. of Total length MTR Point of Origin Termination Segments of MTR (nm) IR-341 Yakima VORTAC, WA 8 (A – I) 292 25 nm north of Ephrata, WA IR-342 Kimberly VORTAC, OR 9 (A – J) 329 Boardman IR-343 Yakima VORTAC, WA 15 (A - P) 471 Same as IR-341 IR-344 Hoquiam VORTAC, WA 16 (A - M) 321 Boardman IR-346 Newport VORTAC, OR 13 333 Boardman NAS Whidbey VORTAC, Deer Lake, 25 nm north of IR-348 10 (A - K) 296 058 radial at 24 nm Spokane, WA VR-1350 same as IR-348 10 (A - J) 261 Boardman VR-1351 same as IR-348 13 (A - M) 372 Boardman Kimberly VORTAC, 010 VR-1352 6 (A – G) 315 Fallon Range Complex radial at 7 nm VR-1353 80 nm north of Fallon, NV 7 (A – E) 309 Boardman 35 nm south of Spokane, VR-1354 Boardman 5 (A – F) 129 WA VR-1355 Boardman 7(A – G) 222 15 nm east of NASWI 2 Source: DoD Flight Information Publication AP/1B – Military Training Routes 3 Figure 2-14. Military Training Route Summary
4 2.3.4.2 Scheduling 5 The PACNORWEST OPAREA is used by Navy ships and 6 submarines primarily as transit routes and to conduct training. Its 7 use is not exclusive. COMNAVSURFOR schedules Navy surface 8 ships to transit through it by intranet Website scheduling 9 (WEBSCHED), naval message, and voice circuits via satellite. 10 COMSUBPAC, CTG 14.9 is the scheduling authority for subsurface 11 water space, and communicates with US Submarines by naval 12 message and voice circuits. The airspace in the three Warning Areas 13 (W-237, W-570 and W-93) is scheduled, while the remaining 14 airspace over the PACNW OPAREA is not scheduled. Only WADS 15 and the FAA track aircraft west of the coastline. FACSFAC does not 16 have radar coverage in these Warning Areas. 17 18 NAS Whidbey Operations personnel manage the schedule process 19 for aircraft in the MOAs, Restricted Airspace, Boardman Range, and 20 the MTRs. EODMU-11 coordinates EOD range use at Crescent 21 Harbor and Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range with 22 NAS Whidbey Island. Specific scheduling information is provided 23 in Figure 2-15.
24 2.3.4.3 Communications 25 All units in the PACNORWEST OPAREA and in the Warning 26 Areas, MOAs, Restricted Airspace, Darrington, and the MTRs are 27 required to have two way voice communications.
2-25 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Range Complex Component Scheduling Activity Navy Operational SUA, W-237 NAS Whidbey Island MOAs, Restricted Airspace, Tel: DSN 820-2877, Comm (360) 257-2877 Darrington OPAREA, NWSTF Fax: DSN 820-1283, Comm (360) 257-1283 Boardman 0700-1500 (L) Monday – Friday Navy Operational SUA W-570 Western Air Defense Sector, McChord AFB and W-93 Tel: DSN 984-4604, Comm (253) 982-4604 Fax: DSN 984-4694 0730-1530 (L) Monday – Friday Surface / Subsurface OPAREA COMNAVSURFOR Tel: DSN 577- 2783 Comm (619) 437-2783 0730-1600 (L) Monday – Friday
CTG.14.9 SUBOPAUTH Tel: DSN 473-2518, Comm (808) 473-3794 7days a week, 24 hours a day. EOD Range Sites EODMU-11 Tel: DSN 820- 4496 or 4480 Comm (360) 257- 4496 or 4480 0730- 1600 (L) Monday – Friday
NAS Whidbey Island (listed above) 2 Source: DoD Flight Information Publication AP/1A – Special Use Airspace, FACSFACSDINST 3120.1E, NASWI 3 Figure 2-15. Range Scheduling Activities
4 2.3.4.3.1 Exercise Control and Coordination (EC&C) Circuits 5 There are no dedicated EC&C circuits. EODMU-11 uses hand held 6 radios when training in Crescent Harbor. During diving operations 7 the dive supervisor will have communications with the command 8 through a hand held radio, as well as a cell phone back up. During 9 parachute operations, the drop zone safety officer will have 10 communications with the command, every boat on the DZ, and the 11 aircraft.
12 2.3.4.3.2 Operations Communications (OC) Circuits 13 Seattle ARTCC and NAS Whidbey have UHF and VHF circuits for 14 aircraft to check in and out of SUA.
15 2.3.4.3.3 Data Link (D/L) Circuits 16 There are no dedicated data-link circuits.
17 2.3.4.4 Meteorology 18 Surface weather buoys, moored off the coast of Washington and 19 Oregon (some in W-237), provide observed surface weather 20 information in some areas in W-237, recorded for access by 21 mariners. National Data Buoy Center (NDBC), a part of the 22 National Weather Service (NWS), provides mariners an easy way to 23 obtain the reports via a cell phone. Buoy information includes wind, 24 air, and sea surface temperature and wave measurements taken 25 within the last hour. The information can be viewed at the NDBC
2-26 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 website at: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dial.shtm. Ships and aircraft 2 in the area can observe actual weather conditions including cloud 3 cover, wind, and barometric pressure. 4 5 In the in-shore area, Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) 6 provides a recording of current weather and airfield information for 7 civil and military aircraft. ASOS, installed at NWSTF Boardman, 8 has replaced the old ATIS system. No other range in the inshore 9 area has organic or remote weather observation systems.
10 2.3.4.5 Targets and Target Arrays 11 No target system exists in the offshore PACNORWEST OPAREA. 12 Periodically, in three or four year intervals, a SINKEX is conducted 13 in the offshore OPAREA. 14 15 In July 2005, two decommissioned Navy ships were designated 16 target hulks for a SINKEX in the ocean water under W-237. Several 17 US Navy and Air Force aircraft, one Navy ship, and one Submarine 18 were designated as participants to release live ordnance on the 19 SINKEX target ships. According to the Overseas Environmental 20 Assessment, the site was 130 nm west of Washington State, in 21 compliance with environmental regulations, and met the operational 22 suitability of the Navy. Both targets were successfully sunk in water 23 over 1000 fathoms deep. A significant amount of training was 24 accomplished with live ordnance for proficiency. 25 26 NWSTF Boardman is a land range surrounded by R-5701/5706 and 27 Boardman MOA. Boardman has several land targets for aircraft to 28 use in air-to-ground delivery. The main bull’s eye has four 29 concentric rings around the center, spaced at 100, 500, 1000 and 30 1500 feet. There are also several tactical targets consisting of 31 vehicle hulks.
32 2.3.4.6 Instrumentation (including SESEF) 33 No fixed instrumentation exists in the PACNORWEST OPAREA or 34 Warning Areas. WADS radars provide coverage of this area but 35 their radar information is classified. FAA traffic control radars have 36 a limited capability beyond the coast. 37 38 One 15E34B Electronic Combat (EC) Training Device is located at 39 OLF Coupeville and used by aircraft operating in the Darrington 40 OPAREA. 41 42 A Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility (SESEF) is 43 located at Ediz Hook in Port Angeles, WA, on the south side of the 44 Strait of Juan de Fuca. In addition to at-sea testing, directional 45 antennas provide line-of-sight support for pier-side testing for all 46 naval and shipyard facilities in the PACNORWEST area. This 47 SESEF is operated by Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) 48 Division, Keyport, WA.
2-27 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 The SESEF is located at 48o08’24”N / 123o24’12”W 3 SESEF Navy Orbit Area is located at 48o15’36”N/ 4 123o15’48”W approximately 10 nm into the Strait of Juan de 5 Fuca from the SESEF facility at Ediz Hook. 6 7 SESEF provides testing and analysis of shipboard and shore based 8 electromagnetic systems such as navigation, communications, radars, 9 and ESM for accuracy and readiness. No ordnance is utilized.
10 2.3.4.6.1 Tracking 11 The 15E34B EC Training Device has a tracking capability for 12 aircraft training in electronic combat in Darrington OPAREA. The 13 15E34B tracks the aircraft IFF mode(s) 1, 2 or 3 and must also have 14 mode "C" for altitude data. This received data, range, bearing and 15 altitude which is accurate to +/- one degree is then converted to the 16 azimuth and elevation angles required to position the main Andrews 17 tracking array which points to the aircraft receiving training.
18 2.3.4.6.2 Exercise and Coordination (EC&C) 19 There is no dedicated exercise control and coordination system. 20 21 2.3.4.6.3 Modeling and Simulation (M&S) 22 23 Modeling and simulation (M&S) is used to augment live training 24 during the Fleet Readiness Program (FRP) training cycle. Although 25 not a substitute for underway, at-sea operations, in-port and synthetic 26 training is essential to combat readiness and is performed often 27 throughout the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP). The Virtual 28 At-Sea Training Deployable Prototype/Integrated Maritime Portable 29 Acoustic Scoring and Simulator (VAST DP/IMPASS) system allows 30 synthetic (virtual) targets for FIREXs to be overlain an instrumented 31 buoy field. Additionally TACTS facilitates NDWS by participating 32 aircraft. 33 34 In-port Training. In-port Training is conducted aboard ships and 35 submarines with organic training devices and installed equipment 36 such as the Battle Force Tactical Trainer (BFTT) and similar training 37 systems. Individual and multi-unit in-port tactical training using 38 both onboard training systems and shore support training systems is 39 essential to training progression, in particular during the early stages 40 of the FRTP (basic phase). Full, multi-warfare synthetic exercises 41 are implemented via the Battle Group In-port Exercise (BGIE) 42 program. BGIE is a process designed to provide graduated 43 proficiency training exercises, combining a set of mandatory events 44 with opportunities to conduct optional training based on senior 45 leadership assessments. BGIE exercises start during the basic phase 46 of the FRTP and become progressively more complex and 47 challenging. When properly supported with modeling and 48 simulation, the BGIE can maximize effectiveness of underway
2-28 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 training days (for the Unit, Warfare Commander and/or Carrier 2 Strike Group [CSG] staff) and reduce the requirement to await CSG 3 platform availability. By incorporating this regimen of training, 4 CSG staff proficiency is increased and Commanders are more fully 5 prepared when actual underway operations are conducted. This 6 training permits certification of CSGs and Expeditionary Strike 7 Groups (ESGs) earlier in the FRTP. 8 9 Synthetic Training. Viable synthetic training systems are still in 10 development in order to augment and enhance Fleet training. 11 Systems that are currently available are usually associated with the 12 Joint environment and focus on the higher headquarters, senior battle 13 staff training audience. In all cases, modeling and simulation 14 benefits Fleet training by reducing costly underway steaming dollars 15 and permitting Naval units and personnel to participate in training 16 from in-port locations without the need for range scheduling and/or 17 operating areas. 18 19 Virtual At-Sea Training (VAST). VAST is an example of both an 20 M&S system and a scoring system. With VAST, live fire is used, 21 but the target is simulated. A surface ship gun-firing operation in 22 support of operations on land is called a FIREX. With VAST, the 23 Navy is able to conduct FIREXs for Naval Surface Fire Support 24 (NSFS) training in the open ocean instead of using a real land target. 25 VAST is a portable and reusable system comprised of an array of 26 five (5) free-floating sonobuoys (passive listening devices) that are 27 deployed approximately in the shape of a pentagon. This area is 28 known as the buoy field. The sonobuoys serve as collectors of 29 acoustic information and “score” the impact of shells aimed at a 30 virtual target within the buoy field. The ship’s crew or a “spotter” 31 sees a realistic presentation (e.g., a landmass with the topography of 32 a “real world” target), which corresponds to an area actually located 33 over the open ocean. The operator fires at the combat simulation 34 target, while the ordnance actually lands within a buoy field in the 35 water. Exercise evaluators monitor the target practice on a computer 36 screen. 37 38 The 15E34B EC Training Device models many different emitters to 39 train aircrews on procedures of Electronic Combat, while they are 40 airborne in the Darrington OPAREA. 41 2.3.4.6.4 Scoring 42 Currently no scoring systems exist for weapons events, inert or live. 43 NWSTF Boardman and Admiralty Bay Mining Range both had a 44 Weapons Impact Scoring System (WISS) in the past and they have 45 been deleted from both sites. 46 2.3.4.6.5 Debriefing 47 The 15E34B EC Training Device provides real time and post event 48 debrief. This is the only debriefing system in the Navy Operational 49 Ranges.
2-29 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.3.4.7 Opposition Forces 2 The 15E34B EC Training Device operates as an Opposition Force 3 for aircraft training in electronic combat in Darrington OPAREA.
4 2.3.4.8 Other Infrastructure 5 Improved property at NWSTF Boardman consists of 3 metal 6 buildings, an office-trailer, a telephone, fresh water, and electrical 7 power and dirt roads.
8 2.4 NAVSEA / NUWC KEYPORT
9 The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport is located at 10 Keyport, Washington, in the Puget Sound. The main facility at 11 NUWC Keyport occupies approximately 340 acres, including 12 tidelands, on a small peninsula at the entrance to Liberty Bay. 13 NUWC Keyport operates the Pacific Northwest Range Complex, 14 which consists of four fixed, undersea, tracking ranges. These 15 include: 16 Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC), includes Hood Canal; 17 Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range 18 (CFMETR) also known as the “Nanoose” range, is a joint US 19 and Canadian venture for a range located near Vancouver, 20 British Columbia, Canada; 21 Quinault Range Site, located 8 miles off the western coast of 22 Washington; and 23 NUWC Keyport range site, located immediately south of 24 NUWC Keyport Headquarters, utilizes an underwater 25 portable tracking system called the “SWIFT” portable range, 26 in the non-instrumented areas of the ranges when customer 27 requirements dictate. 28 29 These ranges are inventoried in Figure 2-16, and geographically 30 depicted in Figure 2-17. They provide a total of 134 nm2 of 31 underwater tracking area, which is used to support various missions 32 including undersea vehicle production acceptance, RDT&E, and 33 Fleet training. 34 35 The SWIFT portable range is depicted in Figures 2-18 and 2-19 and 36 can be configured to provide up to 80 nm2 of underwater tracking 37 area in water depths ranging from 1 foot to 6000 feet. The SWIFT 38 range is used in the non-instrumented areas of the DBRC, and open 39 ocean where threat realistic test environments support System 40 RDT&E requirements. Figure 2-18 depicts a typical test or training 41 event that uses time-stamped signals from a Pinger affixed to the 42 items of interest for precision 3-Dimensional tracking. Incorporation 43 of Acoustic Modem technology into the SWIFT buoy’s enables a 44 non-invasive (no pingers) tracking capability along with message 45 eavesdropping, decoding and transmission. This is extremely useful 46 for small vehicles that do not have the space or power density to
2-30 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 accommodate standard Pingers, such as Unmanned Undersea 2 Vehicles (UUV’s). 3 4 The missions of NUWC Division Keyport include: 5 Test and evaluation; in-service engineering, maintenance and 6 repair; and Fleet readiness and industrial-base support for 7 undersea warfare systems, mobile targets, countermeasures 8 and sonar systems. 9 Operation of the Navy’s complex of undersea test ranges to 10 evaluate the performance of undersea weapon systems and 11 vehicles against their given specifications.
2-31 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Range Attribute NAVSEA / NUWC Keyport Sites Airspace Area None Sea Space Area 134 nm2 combined range area (fixed ranges). SWIFT has up to 80nm2 instrumented area deployable world wide. Availability As scheduled with NUWC Keyport Vicinity to land Inshore waterways (fixed ranges). SWIFT can operate in open ocean to littorals. Other 3 of 4 range sites are in inshore waterways; Quinault Range Site is offshore the Olympic Peninsula. Underwater Space Area 134 nm2 Availability Scheduled availability is 0700 – 1700 Tuesday – Friday. Some events run longer. Events for SSBN Post Trial Refit on DBRC take priority and occur as necessary. Description Small, inland range sites designed for RDT&E Scheduling System Web-enabled database? No Pre-event module? Yes Real-time event module Yes Post-event module? Yes Post-event msg generation? Yes Communications System Voice Circuits Yes Secure Capabilities Yes Data-link Yes Weather Observing and Reporting (Met) System Met System Limited to basic atmospheric & u/w bathometric sensors. Target System Air Targets No Air to Ground Targets No Surface Targets No Underwater Targets Yes Instrumentation System Tracking System Yes, details in tables to follow High Fidelity Yes, details in tables to follow Low Fidelity Yes, details in tables to follow Scoring Yes, details in tables to follow Debriefing Yes, details in tables to follow Other Significant underwater instrumentation Opposition Force (OPFOR) System Air OPFOR No Surface OPFOR No Subsurface OPFOR No EC Threat capability No 2 Source: NUWC Keyport 3 Figure 2-16. NAVSEA / NUWC Keyport Attributes
2-32 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NGA DAFIF, Navy, ESRI, National Map, USGS. 3 Figure 2-17. NAVSEA / NUWC Keyport Range Sites
2-33 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
GPS Ship-Based Range Operations Satellites Center & Rapidly-Deployed For Timing & Tracking Results Tracking Sensors Above-water Sent To Local Or Tracking Remote Display Tracking Sites
Encrypted Tracking Underwater Tracking Signals From Sensors Data Via Radio Linked Buoys
Torpedo Target Submarine GPS Enhanced Free Floating Buoy (Optional)(Optional) Coded Pingers In Tracked Objects Tracking Sensors Receive The Pinger Signals
1 2 Figure 2-18. SWIFT Portable Range (typical with Pingers)
3 4 Figure 2-19. SWIFT Portable Range (Non-Invasive Tracking, (no Pingers)
2-34 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.4.1 Range Complex Organizational Relationships
2 NUWC Division Keyport, WA reports to NUWC Headquarters, 3 Newport, Rhode Island, who reports to Naval Sea Systems 4 Command (NAVSEA) Washington, D.C. NAVSEA directs the 5 development and construction of systems and hulls for ships and 6 submarines in the U.S. Navy. The Canadian underwater range 7 “CFMETR” (also known as Nanoose) is a joint venture between the 8 U.S. and Canada managed by a formal agreement between the 9 governments. Canada provides the real estate and infrastructure and 10 the U.S. provides personnel to operate the computer facility, range 11 support craft, and range technology including underwater tracking 12 arrays and computers. 13 14 Organizations Supported by NUWC Keyport include: 15 Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) 16 Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) 17 Navy Acquisition Program and technology sponsors for 18 weapons, submarines and sonar designs 19 Office of Naval Research 20 Office of Naval Intelligence 21 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 22 COMPACFLT 23 Commander Patrol Reconnaissance Wing Ten (CPRW-10) 24 Commander Submarine Group Nine (COMSUBGRU-9) 25 Development Squadron Five 26 NSW, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, SOF 27 Canadian Forces 28 United Kingdom Research 29 Foreign Military Sales 30 Private and academic research
31 2.4.1.1 Budget Submitting Office 32 Funding for NUWC comes from NAVSEASYSCOM and 33 NAVAIRSYSCOM.
34 2.4.1.2 Host 35 The host is Naval Base Kitsap Keyport, WA.
36 2.4.1.3 Tenants 37 NUWC is a tenant aboard Naval Base Kitsap Keyport.
38 2.4.2 Range Management Structure
39 NUWC Keyport supports the operational Navy as well as conducting 40 RDT&E work tasked by NAVSEA. Range management is provided 41 by NUWC Keyport with assistance for the Nanoose range provided 42 by the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range 43 (CFMETR) located in British Columbia. All items for the CFMETR
2-35 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 range, including sustainability issues, are controlled by a Joint U.S. 2 and Canadian agreement through the State Department.
3 2.4.2.1 Controlling Authority 4 NUWC Keyport is the controlling authority for the U.S. range sites. 5 The Commanding Officer, CFMETR is the controlling authority for 6 Nanoose site.
7 2.4.2.2 Scheduling Authority 8 NUWC Keyport is the scheduling authority for all range sites.
9 2.4.2.3 Staffing 10 NUWC Keyport Range Operations staff consists of 1,497 civilians 11 and 34 military personnel.
12 2.4.3 Range Complex Management Procedures
13 2.4.3.1 Range Control Procedures 14 NUWC Keyport maintains centralized range control for all exercises 15 including air-surface/subsurface operations. Figure 2-20 describes 16 the range information display capabilities used in controlling and 17 maintaining safety during range operations at DBRC, CFMETR, and 18 Quinault. 19 NUWC Division Keyport, Collaborative T&E Center (CTEC) Range sites supported Keyport, Dabob Bay, CFMETR, Quinault, & temp sites Viewing Room Capacity 35 people in amphitheater, 6 in additional room Reconfigurable Rooms 3 with modular furniture, raised floors Simultaneous Ops 2 (real time or display) Screens (3) 100” in amphitheater setting Communications Microwave, fiber, telephone Video/voice compression, virtual modeling, encryption P Band telemetry, T1 line, DREN/SDREN, Four independent LANs that can be connected to external Technologies WANs as necessary, Secure Wireless Voice/Data, Interoperability via TENA and CURATE, Visualization via SIMDIS and ESMS open architecture tools. Data sources Tracking, acoustics, voice, video Future plans Internetworking with other ranges and customer sites 20 Source: NUWC Keyport, Northwest Range User’s Guide 21 Figure 2-20. NUWC Keyport Command and Control Systems
22 2.4.3.2 Range Scheduling Procedures 23 To schedule a range or services, the Test Operations managers at 24 NUWC Keyport are contacted: 25 Telephone: Comm (360) 396-4261, DSN 744-4261.
2-36 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 U.S. Mail: Commander, Code 51, 610 Dowell Street, Naval 2 Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport, Washington 3 98345-7610.
4 2.4.3.3 Range Safety Procedures 5 Range safety procedures coordinate the efforts of on-site observers, 6 underwater hydrophones, targets and testing platforms to prevent 7 harm to marine mammals and damage to hardware.
8 2.4.3.4 Range Inspection Procedures 9 All participating vehicles, vessels and weapons are retrieved after 10 operations are completed on any NUWC Keyport range. Weapons 11 are inert; the expendable materials left behind are the shielded copper 12 wire from a torpedo, lead weights for buoyancy, and some small 13 parachutes (range inspection procedures recover the test devices). 14 The participants keep a vigil for marine mammals and non- 15 participating boats.
16 2.4.3.5 Coordination Procedures 17 The NUWC Keyport Facility coordinates events on all range sites.
18 2.4.4 NUWC Keyport Range Assets
19 2.4.4.1 Underwater Space and Associated Surface Area 20 NUWC Keyport provides a full spectrum capability for the 21 measurement and analysis of underwater radiated noise, structure 22 borne noise, self-noise, and ambient noise in support of range 23 operations. They include features for high speed and ultra quiet 24 vehicle measurements. DBRC, CFMETR, and Quinalt Range sites 25 are fully instrumented for acoustic measurement and monitoring with 26 data processing and analysis performed at NUWC Keyport’s 27 Underwater Noise Analysis Facility. Technologies supported 28 include: 29 Underwater vehicle propulsion 30 Underwater acoustics 31 Underwater vehicle dynamics 32 Sonar development 33 Radiated noise measurement 34 Underwater tracking 35 Underwater acoustic measurement
36 2.4.4.1.1 Sea Space / SUA 37 The surface of the water serves as the vertical limit of the underwater 38 range sites and enables surface ships access to DBRC, CFMETR 39 Range Site, Quinault Range Site, and Keyport Range Site. DBRC is 40 accessible by some Navy combatant ships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and 41 Frigates, but not by large ships like Aircraft Carriers due to a sliding 42 bridge over Hood Canal. The sea surface is monitored by NUWC
2-37 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Keyport staff and sensors including lights for tracking surface 2 vehicles, orcas, and range transients.
3 2.4.4.1.2 Undersea Space 4 NUWC Keyport range sites have extensive underwater and above 5 water tracking capability allowing users to observe exercises in real 6 time and record events for post exercise evaluation/scoring. 7 Collectively, the DBRC site, Quinault Range Site, and CFMETR site 8 provide 134 nm2 of instrumented undersea space. An overview of 9 the capabilities at the three fixed and one portable site includes: 10 Underwater acoustic tracking pingers on vehicles (targets, 11 torpedoes, submarines) 12 Sensors to receive pinger signals for telemetry 13 Undersea cabling to transmit telemetry signals to range center 14 Tracking center facilities to receive, decode, and display 15 tracking vehicles/weapons at the Collaborative T & E Center 16 (CTEC), Keyport 17 Portable range that can exploit systems under test for non- 18 invasive tracking and acoustic modem message 19 eavesdropping with reachback to CTEC via secure wireless 20 communications 21 Support craft, helos, airplanes, boats to launch & retrieve 22 vehicles and weapons 23 Above water tracking systems correlate aircraft participation 24 on range 25 26 Keyport Range Site. The Keyport Range site is adjacent to the 27 NUWC Keyport main facility. This 1.5 nm2 site is used to test 28 underwater vehicles in shallow water. This site’s maximum depth is 29 60 feet and contains no permanent instrumentation. When 30 instrumentation is needed the portable Shallow Water Inexpensive 31 Flexible Tracking (SWIFT) system is deployed. The range is used 32 for tracking technology development, acoustic recording 33 development, SEAL Team cold water training, and unmanned 34 underwater vehicle testing. NUWC Keyport has been designated the 35 National Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Test and Evaluation Center 36 (NUTEC) and uses the Keyport Site and the DBRC Site for the AUV 37 Fest 2005. Specifications are depicted in Figure 2-21.
38 Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC) Site. The DBRC Site 39 consists of Dabob Bay Military Operating Area, the Hood Canal 40 Military Operating Areas, and the connecting waters. DBRC 41 provides a medium depth, quiet secure body of water for testing. 42 Water depth reaches 600 feet with an underwater tracking area of 9 43 nm2. The size of the DBRC is 30.9 nm2. Primary operations are to 44 provide production acceptance tests of underwater systems such as 45 torpedoes, countermeasures, targets, R&D test support, Sea Trial 46 evaluations for SSBNs, and SEAL Team cold water training. 47 Specifications are depicted in Figure 2-22.
2-38 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Parameter SWIFT Capability Max 80 Km2 with 20 sensors @ 2Km sensor Underwater Tracking Area spacing Up to 12 vehicles (instrumented), 100 vehicles Simultaneous Acoustic Tracks (non-instrumented but with organic acoustic modem) Track Update rate 3 vehicles per second (maximum) 33.149-38.217kHz (low band), 41.096- 45.802kHz (mid band), and 48.387-49.587kHz Tracking Frequency band (high band) for instrumented pingers. For the acoustic modem, the center frequency is 22.5 ±2.5 kHz. Tracking Signal Format Spaced Frequency Shift Keyed (SFSK) Depth Resolution 0.3 meter, using depth telemetry Tracking Accuracy (XY) nominal 5 meters, typical, within Multipath-free region Installation Depth 5 to 400 meters Deployment / Recovery time Less than 1 day, typical Usage per Battery charge 100 hours, minimum Stand-by Time between uses 1000 hours max (sleep mode) Additional batteries can be added to the sensors via a Buddy-bouy. Adds 150 hours to Power augmentation useage time. Add additional 1500 hours to stand-by time. Digital line of sight, approx. 11 Km, minimum Radio Link Reception Range (ship receiver) 1 Source: NUWC Keyport 2 Figure 2-21. Keyport SWIFT System Capabilities
Parameter DBRC Capability Range size (subsurface) 30.9 nm2 Depth 120 to 600 ft. Above Water Tracking coverage 450 nm2 Unique features Quiet and Highly Secure # Arrays & Separation 7 tracking arrays; 6000 ft separation Underwater track 75 kHz PSK # Simultaneous tracks 12 vehicles or items Real Time Telemetry 24 bits/ping Above water Track Surveillance radar; vessel radar; GPS Visual Track Theodolite Bottom Composition Sand, silt-clay, mud, rock Sound Velocity Profile Seasonal, fast surface layer; channeling Avg daily air temp 30-50o winter; 60-80o summer Annual precipitation 51 inches (some snow) Fog Occasional; prevalent in fall & winter Wind 5 to 20 kt predominantly from the South Aircraft Support Helicopter and airplane Conductivity, Temperature & Depth Yes, integrated with tracking algorithm 3 Source: NUWC Keyport, Northwest Range User’s Guide 4 Figure 2-22. Dabob Bay Range Complex Capabilities and Instrumentation
2-39 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range. Primary 2 operations are focused on providing for production acceptance tests 3 on underwater systems such as torpedoes, countermeasures, mobile 4 targets, R&D test support and fleet tactical evaluations in ASW for 5 Canadian Forces and the US Navy. Water depth reaches 1300 feet 6 with an underwater tracking area of 50 nm2. Specifications are 7 depicted in Figure 2-23. 8 Parameter CFMETR Capability Range size underwater 50 nm2 Depth 900 to 2400 ft Above water tracking coverage 450 nm2 Unique Features Mid-depth Littoral # Arrays & Separation 29 arrays; 7500 ft separation Underwater Track 75 kHz PSK Underwater Track Accuracy ± 3 ft relative; ± 10 ft absolute # Simultaneous Tracks 12 vehicles or items Real Time Telemetry 24 bits/ping Above Water Track ATR & vessel radar; GPS; cinesextant /TSPI Bottom Composition Mud, rock, sand Sound Velocity Profile Seasonal, fast surface layer; channeling Avg Daily Air Temp 30-50o winter; 55-75o summer Annual Precipitation 48 inches (some snow) Fog Anytime, prevalent in fall & winter Wind 5 to 20 kt predominantly from SE Aircraft Support Helicopter & Floatplane Conductivity, Temperature & Depth Yes, integrated with tracking algorithm 9 Source: NUWC Keyport, Northwest Range User’s Guide 10 Figure 2-23. CFMETR Site Capabilities and Instrumentation
11 Quinault Range Site. The Quinault Range Site is located 7.5 miles 12 seaward of the Olympic coast, at Kalaloch, WA. This site has a 13 range size of 51.8 nm2, and provides a shallow ocean environment; 14 maximum depth is 320 ft for RDT&E on such projects as the 15 advanced Mk 50 Light Weight Torpedo. Specifications are depicted 16 in Figure 2-24.
2-40 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Quinault Range Site Range size underwater 51.8 nm2 Depth 120 to 320 ft. Above water track coverage 700 nm2 Unique Features Shallow-ocean site # Sensors & Separation 32 sensors; 6000 ft. separation Underwater Track 33-50 kHz SFSK Underwater Track Accuracy ± 10 ft. relative; ± 10 ft. absolute # Simultaneous Tracks 6 surface; 6 underwater (ping rate dependent) Real Time Telemetry 23 bits/ping Above water Track Vessel radar; GPS Bottom Composition Sand, sediment Sound Velocity Profile Seasonal channeling; iso-velocity Avg Daily Air Temp 40-50o (winter) to 50-60o (summer) Annual Precipitation 65-75 inches Wind Aug-April SW 17-20; May-June NW 7-10 Aircraft Support Helicopter and airplane Conductivity, Temperature & Depth Yes, integrated with tracking algorithm 1 Source: NUWC Keyport, Northwest Range User’s Guide 2 Figure 2-24. Quinault Range Site Instrumentation
3 2.4.4.1.3 Land / SUA 4 NUWC Keyport uses some land owned by the government, for the 5 headquarters area and on site range operations. Existing land from 6 the water extends to five miles inland, includes 657 acres along the 7 Hood Canal, and 290 acres at Keyport. This includes the range 8 control site at Zelatched Point on Dabob Bay, the CFMETR control 9 facility at NUWC Keyport, and the trailer at Ranger Station at 10 Kalaloch, WA for the Quinault Range Site. The facilities on shore 11 serve as the central point of termination for fixed bottom hardware 12 and computer processing of 3D track on Range. For Zelatched Pt. 13 and CFMETR (Nanoose) they are also the Command and Control 14 location for Range operations. CFMETR (Nanoose) site also 15 contains a maintenance facility at Ranch Pt. Kalaloch facilities that 16 consist of only one trailer are remotely operated from Zelatched Pt. 17 18 The facilities at Zelatched Point include a building to house the 19 computer, buildings to house winches for haul-down of MK-69 20 target system and the Bottom Moored Array, a building for radar, a 21 Helicopter pad and a pier for small craft and float plane (presently 22 unserviceable due to storm damage). This land area is approximately 23 five acres. 24 25 At CFMETR (Nanoose), there are four buildings, a computer 26 building, generator building, radar building, and Cinesextant 27 building. A helicopter pad and a large pier for Fleet ships and small 28 pier for range craft exist at Ranch Pt. A building to house the 29 computer site, a Helicopter pad, and a pier for small craft and float 30 planes are located at Winchelsea Island. The land area is
2-41 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 approximately three acres at Ranch Point and about five acres at 2 Winchelsea Island. 3 4 All range sites have the capability of accessing NUWC Range 5 frequencies VHF (7 channels), UHF (2 channels), VHF Marine band, 6 and telephone.
7 2.4.4.1.4 Other SUA 8 There is no SUA associate with the NUWC ranges. 9
10 2.4.4.2 Scheduling 11 Scheduling is centralized at NUWC Keyport for all range sites 12 including CFMETR (Nanoose), and is accomplished through DoD 13 message, telephone, or mail.
14 2.4.4.3 Communications 15 Communications at NUWC Keyport are robust. Voice, data, video, 16 and telemetry are transmitted from remote sites to the Keyport 17 Facility by several technologies (Figure 2-25). 18 Range System Dabob CFMETR Keyport Quinault Bay VHF voice Yes Yes Yes Yes UHF secure voice Yes Yes Yes Yes Cellular Phone Yes Yes Yes Limited P-band Telemetry (analog, digital to Yes Yes Yes Yes 4800 baud Differential GPS Data Link Yes Yes No Yes Underwater Telephone (Bottom Yes Yes No Portable mounted) Marine Band Voice Yes Yes No Yes DREN (internet link the rest of the No Yes No world) Microwave system Yes Yes No Yes 3-D track (underwater) Yes Yes No 2-D yes RNet (above surface) Yes Yes Yes Yes 19 Source: NUWC Keyport, Northwest Range User’s Guide 20 Figure 2-25. NUWC Keyport Communications Systems
21 2.4.4.3.1 Exercise Control and Coordination (EC&C) Circuits 22 There are dedicated RF circuits and other types of communications 23 for exercise control and coordination (see Figure 2-20).
24 2.4.4.3.2 Operations Communications (OC) Circuits 25 The operations communications circuits are the same as exercise 26 control and coordination.
2-42 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.4.4.3.3 Data Link (D/L) Circuits 2 Data links provide tracking, acoustics, voice, and video to the Range 3 Information Display Center.
4 2.4.4.4 Meteorology 5 Bathometric sensors are in place on all range sites to monitor 6 underwater conductivity and temperature. These measurements help 7 to determine sound velocity profiles during operations. Routine 8 above surface sensors exist on site for measuring air temperature, 9 wind direction, and wind velocity.
10 2.4.4.5 Targets and Target Arrays 11 NUWC Keyport range sites offer a full spectrum of artificial/real, 12 passive, stationary/mobile targets, operated & maintained by NUWC 13 Keyport. NUWC provides the MK-30 underwater target for ASW 14 training. The MK-30 is a fully programmable underwater vehicle 15 capable of acoustically simulating the characteristics of all known 16 submarines in the modern Navy. It is capable of speeds from 3 to 22 17 knots and can operate at depths from 50 to 2,000 feet. Other targets 18 include: 19 R&D Test Vehicles include the General Test Vehicle (GTV) 20 which is electric based, the eXperimental Test Vehicle 21 (XTV), and the Mobile Test Vehicle (MTV) that are thermal 22 based. The vehicles are used extensively for experimentation 23 and R&D of next generation USW Weapons and Systems. 24 EX 43 Over-the-side Stationary Target. For torpedo proofing 25 & special projects. 26 MK 69. Bottom Mounted Target and the programmable 27 over-the-side T&E Target. For torpedo proofing & special 28 projects. 29 SONAR Acoustic Target Source III. Provides a target source 30 & measuring system for sonar certification. 31 Passive Acoustic SONAR Target (PAST). Provides a target 32 source for sonar certification. 33 Countermeasure Emulator (CME). Emulates USN 34 countermeasure devices against homing capability of acoustic 35 guided torpedoes. 36 Modular Target. Alternative to "PAST" and stationary CME, 37 MATIMS, and MK 17 target. 38 Mobile Acoustic Target Interrogator System (MATIMS). 39 Used to evaluate mobile target performance. 40 Expendable Influence Target (EIT). Used to conduct non- 41 destructive passive warhead influence testing on torpedoes 42 during terminal homing impact. 43 Target Size Measurement System (TSMS). Provides precise 44 target strength measurements, directional passive monitoring, 45 passive noise emitter, transponder or echo repeating target. 46 MK 6 (BAT). Towed white noise generator.
2-43 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Towed Submarine Simulator (TOSS). Provides a real 2 motion, Doppler target with submarine signatures. 3 Towed Countermeasure Emulator (Towed CME). Same as 4 TOSS plus signal processing to emulate towed CME. 5 Target Ship Ex YO-202. A former yard oiler instrumented 6 for proximity testing of torpedoes. 7 Pseudo Submarine Target (PST). Tests weapon detection of 8 a zero Doppler target.
9 2.4.4.6 Instrumentation 10 Several above water tracking and navigation systems support the 11 NUWC Keyport ranges. These ranges were described previously in 12 Figures 2-21 through 2-24. 13 14 These systems provide track data to meet test, safety, surveillance 15 and control objectives. 16 Range Navigation System 17 Differential GPS 18 Aid to Navigation 19 Underwater Emergency Warning System 20 Cinesextant (video tracking and TSPI system at Nanoose) & 21 Theodolite (surveyor’s instrument) 22 Safety & Surveillance Radar 23 Vessel Radar 24 25 The DBRC, CFETR, and Quinalt Sites have fixed instrumentation. 26 The Keyport Site does not have fixed instrumentation, but uses a 27 portable system called SWIFT when needed. SWIFT portable range 28 is also used in non-instrumented areas of the ranges or when 29 customer requirements dictate.
30 2.4.4.6.1 Tracking 31 All NUWC sites have fixed underwater acoustic measuring and 32 tracking systems. Keyport range site uses the SWIFT portable 33 system (see Figures 2-21 through 2-24).
34 2.4.4.6.2 Exercise Control and Coordination (EC&C) 35 A robust underwater system of arrays and above water radars, and 36 GPS, provide exercise control and coordination (see Figures 2-21 37 through 2-25).
38 2.4.4.6.3 Modeling and Simulation (M&S) 39 Modeling and simulation are part of the RDT&E process, and are 40 conducted in the RDT&E work on the NUWC Keyport range sites.
41 2.4.4.6.4 Scoring 42 The significant instrumentation designed for underwater RDT&E is 43 ideal for training Fleet units on a small scale.
2-44 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.4.4.6.5 Debriefing 2 The significant instrumentation designed for underwater RDT&E is 3 ideal for training Fleet units on a small scale.
4 2.4.4.7 Opposition Forces 5 No standing OPFOR exists.
6 2.4.4.8 Other Infrastructure 7 A combination of helicopter, surface vessel, and underwater 8 recovery vehicles exists to retrieve targets, torpedoes, and 9 underwater vehicles. NUWC Keyport operates a fleet of 14 small 10 ships and boats that launch and retrieve ordnance (e.g., torps), 11 conduct salvage ops, support research, and perform range 12 maintenance. 13 14 Other infrastructure includes: 15 Underwater Noise Analysis Facility (UNAFAC) 16 Noise Recording System (NRS-4) 17 Fire Control/Launch Systems 18 Bottom Moored Array (BMA) at Dabob Bay 19 Portable Acoustic Measurement System (PAMS) 20 High Frequency Noise Measurement System (HFNMS) 21 Ambient Noise System (ANS) 22 Multimedia Acoustic Reporting System (MARS) 23 Acoustic Test Facilities (ATF)
24 2.5 NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE TRAINING RANGES
25 The NSW Advanced Training Detachment Kodiak was established 26 in 1987, originally part of NSW Group ONE, to conduct cold 27 weather training. The detachment transferred to the Naval Special 28 Warfare Center (NSWC) in the year 2000, and formally developed 29 and implemented the current course of instruction in 2002. The 30 detachment consists of fifteen Navy personnel, mostly SEAL 31 instructors, conducts training year around on Kodiak Island, Alaska. 32 Each class is 38 days in duration with an average class size of 50 33 undergraduate SEAL students. Training focuses on the cold 34 environment, land navigation, survival skills, cliff negotiation, 35 river/stream crossing, and a collective skills exercise. Figure 2-26 36 describes the range attributes of the NSW training areas at Kodiak.
37 2.5.1 NSW Advanced Training, Detachment Kodiak Island
38 2.5.1.1 Scheduling 39 NSWC, in Coronado, CA, manages the schedule for all west coast 40 SEAL undergraduate training including cold weather training at 41 Kodiak. SEAL Team members that did not get initial cold weather 42 training at Kodiak schedule the training through NSW Center.
2-45 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.5.1.2 Training Media 2 Training media emphasizes cold weather and cold water. This 3 includes the North Pacific Ocean contiguous to Kodiak Island; 4 rocky, steep terrain on the coastline; and mountainous terrain with 5 streams to traverse on the northern quarter of Kodiak Island. The 6 students come ashore from the cold ocean onto a rocky beach in cold 7 to freezing temperatures, possibly with rain or snow. They hike up 8 mountainous terrain over 2500 feet in elevation and transition to 9 colder harsher climate as they climb. They must cross natural 10 streams and make concealment shelters for cover and protection as 11 they rest.
12 2.5.1.3 Training Area 13 NSW Advanced Training Detachment Kodiak maintains a training 14 facility, on 130 acres of land leased from the USCG, on the northeast 15 tip of Kodiak Island, called Spruce Cape. The facility is on level, 16 wooded terrain, situated approximately 30 feet above the ocean 17 separated by a cliff face. The facility consists of five metal buildings 18 for classroom instruction, berthing, dining, vehicle maintenance and 19 storage. There are seventeen trucks to transport students, five snow 20 machines, and four ATVs. Most of the cold weather instruction 21 occurs on several hundred acres of mountainous terrain, ocean areas 22 near land, and rocky cliff faces meeting the ocean. The land is 23 owned by the state of Alaska, Indian Corporations, or the Bureau of 24 Land Management (Figures 2-27 and 2-28).
2-46 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Range Attribute NSW Operational Elements Airspace Area None Lower Limit NA Upper Limit NA Availability NA Supersonic Ops NA Other NA Sea Space Area 10 nm2 Availability 7/24 Vicinity to land Within 1 nm of Kodiak Is. Or Long Is. Other Undersea Space Area ~10 nm2 Availability As required Description Within 1 nm of land System of Systems Scheduling System Web-enabled database? No Pre-event module? No Real-time event module No Post-event module? No Post-event msg generation? No Other Cold Wx Trng IAW NSW Syllabus Communications System Voice Circuits VHF / FM hand held radios Secure Capabilities Yes, SIPR net Data-link No Weather Observing and Reporting (Met) System Met System USCG Station Kodiak provides met info Target System Air Targets None Air to Ground Targets None Surface Targets None Underwater Targets None Instrumentation System Tracking System No High Fidelity No Low Fidelity No Scoring No Debriefing Yes, in classroom after outdoor events Other Opposition Force (OPFOR) System Air OPFOR No Surface OPFOR No Subsurface OPFOR No EC Threat capability No 2 Source: Naval Special Warfare Center 3 Figure 2-26. NSW Range Attributes on Kodiak Island, AK
2-47 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources Land Records Information Section, USGS 3 Figure 2-27. NSW Training Sites on Kodiak Island
2-48 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources Land Records Information Section, Alaska Department of Community and 3 Economic Development, USGS 4 Figure 2-28. NSW Training Sites and Land Ownership, Kodiak, AK
2-49 VOL II, CH 2RANGE COMPLEX DESCRIPTION FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2.5.1.4 Authorized Ordnance 2 No ordnance is authorized on the NSW training areas.
3 2.5.1.5 Communications 4 Hand held radios are used by NSW instructors. The NSW facility 5 has internet, SIPR net, and telephones.
6 2.5.1.6 Targets and Scoring 7 There are no targets or scoring systems on the NSW training areas. 8 The SEALs need a live fire rifle range for training students in cold 9 environments. A municipal range exists near Salonie Creek at the 10 mouth of Women’s Bay. The city council of Kodiak favors allowing 11 the SEALs to train on this range. However, due to 7.62mm and 12 5.56mm Surface Danger Zone requirements, the range requires 13 modification to change the direction of fire. Once a live-fire range is 14 accomplished, NSWC expects each student to fire 20-30 rounds of 15 7.62 or 5.56mm per class.
16 2.5.1.6.1 Instrumentation 17 There is no instrumentation on the NSW training areas.
18 2.5.1.6.2 Opposition Forces 19 There are no opposition forces on the NSW training areas.
2-50 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3 CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS
2 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS
3 The principal focus of the Northwest Training Range Complex 4 (NWTRC) Range Complex Management Plan (RCMP) is on training 5 and test operations that support the Navy Fleet Readiness Training 6 Plan (FRTP) and Naval Special Warfare (NSW) training. The 7 purpose of focusing on these exercises is to: (1) support the 8 development of subsequent environmental planning documents and 9 (2) develop an investment strategy tailored to the FRTP and NSW 10 training operations conducted or planned within the range complex.
11 3.1.1 Method for Determining Training Operations Included in the Northwest Training 12 RCMP
13 The method for determining the training operations to be included in 14 the NWTRC RCMP is a four-step process starting with the Navy 15 Tactical Task List (NTTL): 16 1. A list was developed of Navy tactical tasks (NTA) that: a) are 17 FRTP tactical training operations or events; b) require a 18 range, training area, operating area (OPAREA), special use 19 airspace (SUA), or facility; and c) may require environmental 20 planning or investment to support the training operation, 21 event, or both. 22 2. Each task on the tailored NTA list was correlated to one or 23 more types of Navy training operations. 24 3. This list of training operations was further assessed for those 25 that are currently conducted or are planned in the future 26 within the entire NWTRC. 27 4. The final list was developed by removing one-time or non- 28 recurring operations. 29 30 The result of this process is a representative list of training 31 operations and events currently conducted and/or planned over the 32 next ten years at the NWTRC that may require further investment or 33 environmental planning. Training operations conducted by the 34 United States Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps were determined 35 in the same manner as Navy operations using the Air Force Task List 36 (AFTL), Army Universal Task List (AULT), and Marine Corps Task 37 List (MCTL) respectively, and are listed in applicable operations 38 sections within the chapter.
39 3.1.2 Operations Included in the Northwest Training RCMP
40 The operations included in this RCMP are arranged in NTA order as 41 shown in Figure 3-1. One Army tactical task (ART) operation and 42 several research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) 43 operations are also included in the figure. The RCMP Volume I 44 Guidebook provides thorough descriptions of each type of operation. 45
3-1 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Navy Task NTA Range Operation
Deploy/Conduct Maneuver 1.0 Long Title Short Title Conduct Tactical Insertion and 1.1.2.4 Insertion/Extraction Insertion/Extraction Extraction Perform Mine Countermeasures 1.3.1 Mine Neutralization Mine Neutralization Detonate Mines and Explosives 1.4.4 Land Demolitions Land Demolitions Conduct Navy Special Warfare 1.5.6 Naval Special Warfare Operations NSW OPS Develop Intelligence 2.0 Perform Tactical Reconnaissance and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance ISR 2.2.3 Surveillance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations UAV OPS Employ Firepower 3.0 Bombing Exercise (Sea) BOMBEX (Sea) Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise MISSILEX (A-S) Attack Surface Targets 3.2.1.1 Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (Ship) GUNEX (S-S) (Ship) Sink Exercise SINKEX Antisubmarine Warfare Tracking Exercise – ASW TRACKEX – MPA Maritime Patrol Aircraft
Antisubmarine Warfare Tracking Exercise – ASW TRACKEX – Helicopter Attack Submerged Targets 3.2.1.2 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise - ASW TRACKEX - Submarine Submarine Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise – ASW TORPEX – MPA and Helicopter Maritime Patrol Aircraft and Helicopter Attack Enemy Aircraft and Missiles 3.2.3 Air Combat Maneuver ACM (Offensive Counter Air) Suppression of Enemy Air Defense 3.2.4 High-Speed Anti-radiation Missile Exercise HARMEX (SEAD) Conduct Electronic Attack 3.2.5 Electronic Combat Operations EC OPS Interdict Enemy Operational Forces and 3.2.6 Bombing Exercise (Land) BOMBEX (Land) Targets Intercept, Engage, and Neutralize Enemy Aircraft and Missile Targets 3.2.7 Surface-to-Air Gunnery Exercise (Defensive Counter Air) GUNEX (S-A) Conduct Fire Support 3.2.8 Marksmanship Marksmanship Army Universal Task (AUTL) 2.0 Conduct Airborne Operations 2.5.4/2.5.5 Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Low-Level Training and Air-to-Ground GUNEX Research, Development, Test, and N/A Evaluation Submarine Post-Refit Trials N/A Submarine Post-Refit Trials Torpedo and Experimental Vehicle N/A Torpedo and Experimental Vehicle Testing Testing Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUV) N/A Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUV) Operations Operations 1 Figure 3-1. Navy Training and Test Operations in the NWTRC RCMP 2 Numbers of operations are calculated from Fiscal Year 2004 (FY 3 2004) data. Operations that did not occur in FY 2004 but occur on a 4 cyclical basis are described to reflect a typical year in which the 5 operation may occur. Summary information and data on each
3-2 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 operation are displayed on a data strip following the operation 2 description and are further detailed in the Operations Data Book. 3 Additional NTAs and ARTs that have been supported or will likely 4 be supported by the NWTRC in the next ten years are listed in 5 Figures 3-2 and 3-3 to provide a comprehensive picture of range 6 capabilities. 7 8 The operational data is derived from several sources, including 9 Annual Airspace Usage Reports, Annual Military Training Route 10 records, NWTRC range scheduling data, and user interviews. The 11 metric used to describe the amount of training varies depending on 12 the source of the data available for each type of operation. The 13 metrics used to quantify operations at the NWTRC are operations 14 and sorties. 15 3.1.3 Major Range Events Included in an RCMP 16 Major range events included in an RCMP are grouped separately 17 from individual range operations. They are significant operational 18 employments during which range operations are conducted involving 19 multiple NTAs, units, and capabilities. Typically they occur across a 20 broad area of the range complex or in multiple range complexes. 21 22 Data are typically reported at the individual range operation level, so 23 specific component details of a major range event are typically 24 captured in the range operation/NTA data strip (Integrated or 25 Sustainment columns), while the number and types of major range 26 events are displayed in a data strip following the description of the 27 major range event. In general, major range events may include: 28 Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 29 Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) 30 Expeditionary Strike Group Exercise (ESGEX) 31 32 There were no major range events conducted in the NWTRC in 33 FY 2004 nor are any normally scheduled in the range complex.
34 3.2 OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION
35 3.2.1 Insertion/Extraction (NTA 1.1.2.4)
36 Insertion/extraction operations hone individual skills in delivery and 37 withdrawal of personnel and equipment using unconventional 38 methods. Helicopter Rope Suspension Training (HRST) and 39 parachute training are the principal insertion/extraction methods used 40 by explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams at the NWTRC. 41 42 HRST encompasses Helocast, special purpose insertion and 43 extraction (SPIE), rappel, and fast rope exercises. Helocast training 44 involves a helicopter flying slowly and low over the water near a 45 target to allow EOD team members to jump out one at a time. The 46 technique is typically used for quick insertion to dispose of 47 hazardous floating mines. A SPIE rigging exercise involves up to
3-3 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 eight personnel attached to a rope suspended from a helicopter, 2 allowing the EOD team to be hoisted from or lowered onto the 3 ground without having to land the helicopter. In fast roping, EOD 4 team members slide down a rope from a helicopter, which hovers as 5 high as 60 feet off the ground. Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile 6 Unit Eleven (EODMU-11) detachments conduct HRST training 7 operations monthly throughout the Seaplane Base using an H-60. 8 9 The parachute insertion method is designed to place special forces 10 teams into an objective area undetected to conduct clandestine 11 operations, either reconnaissance and surveillance, or direct action 12 type missions. EODMU-11 detachments perform parachute training 13 four days per month at Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville and two 14 days per month in Crescent Harbor.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Helicopter Seaplane Ops 36 0 0 0 36 Insertion/Extraction Base 1.1.2.4 OLF Ops 48 0 0 0 48 Parachute Crescent Insertion/Extraction Ops 24 0 0 0 24 Harbor TOTAL Ops 108 0 0 0 108
15 Future Activities and Considerations: At the time of data collection, 16 nine EODMU-11 detachments were homebased at the Whidbey 17 Island Seaplane Base. Since that time, the unit has expanded to ten 18 detachments. Accordingly, future HRST and parachute training 19 operations are expected to increase by 10 percent. There is also a 20 potential to expand high altitude low opening (HALO)/high altitude 21 high opening (HAHO) training operations, currently conducted at 22 OLF Coupeville, to Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility 23 Boardman (Boardman).
24 3.2.2 Mine Neutralization (NTA 1.3.1)
25 Naval EOD operations require proficiency in underwater mine 26 neutralization. Mine neutralization operations consist of underwater 27 demolitions designed to train personnel in the destruction of mines, 28 unexploded ordnance (UXO), obstacles, or other structures in an area 29 to prevent interference with friendly or neutral forces and non- 30 combatants. 31 32 EODMU-11 conducts underwater demolition training in Crescent 33 Harbor. Typically, two blocks of C-4 are used per operation, 34 consisting of one surface and one subsurface detonation. The total 35 duration of the exercise is five hours (four hours for the underwater 36 detonation and one hour for the surface detonation). Small boats 37 such as MK-5, 7, or 9 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIB) are used to 38 insert personnel for underwater operations and either a helicopter (H- 39 60) or RHIB is used for insertion for surface operations. Underwater
3-4 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 demolition training is also conducted at the Floral Point and Naval 2 Magazine (NAVMAG) Indian Island Underwater EOD Ranges, 3 though much less frequently (approximately 4 events per year at 4 each). The numbers of operations recorded in the data strip below 5 reflect the number of single detonations. 6 7 Naval Special Clearance Team ONE (NSCT-1) uses the Naval 8 Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport Range Site to conduct 9 mine warfare (MIW) training. NSCT-1's primary mission is to 10 conduct low-visibility, underwater mine and obstacle reconnaissance 11 and clearance operations from over the horizon to the seaward edge 12 of the surf zone. NSCT-1 is composed of SEALs, EOD divers, 13 USMC reconnaissance divers, dolphins, and unmanned undersea 14 vehicles (UUVs). In FY 2004, NSCT-1 conducted MIW training for 15 two weeks at the Keyport Range Site.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Crescent Ops 52 0 0 0 52 Harbor
Floral Point Ops 40 0 0 4 Mine Neutralization 1.3.1 Indian Ops 40 0 0 4 Island Keyport Ops 14 0 0 0 14 Range Site TOTAL Ops 74 0 0 0 74
16 Future Activities and Considerations: At the time of data collection, 17 nine EODMU-11 detachments were homebased at the Whidbey 18 Island Seaplane Base. Since that time, the unit has expanded to ten 19 detachments. Accordingly, underwater demolitions are expected to 20 increase by 10 percent. 21 22 Crescent Harbor is technically authorized for use of charges up to 20 23 lbs. net explosive weight (NEW). At the request of the Commander, 24 Naval Region Northwest (CNRNW), EOD units have implemented a 25 self-imposed normal use limit of 2.5 lbs NEW to mitigate the impact 26 of underwater demolitions training. This limit does not affect 27 operations tempo, but does affect training realism. The NAVMAG 28 Indian Island and Floral Point Underwater EOD Ranges have also 29 imposed reduced charge NEW for mitigation purposes. A biological 30 assessment has been conducted to determine the effects of this 31 training on forage fish and salmon and the Navy is awaiting the 32 biological opinion.
33 As far as MIW, a new building was recently completed in November 34 2005 at NUWC Keyport to house the Collaborative Test and 35 Evaluation Center (CTEC). The high-tech resources of the building 36 will enable units such as NSCT-1 to perform virtual mine training 37 exercises, thereby expanding MIW capabilities at the Keyport Range 38 Site.
3-5 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3.2.3 Land Demolitions (NTA 1.4.4)
2 Land demolitions occur at the Seaplane Base EOD Demolition 3 Training Range (Seaplane Base DTR) and at the Naval Base Kitsap 4 (NBK), Bangor EOD Demolition Training Range (NBK Bangor 5 DTR). A typical land demolition training exercise involves 6 disrupting inert improvised explosive devices (IEDs) using different 7 explosive-driven charges and tools such as C-4, DETA sheet, PAN 8 rounds, DET cord, or electric blasting caps. The NEW training limit 9 is 5 lbs. at the NBK Bangor DTR and 0.5 lbs. at the Seaplane Base 10 DTR. Other EOD training activity occurs outside the Seaplane Base 11 DTR within the Seaplane Base Survival Area and includes activities 12 such as locating and defusing (inert) surface ordnance. 13 14 Land demolitions are conducted at the Seaplane Base DTR eight 15 times per month by EODMU-11. EODMU-11 Detachment Bangor 16 conducted six operations on the NBK Bangor DTR in FY 2004.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
NBK Bangor Ops 60 0 0 6 Land Demolitions DTR 1.4.4 Seaplane Ops 96 0 0 0 96 Base DTR TOTAL Ops 102 0 0 0 102
17 Future Activities and Considerations: At the time of data collection, 18 nine EODMU-11 detachments were homebased at the Whidbey 19 Island Seaplane Base. Since that time, the unit has expanded to ten 20 detachments. Land demolitions are expected to increase by 10 21 percent with the addition of the detachment. 22 23 An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared in July 2000 to 24 evaluate the proposed relocation of the Seaplane Base DTR to be 25 used by EODMU-11 for a range of .25 lbs. to 5 lbs NEW, depending 26 upon weather and wind conditions, and up to fifteen detonations per 27 week; however, this has not yet been accomplished. Future 28 relocation opportunities may arise again in the future as the new Ault 29 Field weapons magazine is constructed and Seaplane Base 30 magazines are inactivated. Establishing an EOD DTR at Boardman 31 could fulfill both EOD and NSW requirements for large NEW and 32 fragmentation limits.
33 3.2.4 Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Operations (NTA 1.5.6)
34 All Navy SEALs attend the six-month Basic Underwater 35 Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) Training conducted by the Naval Special 36 Warfare Center (NSWC). Upon completion of BUD/S, all SEALs 37 attend Basic Airborne Training and then follow-on SEAL
3-6 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Qualification Training (SQT). SQT provides advanced individual 2 skills and small-unit training. 3 4 One of the initial phases of SQT is the SEAL Cold Weather 5 Maritime Course. The course is 38 days long, with the first 28 days 6 taught at the Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility in Alaska. 7 After completing the training at Kodiak, a team of five instructors 8 accompanies the class to San Diego, California for 10 days of 9 Maritime Operations Training. The Kodiak detachment trains four 10 classes per year with an average of 50 students per class. The 11 training curriculum is divided into six segments, each lasting three to 12 seven days and includes: 13 Indoctrination/gear familiarization/lying-up point (LUP) 14 Survival skills/over-the-beach (OTB) training 15 Land navigation 16 Cliff negotiation,/river and stream crossing 17 Collective skills exercises (CSX) 18 Maritime operations (San Diego) 19 20 SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE (SDVT-1) from Naval Special 21 Warfare Group THREE (NSWG-3) conducts underwater Unit Level 22 Training (ULT) exercises twice a year at the NUWC Keyport Range 23 Site and Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC) to fulfill cold water 24 training requirements. During training detachments, operations 25 occur daily for a six- to seven-week period. SDV diving operations 26 make up approximately 4 weeks of this detachment. 27 28 The remaining two to three weeks are used for land-based training at 29 Indian Island. The SDV is launched from Port Townsend, travels for 30 approximately three hours, and delivers four to six SEALs to Indian 31 Island where OTB training occurs. The SEALs also perform special 32 reconnaissance while on the island. The SDV returns two days later 33 to recover the SEALs.
Unit Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Other Service Total Training
BUD/S Training Kodiak Ops 112 0 0 0 112 Keyport Range Site/ Ops 56 0 0 0 56 Underwater ULT 1.5.6 DBRC Indian Ops 35 0 0 0 35 Island TOTAL Ops 203 0 0 0 203
34 Future Activities and Considerations: Currently, there is no live-fire 35 rifle range for training SEALs to fire in cold environments. The city 36 council of Kodiak is considering options to provide the SEALs such 37 range. If this capability is realized, NSWC anticipates that each 38 student will fire 20-30 rounds of 7.62 mm or 5.56 mm per class. 39
3-7 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 According to SDVT-1, optimal range conditions would allow for an 2 uninterrupted transition from OTB training to a live-fire sniper 3 operation (currently not available at Indian Island). The Lake 4 Hancock Target Range, the Boardman range, or Ault Field could 5 potentially provide this capability in the future. 6 7 SDVT-1 also requires an underwater demolition range that allows a 8 significantly larger NEW than the current limits. Some types of 9 operations could require a NEW of 300 to 500 lbs. Navy 3 or Navy 10 7 should be explored as potential locations to satisfy this need.
11 3.2.5 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) (NTA 2.2.3)
12 Intelligence refers to the information and knowledge obtained 13 through observation, investigation, analysis, or understanding. 14 Surveillance and reconnaissance refer to the means by which the 15 information is observed. Surveillance is the systematic observation 16 of a targeted area or group, usually over an extended time, while 17 reconnaissance is a specific mission performed to obtain specific 18 data about a target. 19 20 ISR is conducted by P-3C, Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) in W-237 21 and the Pacific Northwest Operating Area (PACNW OPAREA). 22 Operations typically last 6 hours and involve a crew of 11 personnel. 23 Approximately 980 sonobuoys were expended by P3-C to support 24 ISR operations in FY 2004. Canadian Air Force CP-140 MPA also 25 utilize W-237 to conduct sovereignty patrols. These operations 26 occur one to two times per week and last approximately three hours. 27 28 On occasion, small unit (SOF) air, surface, subsurface, and ground 29 ISR operations occur in the Crescent Harbor/Survival Area 30 OPAREAS. Examples of special forces units that have used the 31 Survival Area for ground ISR training include Navy Reserve Mobile 32 Inshore Undersea Warfare Units, the U.S. Army 1st Special Forces 33 Group, and the U.S. Army Intelligence Group of the 1st Stryker 34 Brigade.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
W-237 / ISR 2.2.3 Ops 172 0 0 0 172 OPAREA
35 Future Activities and Considerations: The Lockheed-built P-3C 36 Orion aircraft is expected to be replaced by the P-8, a variant of the 37 Boeing 737, between FY 2012 and FY 2015. Aircraft capabilities 38 are expected to remain the same with the exception of the P-8 39 capability to control broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) 40 UAVs. No changes in training requirements or tempo are 41 anticipated.
3-8 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3.2.6 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Operations (NTA 2.2.3)
2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle operations train forces to obtain 3 information about enemy activity and tactical areas of operation 4 using UAVs. The Boeing Company conducts flight tests and launch 5 and recovery exercises for the Scan Eagle UAV in Boardman 6 restricted areas R-5701, R-5706, and Admiralty Bay restricted area 7 R-6701 under contract to the Office of Naval Research. The Scan 8 Eagle UAV has a unique recovery system called skyhook, which 9 involves catching a rope suspended from a 50-foot pole. This system 10 allows the UAV to recover without a landing field or runway. 11 12 UAV operations in Boardman are approximately 1.5 hours in 13 duration and can involve as many as 3-4 aircraft in flight at one time, 14 all operating independently. Operations in Admiralty Bay are 15 conducted three times a year for three to four days each and consist 16 of maritime testing and maritime training involving a 51’ research 17 vessel with Scan Eagle launch and recovery systems and control 18 center capabilities. An operation using the research vessel typically 19 lasts two to three hours. In FY 2004, a couple of UAV operations 20 were conducted in W-237. However, 51’ vessels are significantly 21 hampered by high sea states in this area and therefore UAV RDT&E 22 operations in W-237 are not anticipated to continue.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Boardman Ops 728 0 0 0 728
Admiralty UAV OPS 2.2.3 Ops 10 0 0 0 10 Bay
W-237 Ops 20 0 0 2
TOTAL Ops 740 0 0 0 740
23 Future Activities and Considerations: UAV operations at the 24 NWTRC are expected to quadruple in FY 2006. Because of this 25 increase, future operations around Boardman will also take place in 26 the Arlington Certificate of Authority (COA) issued by the Federal 27 Aviation Administration (FAA). This COA will allow Boeing to fly 28 UAVs outside of restricted airspace in addition to Boardman. There 29 is also the potential for fleet deployment of a Scan Eagle-type UAV 30 in the future.
31 Navy 7, located beneath R-6701, was not scheduled in FY 2004 but 32 can be used for UAV operations. Also, the Lake Hancock Range 33 could prove to be a valuable training area for future UAV use. As 34 early as FY 2012, the P-8 will begin to replace the locally based P-3 35 aircraft. The P-8 capability to control the BAMS UAVs will 36 contribute to the increase in UAV training missions. Other future 37 requirements for UAV platforms such as Fire Scout, Global Hawk, 38 and Predator as well as UAV operations from submersible, ship,
3-9 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 guided, nuclear (SSGN) submarines may affect UAV operations 2 tempo.
3 3.2.7 Bombing Exercise (Sea) (BOMBEX (Sea)) (NTA 3.2.1.1)
4 Fixed-wing aircraft conduct air-to-surface BOMBEX operations 5 against stationary targets. Historically, ordnance has been released 6 throughout W-237, just south of W-237, and in international waters 7 in accordance with international laws, rules, and regulations. P-3C 8 squadrons from Commander, Patrol, and Reconnaissance Wing TEN 9 (CPRW-10) are required to conduct one live-fire drop per 24-month 10 cycle. CPRW-10 consists of three active duty VP squadrons and one 11 Reserve squadron (VP-69). A total of 12 crews are in each 12 squadron. One crew will drop live fire (consisting of four MK-82) 13 while the remaining 11 crews will drop inert ordnance (consisting of 14 four BDU-45) for a total of 12 events per squadron per cycle. 15 Accordingly, 96 pieces of ordnance, consisting of 8 MK-82 and 88 16 BDU-45, were dropped in FY 2004.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
W-237/ BOMBEX (Sea) 3.2.1.1 Ops 24 0 0 0 24 OPAREA
17 Future Activities and Considerations: The Lockheed-built P-3C 18 Orion aircraft is expected to be replaced by the P-8 between FY 2012 19 and FY 2015. Aircraft capabilities are expected to remain the same 20 with the exception of the P-8 capability to control BAMS UAVs. No 21 changes in training requirements or tempo are anticipated. In 22 addition, the introduction of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is not 23 expected to have an appreciable effect on unit level BOMBEXs
24 3.2.8 Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (MISSILEX (A-S)) (NTA 3.2.1.1)
25 Air-to-Surface MISSILEX operations consist of the attacking 26 platform releasing a guided weapon at a designated target. Similar to 27 the BOMBEX operations, VP squadrons are required to perform 28 three forward firing missile shots per 24 month cycle. The shots 29 consist of one Maverick (AGM-65), one Harpoon (AGM-84D), and 30 one Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) (AGM-84E) against 31 designated targets. No MISSILEXs were conducted by VP 32 squadrons in FY 2004 but are expected to occur as required in FY 33 2005.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
W-237 / MISSILEX (A-S) 3.2.1.1 Ops 00 0 0 0 OPAREA 34 Future Activities and Considerations: The Lockheed-built P-3C 35 Orion aircraft is expected to be replaced by the P-8 between FY 2012
3-10 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 and FY 2015. Aircraft capabilities are expected to remain the same 2 with the exception of the P-8’s capability to control BAMS UAVs. 3 No changes in training requirements or tempo are anticipated. The 4 BAMS UAV is not expected to directly affect this operation; 5 however, UAV training requirements and their concept of operations 6 have not yet been fully determined. Also of consideration, the EA- 7 18G lethal attack capability slated for 2014 and beyond may include 8 A-S missile firing capability.
9 3.2.9 Surface-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise (Ship) (GUNEX (S-S) (Ship)) (NTA 3.2.1.1)
10 Surface gunnery exercises take place in the open ocean to provide 11 gunnery practice for Navy ship crews. Exercises can involve a 12 variety of surface targets that are either stationary or maneuverable. 13 A GUNEX lasts approximately one to two hours, depending on 14 target services and weather conditions. 15 16 The Canadian Pacific Fleet conducts a portion of their Task Group 17 Exercise (TGEX) (similar in scope to a Composite Training Unit 18 Exercise [COMPTUEX]) in the PACNW OPAREA three times per 19 year involving one destroyer (DDH) (the HMCS Algonquin), one 20 support ship (AOR) (the HMCS Protecteur), and two frigates (FFH) 21 (Halifax class). Each DDH and FFH conducts firing exercises 22 against either a Floating at-Sea Target (FAST) or a Barracuda Target 23 (a remote-controlled RHIB). The gun systems employed against 24 surface targets include the 57 mm, 76 mm, and .50 caliber machine 25 gun.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
GUNEX (S-S) (Ship) 3.2.1.1 OPAREA Ops 90 0 0 0 90
26 Future Activities and Considerations: Very few surface operations 27 are conducted in the PACNW OPAREA because of inclement 28 weather, rough water, and the transit distance from port to the open 29 ocean OPAREA. According to Maritime Forces Pacific, exercises 30 involving Canadian ships are expected to decrease in the future (see 31 Section 3.2.16).
32 3.2.10 Sink Exercise (SINKEX) (NTA 3.2.1.1)
33 A SINKEX provides training to ship and aircraft crews in delivering 34 live ordnance on a real target. The target is an empty, cleaned, and 35 environmentally remediated ship hull that is towed to sea and set 36 adrift at the SINKEX location. The duration of a SINKEX is 37 unpredictable because it ends when the target sinks, which is 38 sometimes immediately after the first weapon impact and sometimes 39 after multiple impacts by a variety of weapons. No SINKEX 40 occurred in FY 2004. However, one SINKEX was conducted in FY 41 2005 and involved two destroyers, a frigate, eight F/A-18, two
3-11 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 SH-60B, a P-3 operating from land, two E-2C, and personnel from 2 EOD Group One. Four U.S. Air Force F-15Es also participated in 3 the exercise. 4 5 Ordnance included 7.62 mm, 5-inch, .50 cal, 76 mm, and 20 mm 6 weapons, various bombs, air-to-surface missiles, an MK-48 torpedo, 7 and air-to-surface Harpoon missiles. The ex-USS FIFE and ex-USS 8 OLDENDORF served as targets.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
W-237/ SINKEX 3.2.1.1 Ops 00 0 0 0 OPAREA
9 Future Activities and Considerations: The number of hulks that can 10 be provided for sinking along with inclement seasonal weather can 11 limit SINKEX operations. The proposed number of future SINKEX 12 operations to occur in the NWTRC is one per year with a maximum 13 of two per year.
14 3.2.11 Antisubmarine Warfare Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise (ASW TRACKEX/ASW 15 TORPEX) (NTA 3.2.1.2)
16 ASW TRACKEX trains aircraft, ship, and submarine crews in 17 tactics, techniques, and procedures for search, detection, localization, 18 and tracking of submarines. A typical unit-level exercise involves 19 one ASW unit (aircraft, ship, or submarine) versus one target, 20 usually an MK 30 Mobile ASW target, an MK 39 Expendable 21 Mobile ASW training target (EMATT), or a live submarine. The 22 target may be non-evading while operating on a specified track or 23 fully evasive. 24 25 Participating units use active and passive sensors, including hull- 26 mounted sonar, towed arrays, variable depth sonar, and sonobuoys 27 for tracking. If the exercise continues into the firing of a practice 28 torpedo, it is termed a TORPEX. The ASW TORPEX usually starts 29 as a TRACKEX to achieve the firing solution. 30 31 At the NWTRC, P-3 MPA conducts ASW TRACKEX operations for 32 basic level, individual crew training on a weekly basis in W-237, and 33 the PACNW OPAREA. The majority of P-3 ASW missions 34 requiring an instrumented underwater training range (UTR) occur at 35 the Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE) near San 36 Clemente Island. Canadian CP-140 MPA and Sea King helicopters 37 conduct ASW tracking exercises on a monthly basis at the Nanoose 38 Range Site with every other mission involving the expenditure of a 39 practice torpedo (TORPEX). Approximately 3,244 sonobuoys were 40 expended during ASW TRACKEXs in FY 2004. Of those 41 sonobuoys deployed, 275 were AN/SSQ-110 extended echo ranging 42 (EER) sonobuoys, which provide long-range, active detection of 43 submerged submarines.
3-12 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 ASW TRACKEX is also a primary training exercise for NBK 2 Bangor-based submarines. Training is conducted at the intermediate 3 level and occurs in the PACNW OPAREA, sub areas C3 to E6. In 4 FY 2004, eight ship, submersible, ballistic, nuclear (SSBN) 5 submarines conducted ASW TRACKEX operations. These 6 operations involved P-3s 30 percent of the time in FY 2004. 7 Training events with P-3s typically last 8 to 12 hours.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
W-237 / Ops 46 0 0 0 46 ASW TRACKEX – MPA OPAREA Nanoose Ops 29 0 0 0 29 Range Site Nanoose ASW TRACKEX - Helo Ops 12 0 0 0 12 3.2.1.2 Range Site ASW TRACKEX - Sub OPAREA Ops 96 0 0 0 96 ASW TORPEX – MPA & Nanoose Ops 60 0 0 6 Helo Range Site TOTAL Ops 189 0 0 0 189
8 Future Activities and Considerations: The Lockheed-built P-3C 9 Orion aircraft is expected to be replaced by the P-8 between FY 2012 10 and FY 2015. All aircraft capabilities are expected to remain the 11 same with the exception of the P-8 capability to control BAMS 12 UAVs. Commander, Submarine Squadron ELEVEN (CSS-11) has a 13 goal to increase involvement between the VP squadrons and 14 submarine squadrons from 30 percent to 75 percent in the future.
15 The Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) system is expected to 16 improve the capabilities of the EER using an improved sensor, the 17 AN/SSQ-101 Air Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR), in addition to 18 the AN/SSQ-110. The system functions similarly to the EER and 19 will not cause a change in the level of future operations. 20 21 In FY 2006, two SSGN submarines will be added to the current fleet 22 of eight SSBNs. The SSGNs will be homeported at NBK Bangor, 23 each with a crew of 200. With this addition, submarine ASW 24 TRACKEX operations are expected to increase by 25 percent.
25 3.2.12 Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) (NTA 3.2.3) (AFT 1.1.1) (MCT 3.2.6)
26 ACM includes basic flight maneuvers (BFM) where aircraft engage 27 in offensive and defensive maneuvering against each other. During 28 an ACM engagement, no ordnance is fired. These operations 29 typically involve two aircraft; however, based upon the training 30 requirement, ACM exercises may involve over a dozen aircraft. 31 32 ACM operations within the NWTRC are primarily conducted by EA- 33 6B Prowlers within the military operating areas (MOAs), warning 34 areas, and military training routes (MTRs). Air Force or Air 35 National Guard F-15s and Marine Corps FA-18s also conduct ACM
3-13 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 in these areas, although on a much less frequent basis (about 5 2 percent of the total sorties). The MTRs are used for low altitude 3 tactical training (LATT), which involves aircraft flying at speeds 4 exceeding 300 knots and under 3,000 feet above ground level 5 (AGL).
NTA Unit Other Operation AFT Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service MCT Boardman Sorties 616 0 0 26 642 Okanogan Sorties 257 0 0 18 275 Olympic Sorties 720 0 0 4 724 ACM 3.2.3 1.1.1 Roosevelt Sorties 154 0 0 20 174 3.2.6 Darrington Sorties 180 0 0 0 180 MTRs Sorties 1,189 0 0 81 1,270 TOTAL Sorties 3,116 0 0 149 3,265
6 Future Activities and Considerations: The EA-6B “Prowler” will be 7 replaced by the EA-18G “Growler” between FY 2008 and FY 2012. 8 The total buy of EA-18G aircraft is currently 84. For the NWTRC, 9 the existing 72 EA-6B aircraft will be replaced by 59 EA-18G 10 aircraft; 45 EA-18Gs will replace the current 52 EA-6Bs in fleet 11 squadrons and 14 EA-18Gs will replace 20 EA-6Bs currently in the 12 Fleet Readiness Squadron (FRS). The result will be an 18% 13 decrease in the number of electronic attack (VAQ) aircraft stationed 14 at NAS Whidbey Island. 15 16 The Navy will disestablish the three remaining EA-6B expeditionary 17 squadrons at a rate of one per year between FY 2010 and FY 2012, 18 resulting in a decrease of both aircraft and personnel associated with 19 these squadrons. When the transition to the EA-18G is complete, the 20 FRS will no longer train replacement aircrews for Marine Corps and 21 Naval Reserve EA-6B squadrons or the expeditionary squadrons. 22 23 In summary, the primary types of mission training and readiness 24 requirements for the EA-18G squadrons will remain virtually the 25 same as those for the EA-6B squadrons with an additional air-to-air 26 combat training requirement. This new requirement is due to two 27 supplementary AGM-120C anti-air missiles on the EA-18G 28 configuration. Although the total number of training missions are 29 projected to decrease in the future because of the disestablishment of 30 the expeditionary squadrons, the greater role that ACM will play in 31 EA-18G aircrew training will cause a slight increase in each 32 aircrew’s ACM training requirements. These two factors should 33 roughly balance out, resulting in a net zero change in level of ACM 34 operations.
3-14 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3.2.13 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Exercise (HARMEX) (NTA 3.2.4)
2 High-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARM), the primary weapon for 3 the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), are designed to 4 attack emitting radar. A HARMEX trains aircrews to conduct 5 electronic attack using the HARM missile and is an integral part of 6 EA-6B squadron training. Only captive HARM is used during 7 HARMEX operations on the range complex. Captive weapons have 8 active seekers for training but are not released and have no warhead 9 or propulsion systems.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Boardman Sorties 154 0 0 0 154 Okanogan Sorties 1,028 0 0 0 1,028 HARMEX 3.2.4 Olympic Sorties 1,080 0 0 0 1,080 Roosevelt Sorties 616 0 0 0 616 TOTAL 3.2.4 Sorties 2,878 0 0 0 2,878
10 Future Activities and Considerations: The EA-6B “Prowler” will be 11 replaced by the EA-18G “Growler” between FY 2008 and FY 2012. 12 Overall EA-18G HARMEX operations are expected to be fewer than 13 the current number of EA-6B operations because of the 14 disestablishment of expeditionary squadrons and net loss of VAQ 15 aircraft.
16 Because of its large safety footprint, the HARM is never fired over 17 land except in time of war. Other specific range requirements for the 18 EA-18G HARM are classified.
19 3.2.14 Electronic Combat (EC) Operations (NTA 3.2.5)
20 Electronic combat (EC) prevents or reduces the effective use of 21 enemy electronic equipment and ensures the continued use of 22 friendly equipment as well as their command and control. EP-3, 23 P-3C, and EA-6B aircraft use a 15E34B electronic signal emitter to 24 conduct electronic support (ES) and electronic attack (EA) training 25 in W-237 and the Darrington OPAREA. 26 27 ES provides the capability to intercept, identify, and locate enemy 28 emitters while EA employs tactics, such as electronic jamming, to 29 prevent or reduce effective use of enemy electronic equipment and 30 command and control capability. Typical EC activities include 31 threat-avoidance training, signals analysis, and use of airborne and 32 surface electronic jamming devices to defeat tracking radar systems. 33 The EA-6B also fly threat profiles against surface ships to train 34 shipboard crews on the detection of threat aircraft electronic 35 signatures or counterjamming of their own electronic equipment.
3-15 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated) Sustainment Total Training Service
Darrington Sorties 1,802 0 0 0 1,802 EC OPS 3.2.5 W-237 Sorties 528 0 0 0 528 TOTAL Sorties 2,330 0 0 0 2,330
1 Future Activities and Considerations: The EA-6B “Prowler” will be 2 replaced by the EA-18G “Growler” between FY 2008 and FY 2012. 3 As explained in Section 3.2.13, overall EA-18G training operations 4 are expected to be fewer than the current number of EA-6B 5 operations. Currently, VAQ squadrons use Boardman airspace for 6 EC tactics training; however, Naval Weapons Systems Training 7 Facility (NWSTF) Boardman has no EC training emitters, targets, or 8 scoring system, causing tactical maneuvering to be conducted with 9 simulated threats only. The development of a new electronic warfare 10 mobile target system is in the initial stages. 11 12 The Lockheed-built P-3C Orion aircraft is expected to be replaced by 13 the P-8 between FY 2012 and FY 2015. It is unlikely that this 14 change will affect EC operations.
15 3.2.15 Bombing Exercise (Land) (BOMBEX (Land)) (NTA 3.2.6)
16 Fixed-wing aircraft conduct air-to-ground bombing exercises against 17 various types of stationary and moving targets. S-3B Viking aircraft 18 from North Island trained at Boardman for one week in November 19 2004. It was estimated that over 600 MK-76 and BDU-45 bombs 20 were dropped during the exercises. Although this operation did not 21 occur in FY 2004, it is included to reflect Boardman’s capabilities as 22 an aerial bombing range.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
BOMBEX (Land) 3.2.6 Boardman Ops 00 0 0 0
23 Future Activities and Considerations: The Boardman range is well 24 suited for future aircraft air-to-ground operations. Future airframes 25 may practice at low, medium, and high altitude using precision/laser- 26 guided munitions. Only inert bombs are dropped at Boardman at this 27 time. Allowing live air-to-ground ordnance at Boardman could 28 increase future operations.
29 3.2.16 Surface-to-Air Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX (S-A)) (NTA 3.2.7)
30 Surface-to-air, live-fire gunnery exercises use air target services to 31 simulate a threat aircraft or missile. Gun systems most commonly 32 employed against aerial targets include the 5-inch, 57 mm, 76 mm, 33 20 mm Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), and 7.62 mm. The target 34 is normally a towed target presented in a representative threat profile.
3-16 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The Canadian Pacific Fleet conducts air gunnery training three times 2 a year during the same TGEX described in Section 3.2.9. DDH and 3 FFH ships conduct four firing exercises each and the AOR conducts 4 CIWS. In FY 2005, Destroyer Squadron Nine ships conducted a 5 preventive maintenance CIWS test fire, called a pre-action 6 calibration firing (PACFIRE). Two hundred and fifty rounds of 7 20 mm were expended.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
W-237/ GUNEX (S-A) 3.2.7 Ops 72 0 0 0 72 OPAREA
8 Future Activities and Considerations: Very few surface operations 9 are conducted in the PACNW OPAREA because of inclement 10 weather, rough water, and the transit distance from port to the open 11 ocean OPAREA. U.S. Navy operations are expected to continue at 12 the current level. The Canadian Fleet now has air target towing 13 services available and their OPAREAS have been approved for 14 surface-to-air missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft missile (AAM) 15 exercises as well as air-to-surface strikes. With these changes, the 16 Canadian Fleet usage of the PACNW OPAREA is expected to 17 decline.
18 3.2.17 Marksmanship (NTA 3.2.8) (AFT 1.1.1)
19 This training involves the live-firing of weapons at targets of either 20 known or unknown distances. EODMU-11 and EODMU-17 conduct 21 small arms qualification/proficiency training weekly at the small 22 arms range next to Ault Field. In FY 2004, EOD personnel fired 23 approximately 12,000 rounds of 5.56 mm, 15,000 rounds of 9 mm, 24 and 810 12-gauge shotgun rounds. The Air Force Reserve 304th 25 Rescue Squadron also conducted small arms training three times on 26 the Boardman range in FY 2004.
NTA Unit Other Operation Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total AFT Training Service
NASWI 3.2.8 Small Arms Ops 52 0 0 0 52 Marksmanship Range 1.1.1 Boardman Ops 00 0 3 3 TOTAL Ops 52 0 0 3 55
27 Future Activities and Considerations: The Oregon National Guard 28 (ORNG) is proposing to construct and operate two new live-fire 29 weapons training ranges at the NWSTF Boardman. One of the 30 ranges is a multipurpose machine gun range (MPMGR) and the other 31 is a multipurpose training range (MPTR). The MPMGR would be 32 used to train soldiers in the use of various small arms, up to and
3-17 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 including .50 caliber rifles and machine guns. The MPTR would be 2 used to train soldiers on foot and in vehicles in the use of various 3 vehicle-mounted and ground-deployed weapons, including small 4 arms up to .50 cal, 25 mm cannons, 40 mm grenade launchers, TOW 5 missiles, and 120 mm tank guns. The range might also be used for 6 training helicopter gunnery crews using 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm 7 caliber machine guns. 8 9 A draft EA for the proposed project was recently completed and 10 construction is expected to begin in 2007. Once the ranges become 11 operational, the ORNG anticipates weekend use of the ranges year- 12 round for unit inactive duty training (IDT) as well as for unit annual 13 training (AT) on an as-needed basis. Approximately 4,000 soldiers 14 would be expected to use the new ranges annually. Accordingly, 15 operations are expected to increase.
16 3.2.18 Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Low-Level Training and Air-to-Ground Gunnery 17 Exercise (GUNEX) (ART 2.5.4/2.5.5)
18 Low-level flying under the cover of darkness provides a haven from 19 a variety of anti-aircraft weapons. A rotary wing aircrew’s capability 20 to conduct low-level night operations diminishes the chance of 21 detection and increases the probability of surprise. Aviation 22 battalions from the Oregon National Guard and Army National 23 Guard, flying CH-47 or H-60 helicopters, conduct NVG low-level 24 training and door gunner training at Boardman. Either 7.62 mm or 25 .50 caliber rounds are fired during the door gunner training exercise.
Unit Other Operation ART Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
2.5.4 GUNEX (A-G) Boardman Ops 90 0 0 9 2.5.5
26 Future Activities and Considerations: The plans for constructing an 27 MPTR described in Section 3.2.17 may provide an additional area in 28 which helicopter gunnery crews may train. Once the new range is 29 completed, operations are expected to increase.
30 3.2.19 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Operations
31 NUWC Division, Keyport, provides test and evaluation, depot 32 maintenance and repair, in-service engineering, and Fleet readiness 33 and industrial support for torpedoes and other undersea warfare 34 systems including mobile mines, unmanned undersea vehicles, 35 countermeasures, and sonar systems. To support these activities, 36 NUWC Keyport maintains and operates three underwater, three- 37 dimensional tracking range sites with the capability to conduct in- 38 service testing and evaluation of undersea weapons. They include 39 the DBRC range, Quinalt Range Site, and Nanoose Range Site.
3-18 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3.2.19.1 Submarine Post-Refit Sea Trials 2 NBK Bangor-based Trident submarines use the DBRC 26 times per 3 year for post-refit sea trials. The submarines use the acoustical range 4 to detect unusual, self-generated noise that would require correction 5 before conducting submerged operations at sea. The Canadian 6 Armed Forces Victoria Class submarines use the Nanoose Range 7 Site for similar trials. Post-refit sea trials can last from one to five 8 days, but one day is most typical. Following this maintenance and 9 trial period, the submarine goes to the offshore OPAREA for training 10 prior to deployment.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
DBRC Ops 26 0 0 0 26 Post-Refit Sea Trials Nanoose N/A Ops 60 0 0 6 Range Site TOTAL Ops 32 0 0 0 32
11 Future Activities and Considerations: Two SSGN submarines will 12 be added to the current fleet of eight SSBNs in FY 2006. The 13 SSGNs will be homeported at NBK Bangor with a crew of 200 each. 14 With this addition, the number of submarine post-refit trials is 15 expected to increase 25 percent from 26 to 33 per year.
16 3.2.19.2 Torpedo and Experimental Vehicle Testing 17 NUWC Nanoose Range Site and DBRC have sophisticated 18 underwater tracking systems that provide ideal environments for 19 torpedo and experimental vehicle testing. Common tests include 20 weapons system readiness tests and radiated noise measurement 21 tests. These operations are primarily sponsored by Naval Sea 22 Systems Command (NAVSEA) and involve Fleet assets about 23 50 percent of the time. 24 25 Torpedo tests are conducted for both heavyweight (MK-48) and 26 lightweight (MK-54) torpedoes. In FY 2004, approximately 111 27 heavyweight torpedo tests were conducted, 58 of which involved 28 SSN and surface ships as simulated targets. A total of 64 lightweight 29 torpedo tests occurred, 39 of which involved P-3 aircraft or surface 30 ship launches. 31 32 Experimental vehicles are used to test various technologies such as 33 sonar systems or guidance components. Forty-four experimental 34 vehicles were tested in FY 2004, 19 of which were tested against 35 surface ships (13) and submarines (6). Surface ships included 36 guided-missile destroyers (DDG), guided-missile frigates (FFG), and 37 fast combat support ships (AOE).
3-19 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Nanoose Heavyweight Torpedo Ops 98 0 0 0 98 N/A Range Site Testing DBRC Ops 13 0 0 0 13 Nanoose Ops 60 0 0 0 60 Lightweight Torpedo Testing N/A Range Site DBRC Ops 40 0 0 4 Nanoose Ops 27 0 0 0 27 Experimental Vehicle Testing N/A Range Site DBRC Ops 17 0 0 0 17 TOTAL N/A Ops 219 0 0 0 219
1 Future Activities and Considerations: Torpedo and experimental 2 vehicle test operations are expected to continue at the current level.
3 3.2.19.3 Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Operations 4 UUVs extend the knowledge and control of undersea battlespace 5 through the employment of clandestine off-board sensors. Launched 6 from submarine torpedo tubes, UUVs search for mines and other 7 underwater threats allowing SSNs to safely gain access to high-risk 8 areas such as extremely shallow water, poor acoustic conditions, or 9 mine infested waters. The unique capabilities of UUVs extend the 10 reach of submarines while reducing the risk to a SSN and its crew. 11 12 The NUWC Division, Keyport, is the home of the National UUV 13 Test and Evaluation Center (NUTEC) and provides comprehensive 14 testing and training for UUV programs and the Fleet. UUV 15 operators at Keyport are trained in mine countermeasures, 16 intelligence collection, and submarine launch/recovery operations. 17 The DBRC range also provides a valuable freshwater runoff area for 18 UUV buoyancy training. In FY 2004, 33 UUV operations occurred 19 at DBRC.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Keyport Ops 00 0 0 0 UUV Exercises N/A Range Site DBRC Ops 33 0 0 0 33 TOTAL N/A Ops 33 0 0 0 33
20 Future Activities and Considerations: NUWC Keyport hosted the 21 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Fest in August 2003 and 22 June 2005. AUV Fests facilitate the transition of AUV/UUV 23 technologies to operational use through in-water demonstrations of 24 emerging AUV/UUV systems. More than 30 vehicle systems from 25 18 organizations participated in AUV Fest 2005 making it the largest 26 AUV in-water test and demonstration event ever conducted. At this 27 time, NUWC Keyport is not expecting to host future AUV Fests, but 28 it could occur as often as every other year.
3-20 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 The Navy is updating its blueprint for future UUV operations to 3 reflect recent changes in military strategy. The revised plan will 4 emphasize joint-service operations and interoperability between 5 UUVs and conventional ships. The introduction of the Littoral 6 Combat Ship (LCS) in 2007 will greatly impact UUV operations as 7 they are anticipated to be one of the future UUV primary carriers. 8 Other program changes include a reconfigurable Long Range Mine 9 Reconnaissance System (LMRS) UUV by 2009 and an analysis of 10 alternatives for a large displacement UUV for submarine track and 11 trail missions. As UUV systems continue to evolve and mature, 12 operations at NUWC Keport are expected to increase. Areas outside 13 of NUWC Keyport, such as Admiralty Bay, Lake Hancock, Crescent 14 Harbor, Navy 3, and Navy 7, should also be considered for 15 supporting UUV training. 16 17 NUWC Keyport will continue to develop new UUV-specific T&E 18 capabilities to meet UUV program and Fleet user requirements. An 19 environmental impact statement (EIS)/overseas environmental 20 impact statement (OEIS) is being prepared for the extension of the 21 NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex. In addition, the newly 22 constructed Capability Technical Engineering Center will allow for 23 real-time display of UUV operations to be sent to off-site locations. 24 NUWC Keyport’s goal is to continually improve UUV T&E and 25 training support capabilities to help advance UUV development and 26 accelerate their operational deployment in the Fleet.
27 3.2.20 Additional Navy and Army Tactical Tasks
28 The following figures reflect Navy and Army tactical tasks (NTAs 29 and ARTs) that were not conducted in FY 2004 but have been 30 supported or will likely be supported by the NWTRC in the next ten 31 years. These figures have been included to provide a full 32 comprehensive picture of the NWTRC capabilities. 33 Navy Tactical Task NTA Deploy/Conduct Maneuver 1.0 Conduct Hydrographic Surveys 1.2.3 Conduct Breaching of Minefields, Barriers, 1.3.2 and Obstacles Transit Mine Threat Area 1.3.2.3 Conduct Mining 1.4.1 Conduct an Amphibious Raid 1.5.2.4 Employ Firepower 3.0 Conduct Non-lethal Engagement 3.2.9 Protect the Force 6.0 Perform Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) 6.2.4 34 Figure 3-2. Additional Navy Tactical Tasks
3-21 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Army Universal Task ART
Intelligence 1.0
Conduct Tactical Reconnaissance 1.3.3
Conduct Surveillance 1.3.4
Maneuver 2.0
Employ Combat Patrols 2.2.3
Conduct Counter Ambush Actions 2.2.4
Conduct Passage of Lines 2.2.8
Navigate One Point to Another 2.2.10
Conduct Pickup Zones Operations 2.3.1.4
Conduct Direct Fires 2.4
Occupy/Establish a Battle/Defensive Position 2.5.3
Conduct SERE Techniques 2.6
Fire Support 3.0
Conduct Air-To-Surface Attack 3.3.1.2
Exercise Command and Control 5.0
Overcome Barriers/Obstructions/Mines 5.1.1
Conduct Breaching Operations 5.1.1.1
Construct, Employ, or Detonate Obstacles 5.2.2
Construct Individual Fighting Positions 5.3.1.2.3
Conduct Tactical Mission Tasks and 8.0 Operations
Assault an Objective 8.1.2.2
Conduct a Raid 8.1.2.6
Clear Enemy Forces 8.5.6
Conduct an Exfiltration 8.5.14
Occupy an Area 8.5.21
Seize an Area 8.5.25
2 Figure 3-3. Additional Army Universal Tasks
3-22 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 3.3 OPERATIONS SUMMARY
2 The operations summary is a combination of all the training events 3 described in this chapter as occurring in the NWTRC in FY 2004. 4 The operations data strips are summarized and presented in Figure 5 3-4.
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Data Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
Northwest Training Range Complex
Seaplane Base, Insertion/Extraction 1.1.2.4 OLF, Crescent Ops 108 0 0 0 108 Harbor Crescent Harbor, Floral Point, Mine Neutralization 1.3.1 Indian Island, Ops 74 0 0 0 74 Keyport Range Site NBK Bangor Land Demolitions 1.4.4 DTR, Seaplane Ops 102 0 0 0 102 Base DTR Kodiak, Keyport Range Site, NSW Operations 1.5.6 Ops 000 DBRC, Indian 203 203 Island ISR 2.2.3 W-237, OPAREAOps 172 0 0 0 172 Boardman, UAV OPS 2.2.3 Admiralty Bay, Ops 740 0 0 0 740 W-237 W-237, BOMBEX (Sea) 3.2.1.1 Ops 24 0 0 0 24 OPAREA
GUNEX (S-S) (Ship) 3.2.1.1 OPAREA Ops 90 0 0 0 90 W-237, OPAREA, ASW TRACKEX – MPA 3.2.1.2 Nanoose Range Ops 75 0 0 0 75 Site Nanoose Range ASW TRACKEX - Helo 3.2.1.2 Ops 12 0 0 0 12 Site
ASW TRACKEX - Sub 3.2.1.2 OPAREA Ops 96 0 0 0 96
Nanoose Range ASW TORPEX – MPA & Helo 3.2.1.2 Ops 6 0 0 0 6 Site Boardman, Okanogan, ACM 3.2.3 Olympic, Sorties 3,116 0 0 149 3,265 Roosevelt, Darrington, MTRs Boardman, Okanogan, HARMEX 3.2.4 Sorties 2,878 0 0 0 2,878 Olympic, Roosevelt W-237, EC OPS 3.2.5 Sorties 2,330 0 0 0 2,330 Darrington
GUNEX (S-A) 3.2.7 OPAREA Ops 72 0 0 0 72
NASWI Small Marksmanship 3.2.8 Arms Range, Ops 52 0 0 3 55 Boardman
3-23 VOL II, CH 3CURRENT RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Unit Other Operation NTA Area Data Metric Qualification Integrated Sustainment Total Training Service
ART NVG Low-Level Training and 2.5.4 Boardman Ops 9 0 0 0 9 GUNEX 2.5.5 Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E) DBRC, Nanoose Submarine Post-Refit Trials N/A Ops 32 0 0 0 32 Range Site Torpedo and Experimental Vehicle DBRC, Nanoose N/A Ops 219 0 0 0 219 Testing Range Site Unmanned Undersea Vehicle N/A DBRC Ops 33 0 0 0 33 (UUV) Total Northwest Training Range Ops 10,443 0 0 152 10,595 Complex 1 Figure 3-4. Northwest Training Range Complex Operations—FY 2004
3-24 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL,NATURAL RESOURCES, AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT
2 This chapter inventories the existing compliance programs, permits, 3 plans, studies, and mitigation measures associated with the “at-sea,” 4 estuarine, airspace, and land Navy training areas of the Northwest 5 Training Range Complex (NWTRC). For consistency purposes, 6 discussions generally begin with the “at sea” areas, and then proceed 7 to near shore/on-land training areas and airspace ranges. Naval 8 Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport ranges will be grouped 9 together for discussion purposes. Finally, Explosive Ordnance 10 Disposal (EOD) ranges and Naval Special Warfare (NSW) ranges 11 will be discussed as a group. 12 13 NSW training takes place at a variety of facilities. Therefore, 14 installation-related information has been included to the extent that it 15 provides the environmental framework within which NSW and other 16 Navy operations and training occurs.
17 4.1 OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL/RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP
18 Environmental stewardship is a key component for range 19 sustainability. The purpose of environmental stewardship is to 20 responsibly manage resources for the benefit of present and future 21 generations. Conducting required training operations, while at the 22 same time meeting regulatory requirements and minimizing 23 environmental impacts, is a goal that will ensure the sustainability of 24 the NWTRC. Meeting this goal will promote both operational and 25 environmental sustainability. 26 27 Within the NWTRC, the Navy operates on a variety of ranges which 28 it owns and maintains environmental responsibility. NAS Whidbey 29 Island Environmental Department manages operational 30 environmental issues related to: 31 Airspace ranges to include Military Operating Areas 32 (MOAs), Warning Areas, Restricted Areas, and Alert Areas 33 Military Training Routes (MTRs) 34 Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) 35 Boardman 36 Land and sea ranges at Seaplane Base, NAS Whidbey Island, 37 Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, Lake Hancock, 38 Crescent Harbor, Admiralty Bay Mining Range, Navy 3, etc. 39 40 Technical support is also provided by the Naval Facilities 41 Engineering Command Northwest (NAVFAC NW). The Oregon 42 Army National Guard (ORARNG) conducts its own environmental 43 studies for their proposed range construction/operation at NWSTF 44 Boardman with review and approval authority remaining with NAS 45 Whidbey Island. NUWC Keyport manages environmental issues for 46 all NUWC Keyport ranges including: Quinault Range Site, Keyport 47 Range Site, and the Dabob Bay Range Complex. NUWC Keyport
4-1 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 also uses the Nanoose Range Site, but since this is a Canadian- 2 owned range, environmental issues are managed by the Canadians. 3 U.S. Navy environmental compliance at the Nanoose Range Site is 4 governed by an International Agreement between the U.S. and 5 Canada. Appendix E provides the initial points of contact (POCs) 6 for operations-related environmental issues.
7 Environmental compliance, planning, and resource management 8 responsibilities vary depending upon the nature and location of the 9 action. Following is a discussion of the responsibilities of 10 operational commanders at the PACNW OPAREA and NWSTF 11 Boardman.
12 Pacific Northwest (PACNW) Operating Area (OPAREA) 13 (unit training operations) 14 Operational Commanders (ship and squadron commanders) bear 15 ultimate responsibility for complying with environmental 16 requirements at sea. Each commander must: 17 Ensure unit personnel understand and comply with Navy 18 instructions and range Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 19 that will ensure compliance with environmental requirements 20 and the Navy’s At-Sea Policy, and 21 Incorporate Protective Measures Assessment Protocols 22 (PMAP) into mission planning for relevant unit level training 23 conducted in the PACNW OPAREA, and document 24 compliance as required.
25 NWTRC Land Ranges-Naval Weapons Systems Training 26 Facility (NWSTF) Boardman 27 Operational Commanders (unit commanders who oversee specific 28 Navy operations) are responsible for understanding and complying 29 with Navy instructions, base regulations, and range SOPs that will 30 ensure compliance with environmental requirements. Specifically, 31 each commander must: 32 Ensure unit personnel receive required environmental 33 training; 34 Maintain coordination with the Commander, Navy Region 35 Northwest’s Environmental Office; and 36 Implement actions to improve the Navy’s environmental 37 performance.
38 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
39 4.2.1 Environmental Compliance Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders.
40 Environmental compliance typically refers to those environmental 41 media areas that have specific regulatory and/or permit requirements 42 that condition or limit operations. Volume I of this RCMP outlines 43 the environmental compliance laws, regulations, and executive
4-2 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 orders (EOs) generally applicable to each of the Navy’s range 2 complexes. This section details the state and local environmental 3 compliance requirements that are specifically applicable to training 4 areas within the NWTRC. Three states are included in the 5 discussion: Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. Compliance with the 6 traditional environmental planning-type requirements, such as the 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 8 §4321 et. seq.), EO 12114 (“Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 9 Federal Actions”), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 10 (16 U.S.C. §1451) are discussed in Section 4.3, Environmental 11 Planning.
12 4.2.1.1 Air Quality 13 Achieving Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §§7401-7642) standards 14 is the responsibility of the states, which must develop state 15 implementation plans (SIPs) that outline to the United States 16 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) how each state will achieve 17 and maintain the standards. SIPs implement CAA programs at the 18 state and local level, such as the: 19 Title V operating permit, 20 New source performance standards, 21 New source review, and 22 National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 23 (NESHAP). 24 25 States may require pollution control and prevention measures that are 26 more stringent than those mandated by the EPA, but may not allow 27 measures that are less stringent. The Navy must comply with the 28 requirements of federal, state, interstate, and local air pollution 29 control regulations. 30 31 Statutory air quality authorities for the three states within the 32 NWTRC are listed below.
33 Washington Department of Ecology 34 Washington’s Department of Ecology (or more commonly referred 35 to as “Ecology”) manages the state’s Air Quality Program. Under 36 this management umbrella, air quality in most areas of the state of 37 Washington is protected by seven local air quality agencies 38 (established under RCW Chapter 70.94). Tribes protect and have 39 authority over their tribal lands. For example, ranges in the Puget 40 Sound area are within the jurisdiction of the Puget Sound Clean Air 41 Agency, the Roosevelt MOAs are within the jurisdiction of the 42 Ecology’s Eastern Regional Office, the Okanogan MOAs are within 43 the jurisdiction of the Ecology’s Central Regional Office, the 44 Darrington OPAREA and the ranges on Whidbey Island are under 45 the jurisdiction of the Northwest Clean Air Agency, and the Olympic 46 MOAs and the proposed extended Quinault Range Site are within the 47 jurisdiction of the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency. 48
4-3 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 There are 26 tribal reservations in Washington. As noted previously, 2 management of air quality on reservations is within the authority of 3 the tribe in ownership. However, the CAA authorizes the EPA to 4 issue regulations specifying the provisions of the CAA for which 5 Indian tribes may be treated in the same manner as states. All tribal 6 CAA programs submitted to the EPA for approval must meet the 7 applicable CAA requirements for that program. Tribes will have the 8 same authority as states do under the CAA to impose more stringent 9 requirements. The rule also lays out a strategy for federal 10 implementation of the CAA in Indian nations when tribes choose not 11 to implement their own CAA programs. The NWTRC MOAs and 12 Darrington OPAREA overlie several Native American reservations. 13 14 The Washington Clean Air Act is set forth in RCW Chapter 70.94. 15 The Washington State Implementation Plan for Air Quality is set 16 forth in WAC 173-400 through 492. The EPA has designated 13 17 areas in Washington State as nonattainment. The current status of 18 the 13 areas in Washington State designated as nonattainment areas 19 is as follows: 20 21 Ozone: Puget Sound (King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties) 22 and Vancouver (Clark County) are maintenance areas. 23 24 Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5): Thurston County, Tacoma 25 Tideflats, Kent Valley, and Seattle Duwamish are maintenance 26 areas. Spokane, Yakima, and Wallula are nonattainment areas, 27 but are in the process of developing maintenance plans. 28 29 Carbon Monoxide: Puget Sound (King, Pierce and Snohomish 30 Counties), Yakima, and Vancouver (Clark County) are 31 maintenance areas. Spokane is a nonattainment area.
32 The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 33 The DEQ Air Quality Division monitors air quality to ensure that the 34 whole state meets and maintains national air quality health standards. 35 Oregon Air Quality regulations are set forth in Oregon Revised 36 Statutes (ORS) Chapter 468A. As referenced in Oregon 37 Administrative Rules (OAR) – Chapter 340-200-0040, Oregon’s 38 federally approved State Implementation Plan is contained in 39 Volumes 2 and 3 of OR Air Quality Control Program. 40 41 The current status of the areas in Oregon designated as 42 nonattainment areas is as follows: 43 44 Ozone: Portland Air Quality Maintenance Area (Maintenance). 45 46 Particulate Matter (PM10): Grants Pass Urban Growth 47 Boundary (Maintenance), Klamath Falls Urban Growth 48 Boundary (Maintenance), Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth 49 Area (Non-Attainment), La Grande Urban Growth Boundary
4-4 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 (Non-Attainment), Lakeview (Non-Attainment); Medford- 2 Ashland (Attainment-Pending EPA Approval), Oakridge Urban 3 Growth Boundary (Non-Attainment). 4 5 Carbon Monoxide: Portland (Maintenance); Eugene-Springfield 6 (Maintenance), Grants Pass Central Business District 7 (Maintenance), Klamath Falls Urban Growth Boundary 8 (Maintenance), Medford Urban Growth Boundary 9 (Maintenance), Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (Non- 10 Attainment).
11 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 12 (DEC) 13 The Federal Clean Air Act and state law in Title 44, Chapter 46, and 14 Title 46, Chapter 3 and Chapter 14 establish the duties of the DEC 15 Division of Air Quality for controlling and mitigating air pollution 16 and for conserving the clean air that is enjoyed in most locations of 17 Alaska. The DEC Division of Air Quality services are designed 18 around three programs: 1) managing non-point and mobile sources of 19 air pollution; 2) managing stationary out-of-stack discharges of air 20 pollution through a permit and compliance program; and 3) field air 21 monitoring to measure progress and gather data pertaining to air 22 quality issues. 23 24 Alaska air quality regulations are found in Title 18 Alaska 25 Administrative Code (AAC) Chapter 50. The purpose of the 26 regulations is to identify, prevent, abate, and control air pollution in a 27 manner that meets the purposes of Alaska Statutes (AS) 46.03, AS 28 46.14, and 42 U.S.C. §7401 - 7671q (Clean Air Act). Alaska has no 29 non-attainment areas for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone 30 (1 hour), ozone (8 hour), fine particulate matter (<2.5 micrometers), 31 sulfur dioxide, or lead. Two areas (Anchorage Municipality and 32 Juneau City and Borough) are in non-attainment for coarse 33 particulate matter (<10 micrometers). There are no monitoring 34 stations for criteria air pollutants on Kodiak Island. Air quality on 35 Kodiak Island continues to be affected by volcanic eruptions on Mt. 36 Augustine. These eruptions emit ash, which can affect those with 37 existing respiratory ailments.
38 4.2.1.2 Water Quality 39 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et. seq.), 40 also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), requires each state to 41 establish water quality standards for its surface waters based on 42 designated uses. For “impaired” water bodies, each state is supposed 43 to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), which are the 44 amount of pollutants that can be assimilated by a body of water 45 without exceeding the water quality standards. Based on the 46 developed TMDLs, the state or EPA can limit any discharge of 47 pollutants to a level sufficient to ensure compliance with state water 48 quality standards.
4-5 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2 The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 3 §300 et. seq.), Section 1447(a), provide that federal agencies “1) 4 owning or operating any facility in a wellhead protection area; 2) 5 engaged in any activity at such facility resulting, or which may 6 result, in the contamination of water supplies in any such area; 3) 7 owning or operating any public water system; or 4) engaged in any 8 activity resulting, or which may result in underground injection 9 which endangers drinking water” shall be subject to and comply with 10 all substantive and procedural federal, state, interstate, and local 11 requirements to the same extent as any person. 12 13 Statutory water quality authorities for the three states within the 14 NWTRC are contained in the following agencies and regulations.
15 Washington 16 Regulations for Water Pollution Control are found in RCW Chapter 17 90.48. The policy statement of this Chapter states in part, “The state 18 of Washington in recognition of the federal government's interest in 19 the quality of the navigable waters of the United States, of which 20 certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this 21 state, proclaims a public policy of working cooperatively with the 22 federal government in a joint effort to extinguish the sources of water 23 quality degradation, while at the same time preserving and 24 vigorously exercising state powers to ensure that present and future 25 standards of water quality within the state shall be determined by the 26 citizenry, through and by the efforts of state government, of the state 27 of Washington (RCW 90.48.010).” 28 29 Ecology is designated as the State Water Pollution Control Agency 30 for all purposes of the federal CWA (RCW 90.48.260). With regard 31 to the national estuary program established by Section 320 of the 32 CWA, Ecology exercises its responsibility jointly with the Puget 33 Sound water quality authority. Program elements authorized in 34 RCW 90.48.260 may include, but are not limited to: (a) Effluent 35 treatment and limitation requirements together with timing 36 requirements related thereto; (b) applicable receiving water quality 37 standards requirements; (c) requirements of standards of 38 performance for new sources; (d) pretreatment requirements; (e) 39 termination and modification of permits for cause; (f) requirements 40 for public notices and opportunities for public hearings; (g) 41 appropriate relationships with the Secretary of the Army in the 42 administration of his responsibilities which relate to anchorage and 43 navigation, with the administrator of the EPA in the performance of 44 his duties, and with other governmental officials under the federal 45 CWA; (h) requirements for inspection, monitoring, entry, and 46 reporting; (i) enforcement of the program through penalties, 47 emergency powers, and criminal sanctions; (j) a continuing planning 48 process; and (k) user charges. 49
4-6 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Washington’s Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan calls 2 for the preparation and implementation of watershed action plans to 3 control and prevent nonpoint source pollution and to protect the 4 beneficial uses of water. An action plan was drafted for the Liberty 5 Bay/Miller Bay Watershed Area, which includes Naval Undersea 6 Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport and Subase Bangor (Liberty 7 Bay/Miller Bay Watershed Management Committee 1994). 8 9 Superfund sites at NUWC Keyport were identified as threats to water 10 quality. NUWC Keyport was listed on the EPA's National Priorities 11 List in October 1989. As a result of the initial assessment study, six 12 areas of contamination were recommended for further investigation: 13 Area 1 (Keyport Landfill), Area 2 (Van Meter Road Spill/Drum 14 Storage Area), Area 3 (Otto Fuel Leak Area), Area 5 (Sludge 15 Disposal Area), Area 8 (Plating Shop Waste/Oil Spill Area), and 16 Area 9 (Liberty Bay shorelines). NUWC Keyport was organized 17 into two operable units (OUs). OU 1 includes the Keyport Landfill 18 (Area 1) and OU 2 contains the other five areas (Areas 2, 3, 5, 8, and 19 9). Subase Bangor also has Superfund sites (See Section 4.2.5.1 for 20 details).
21 Oregon
22 DEQ is the state agency responsible for protecting Oregon's surface 23 waters and groundwater to keep these waters safe for a wide range of 24 uses, such as drinking water, recreation, fish habitat, aquatic life, and 25 irrigation. DEQ’s Water Quality Program accomplishes this in many 26 ways by: 27 Developing water quality standards for Oregon's waters. 28 Monitoring water quality with regular sampling of more than 29 50 rivers and streams in the 18 designated river basins found 30 in Oregon. 31 Regulating over 1,000 sewage treatment systems and 32 approximately 200 industrial dischargers through individual 33 permits that set limits on pollutants discharged. In addition, 34 approximately 1,000 facilities have general permits that limit 35 discharges and over 1,900 facilities are covered by storm 36 water general permits. 37 Regulating injection systems through a registration process 38 and, when necessary, by issuing permits to protect 39 groundwater. 40 Inspecting septic system installations and working with local 41 agencies to streamline this process. 42 Helping public drinking water systems implement plans to 43 protect drinking water. 44 Offering low cost loans to public agencies and grants to 45 different entities to help fund improvements to water quality. 46 Controlling nonpoint sources of pollution (diffuse or 47 unconfined sources of wastes or contaminants that are 48 conveyed to surface water or groundwater) by maintaining a
4-7 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 plan that describes how the state intends to manage nonpoint 2 sources. 3 4 Water Quality program rules have been adopted by the 5 Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) as part of Oregon 6 Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340. A list of these rules 7 follows in Figure 4-1: 8 OAR Title OAR Title Chapter Chapter 340 340 Division Division Division 40 Groundwater Quality Division 51 Confined Animal Feeding or Protection Holding Operations Division 41 Water Quality Standards and Division 52 Review of Plans and Beneficial Uses Specifications Division 42 Total Maximum Daily Loads Division 53 Statewide Sewerage Works (TMDLs) Construction Grants Priority List Division 43 Chemical Mining Division 54 State Revolving Fund Program Division 44 Underground Injection Wells Division 55 Use of Reclaimed Water from Sewage Treatment Plants Division 45 NPDES and Water Pollution Division 56 In-stream Water Rights Control Facility (WPCF) Permits Division 46 Deposit of Motor Vehicle Division 71 Onsite Sewage Disposal Bodies into Waters of the State Division 48 Certification of Compliance Division 73 Onsite Construction Standards with Water Quality Requirements and Standards Division 49 Certification of Wastewater Division 141 Oil Spill Contingency Planning System Operator Personnel and Fees Division 50 Land Application of Division 142 Oil and Hazardous Materials Domestic Wastewater Emergency Response Treatment Facility Biosolids, Requirements Biosolids Derived Products, and Domestic Septage 9 Figure 4-1. Oregon Water Quality Rules
10 In 2004, a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) was 11 performed to determine the presence of perchlorate, nitrogen-based 12 explosive compounds and metals on the Boardman Air Force Range 13 (AFR) Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) located near Boardman, 14 Oregon. The property is located adjacent to and west of NWSTF 15 Boardman, a primary range in the NWTRC. The work was 16 performed in cooperation with the Oregon Department of 17 Environmental Quality (DEQ) who is assisting the EPA in the site 18 assessment. 19 20 The Boardman AFR FUDS is an inactive former bombing range 21 located near the northern Oregon border, approximately five miles 22 west of Boardman. Of the original 95,986 acres used as a bombing
4-8 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 range, only the eastern half (approximately 47,982 acres) is currently 2 the active NWSTF Boardman owned and operated by the 3 Department of Navy. The western half of the site is the inactive 4 bombing range (FUDS portion), which was the focus of the PA/SI. 5 6 Study results from the Boardman AFR FUDS were issued in July 7 2005, and detected low concentrations of perchlorate in surface 8 water and groundwater. The highest concentration detected to date is 9 30 ppb in a monitoring well only used for testing groundwater 10 conditions. Three wells located at the northern edge of the AFR 11 FUDS detected perchlorate, but the source of the perchlorate was not 12 known. 13 14 DEQ and stakeholders will be working together to plan next steps 15 based upon the analysis of existing data, the results of an Oregon 16 State University (OSU) study, and new information emerging on the 17 national level. Further details about separate Range Sustainability 18 Environmental Program Assessment (RSEPA) studies conducted at 19 the NWSTF Boardman range are provided in Section 4.2.3.1.
20 Alaska 21 The Alaska DEC, Division of Water’s mission is to improve and 22 protect water quality. In keeping with this mission, the division: 23 Establishes standards for water cleanliness (18 AAC 70); 24 Regulates discharges to waters and wetlands; 25 Provides financial assistance for water and wastewater 26 facility construction, and waterbody assessment and 27 remediation; 28 Trains, certifies and assists water and wastewater system 29 operators; and 30 Monitors and reports on water quality. 31 32 According to the Draft Alaska’s 2004/2006 Integrated Water Quality 33 Monitoring and Assessment Report (January 2006), Kodiak Island 34 has a Category 5 Section 303(d) listed impaired grouping of water 35 bodies. Category 5 is defined as the condition in which “Water 36 quality standards for one or more designated uses are not attained 37 and the waterbody requires a TMDL or recovery plan. Category 5 38 waters are the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.” The Red Lake 39 Anton Road Ponds were placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for 40 non-attainment of the Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and 41 Inorganic Substances standard for metal. Based on a 1992 42 memorandum released by DEC-Kodiak Field Office, Red Lake lies 43 less than 200 feet from a Navy landfill. This landfill was constructed 44 without a liner or leachate collection system. Landfill waste, which 45 may include solvents, paints, used oils, and contaminated fuel, 46 occasionally leaches into Red Lake and two other small ponds near 47 Anton Road. These two ponds are highly colored by bright orange- 48 red iron precipitates caused by the oxidation of the leachate. Lake 49 sediment samples were found to contain 8.6% iron. Chemical
4-9 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 pollutants were documented at low levels in the lake and in the 2 bottom sediments. DEC staff reviewed four recent reports (from 3 1996 & 1997). The data presented in the reports is the best available 4 to the department and DEC concluded that: 1) Red Lake clearly 5 appears to exceed water quality standards for iron and manganese 6 due to human actions, 2) there are no existing controls in place to 7 ensure that the water quality standards will be met in a reasonable 8 time period, 3) the reports did not present any information showing 9 levels of iron and manganese in groundwater above the landfill so 10 there is no information showing that the abandoned landfill is not the 11 source of these metals, and 4) although there were other parameters 12 of concern observed in previous sampling, the available information 13 indicates that Red Lake should only be listed for manganese and 14 iron. Consequently, the waterbody is not listed for the debris or 15 petroleum products pollutant parameters (Alaska DEC 2006). 16 Though the impaired water quality stems from a Navy landfill, it 17 does not appear that this area is located near any area which is used 18 by the NSW cold weather training forces.
19 4.2.1.3 Hazardous Waste 20 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 21 §6921 et seq. regulates the management of solid waste and hazardous 22 waste. Congress directed the EPA, in consultation with the 23 Department of Defense and the states, to publish regulations 24 identifying when military munitions become hazardous waste and to 25 develop regulations for the safe storage and transportation of such 26 waste. In response, the EPA published the Military Munitions Rule 27 (MMR), 62 Federal Register (FR) 6622 on 12 February 1997. Under 28 RCRA, a state may be authorized by the EPA to regulate the 29 management of hazardous waste and to enforce its own rules. Once 30 authorized by the EPA, the state program operates in lieu of the 31 federal program. In the COMNAVREG NW Area of Responsibility 32 (AOR), all states (Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon) have 33 been authorized by the EPA to establish and operate their own 34 hazardous waste programs. Guidance on implementation of the 35 MMR is found in COMNAVREG NW Instruction 8023.3 dated 3 36 January 2002 and the DoD Policy to Implement the EPA’s Military 37 Munitions Rule dated 1 July 1998. 38 39 The MMR contains emergency response provisions. The 40 COMNAVREG NW Instruction 8023.3 notes in part that EODMU 41 ELEVEN Detachment Northwest, under OPCON of COMNAVREG 42 NW, is assigned as the primary response detachment and responsible 43 for providing routine and urgent EOD services throughout 44 COMNAVREG NW AOR, with the exception of routine and urgent 45 EOD services located within the Olympic Peninsula and associated 46 inland waterways. That responsibility lies with EODMU ELEVEN 47 Detachment Bangor. 48
4-10 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Regardless of EPA-delegated hazardous waste authority, Navy 2 facilities need to meet state hazardous waste substantive and 3 procedural requirements under the Federal Facilities Compliance Act 4 (42 U.S.C. §6961). These include the requirement to obtain state 5 permits for hazardous waste management and disposal. 6 7 Statutory hazardous waste authorities for the three states within the 8 NWTRC (Washington, Oregon and Alaska) are as follows:
9 Washington 10 Solid Waste Disposal is regulated pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.58. 11 Ecology also has responsibility for the Radioactive Waste Act 12 (Chapter 43.200 RCW), which policy statement reads, “The 13 legislature finds that the safe transporting, handling, storage, or 14 otherwise caring for radioactive wastes is required to protect the 15 health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state of Washington. 16 It is the purpose of this chapter to establish authority for the state to 17 exercise appropriate oversight and care for the safe management and 18 disposal of radioactive wastes; to consult with the federal 19 government and other states on interim or permanent storage of these 20 radioactive wastes; and to carry out the state responsibilities under 21 the federal nuclear waste policy act of 1982.” 22 23 Ecology also oversees the Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 24 Chapter 70.105). Washington has adopted the Military Munitions 25 Rule, except for certain transportation exemptions and the 26 management of closed ranges (Washington Administrative Code 27 173-303 – Dangerous Waste Regulations). 28 29 The U.S. Navy’s SUBASE Bangor (RCRA/ State ID#: 30 WA5170027291) is one of 29 companies and/or agencies in 31 Washington which can treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous 32 waste (TSDR) or process used oil. Subase Bangor provides the 33 following services: used oil & oily materials processing; heat, 34 chemical and mechanical processing in tank systems; used oil 35 transporter and processor; and hazardous waste broker. Subase 36 Bangor accepts used oil only from US Navy vessels and facilities.
37 Oregon 38 The DEQ is authorized by the EPA to regulate hazardous waste in 39 Oregon. Oregon has adopted the MMR, except for the chemical 40 munitions provisions (See Oregon Administrative Rules 340-100- 41 0002(1). Proper hazardous waste management is an integral part of 42 protecting Oregon's land, air, and water systems. The DEQ strives to 43 enforce existing environmental regulations, identify management 44 strategies that emphasize sound science and engineering, and work in 45 partnerships with private industry and governmental groups to 46 provide assistance and regulatory flexibility, while at the same time 47 reducing pollution. 48
4-11 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 A facility must notify DEQ of its activities, obtain a DEQ Hazardous 2 Waste Identification Number, and follow all applicable Hazardous 3 Waste Management Regulations if it is a: 4 Large Quantity Generator (LQG) of hazardous waste, 5 Small Quantity Generator (SQG) of hazardous waste, 6 transporter of hazardous waste, 7 marketer and/or burner of hazardous waste fuel, 8 processor or re-refiner of used oil, 9 facility collecting and accumulating used oil from used oil 10 generators, 11 marketer and/or burner of off-specification used oil, 12 hazardous waste recycler, 13 handler of universal wastes, or 14 dry cleaner. 15 16 These requirements are imposed under the authority of the Federal 17 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, CFR 40, Parts 124, 260- 18 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279 and OAR 340-100 through 340-109, 19 OAR 340-111, OAR 340-113, OAR 340-124, and OAR 340-142.
20 Alaska 21 Alaska has adopted the federal MMR by reference, and has not 22 developed any state-specific military munitions regulations. The 23 provisions of the MMR are regulated under the hazardous waste 24 program. The Waste Management Division of the Alaska 25 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) administers and 26 enforces the State of Alaska’s hazardous waste regulations. Military 27 munitions regulations for the State of Alaska are located within the 28 state’s hazardous waste regulations. They can be found in Title 18, 29 Chapter 62, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Alaska Administrative 30 Code (AAC). 31 32 Alaska Hazardous Waste regulations are found in the Alaska Statues 33 Title 46, Chapter 3 (e.g., Section 296 [Hazardous Waste Disposal], 34 Section 299 [Hazardous Waste Regulations]; and Section 308 35 [Transportation of Hazardous Waste], and in Chapter 9 [Hazardous 36 Substance Release Control].
37 4.2.1.4 Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) Management 38 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §2701 et. seq.) preserves 39 state authority to establish laws governing oil spill prevention, 40 response, and periodic drills and exercises. Statutory POL 41 management authorities for the three states within the NWTRC are 42 set forth below:
43 Washington 44 Ecology manages the Washington Spill Prevention, Preparedness, 45 and Response Program. The mission of the program is to protect 46 Washington’s environment, public health, and safety through a
4-12 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 comprehensive spill prevention, preparedness, and response 2 program. The program focuses on preventing oil spills to 3 Washington waters and land and ensuring effective response to oil 4 and hazardous substance spills whenever they occur. 5 6 The harm caused by oil spills in the late 1980s and early 1990s 7 aroused public concern and resulted in state and federal legislation to 8 protect the environment and human health from such spills. Specific 9 Washington laws include: 10 Chapter 90.56 RCW, Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill 11 Prevention and Response 12 Chapter 88.46 RCW, Vessel Oil Spill Prevention and 13 Response 14 Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control 15 Chapter 88.40, Transport of Petroleum Products - Financial 16 Responsibility 17 Chapter 70.105 RCW, Hazardous Waste Management Act 18 Chapter 70.105D RCW, Model Toxics Control Act
19 Oregon 20 Oil and hazardous material spills pose a major potential threat to 21 Oregon's waters, air, land, and wildlife. Large volumes of oil are 22 shipped along the Columbia River and along the coast. Hazardous 23 materials are shipped along the highways and by rail. DEQ works 24 with other agencies and industry to prevent and respond to spills of 25 these materials. The applicable statutes governing oil and hazardous 26 material spillage in Oregon are set forth in ORS 468B.300 to 27 468B.500.
28 Alaska 29 Alaska oil pollution control regulations are found in the Alaska 30 Statues Title 46, Chapter 4 (Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution 31 Control), and Chapter 8 (Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases). 32 Contingency plans are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 30 (Oil 33 Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans). For Kodiak Island 34 there exists a Subarea Contingency Plan (SCP) (1998). The SCP 35 supplements the Alaska Federal/State Preparedness Plan for 36 Response to Oil and Hazardous Substance Discharges/Releases (the 37 Unified Plan). The SCP, in conjunction with the Unified Plan, 38 describes the strategy for a coordinated federal, state and local 39 response to a discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil or a 40 release of a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or 41 onshore facility operating within the boundaries of the Kodiak 42 Subarea of Alaska.
43 Northwest Area Contingency Plan 44 The eighth release (Change 7) of the Northwest Area Contingency 45 Plan (NWACP) was released in February 2005. This plan serves as 46 both the Area Contingency Plan and the Regional Contingency Plan
4-13 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 for the northwest states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, two US 2 Coast Guard Captain of the Port Zones (Puget Sound and Portland), 3 and the EPA’s Inland Zone. Federal, state, tribal, and local 4 government representatives as well as representatives from 5 commercial, non-profit, and private concerns continue to drive this 6 planning effort. For Washington, this document continues to 7 function as the Washington Statewide Master Plan for oil spill and 8 hazardous substance release response. For Oregon, the Oregon 9 Emergency Response System Council approved the NWACP in June 10 1996 as the State’s oil and hazardous materials emergency response 11 plan. (Oregon, Director of Emergency Management, 2001). 12 13 Pursuant to the National Contingency Plan (NCP; 40 CFR Part 300), 14 area committees have been established for each area of the United 15 States that has been designated by the President. The area 16 committees are comprised of personnel from federal and state 17 agencies who coordinate response actions with tribal and local 18 governments and with the private sector. Area committees, under 19 the coordinated direction of Federal On-Scene Coordinators (FOSC), 20 are responsible for developing Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). 21 Area committees are also required to work with the response 22 community to develop procedures to expedite decisions for the use 23 of alternative response measures. 24 25 The NCP also establishes the National Response Team (NRT) and 26 13 Regional Response Teams (RRTs) who are responsible for 27 national and regional planning and preparedness activities before a 28 response action and support to the FOSC and State On-Scene 29 Coordinator (SOSC) when activated during a response. RRT 30 membership consists of designated representatives from key federal 31 response and support agencies together with affected states. 32 33 In the Northwest Area (defined as the coastal and inland zones of 34 Idaho, Oregon, and Washington), these two groups have joined 35 together to accomplish all planning and preparedness activities and 36 jointly publish the NWACP. The purpose of the NWACP is: 37 1. To provide for orderly and effective implementation of response 38 actions to protect the people, natural resources, and property of 39 the coastal and inland zones of the Northwest area, including the 40 states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho from the impacts of a 41 discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil or a release or 42 substantial threat of a release of a hazardous substance from 43 inland and marine sources. 44 2. To promote the coordination of and describe the strategy for a 45 unified and coordinated federal, state, tribal, local, potential 46 responsible party, response contractor, response cooperative, and 47 community response to a discharge or substantial threat of 48 discharge of oil or a release or substantial threat of a release of a 49 hazardous substance from inland and marine sources.
4-14 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 3. To be consistent with the NCP and to be adopted as the Regional 2 Contingency Plan (RCP) and Area Contingency Plan for the 3 northwest. 4 4. To provide guidance to all Facility and Vessel Response Plan 5 reviewers and Plan holders to ensure consistency with the Area 6 Contingency Plan. 7 5. To be a guidance manual for responders. 8 9 This plan is intended for use as a guideline for response actions to 10 spill incidents and to ensure consistency in response to spills. 11 Federal and state rules require that a Responsible Party (RP), or 12 spiller, must be able to manage spills with a pre-designated response 13 management organization that accommodates a unified command 14 structure in recognition of federal, state, tribal, or local jurisdiction.
15 4.2.2 Environmental Compliance Documentation for Operations “At Sea”
16 Most environmental compliance laws, such as the CAA, CWA, and 17 RCRA, do not have jurisdiction over Navy operations beyond 3 18 nautical miles (NM). However, the jurisdiction of some 19 environmental compliance laws does extend into the global 20 commons up to the point of another country’s Exclusive Economic 21 Zone (EEZ). Some of these compliance laws include the Marine 22 Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. §1361), Endangered 23 Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §35), and the Magnuson-Stevens 24 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 25 §1801). See Section 4.2.3.6 for a discussion of ESA, MMPA and 26 MSA compliance. 27 28 Data collection efforts in connection with this RCMP revealed that 29 there is limited compliance documentation available for “at-sea” 30 areas, such as the Pacific Northwest Ocean Surface/Subsurface 31 Operating Area (OPAREA), W-237, W-570 or W-93. 32 33 More “at-sea” environmental compliance information is likely to be 34 forthcoming in connection with ongoing environmental planning 35 efforts. As noted previously, the EIS/OEIS for the NAVSEA 36 Keyport Range Complex Extension is currently being prepared. 37 Although details of this environmental impact statement are not 38 available at this time, further information regarding the 39 environmental planning effort is discussed in Section 4.3. As far as 40 environmental compliance at-sea is concerned, the EIS/OEIS is 41 likely to cover compliance issues related to water quality, air quality, 42 and marine biology associated with extension of the Quinault Range 43 Site. 44 45 The presence of endangered species in W-237 is acknowledged in 46 the 2000 range survey responses. Furthermore, according to NUWC 47 Keyport personnel, ESA and MMPA informal consultations with 48 NMFS are currently underway regarding the potential impacts 49 related to the range extension in W-237 and inland water “at-sea”
4-15 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 ranges. Consultations were initiated during the EIS/OEIS scoping 2 process.
3 4.2.3 Environmental Compliance Documentation for Operations at Estuarine and Land 4 Ranges
5 Environmental compliance at land ranges and training areas within 6 an installation, its subordinate areas, and remote sites falls within the 7 responsibility of the Regional Commander. The Regional 8 Commander has traditionally budgeted for environmental 9 compliance through specific media-based programs. Funding for 10 these programs is provided through the program objective 11 memorandum (POM) budget process to ensure that all “must fund” 12 projects are completed immediately for any instances of non- 13 compliance and prior to a required implementation date for a new 14 law or regulation. 15 16 The Northwest Region has developed and fully implemented 17 extensive environmental compliance management programs. Among 18 them are hazardous materials management and disposal in 19 compliance with RCRA, NPDES permitting and outfall monitoring 20 in compliance with the CWA, and air permitting in compliance with 21 the CAA. Additional inland environmental compliance discussion 22 is provided in Section 4.2.3.6.
23 4.2.3.1 Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment (RSEPA) 24 As required by DoD Directives 4715.11 and 4715.12, Environmental 25 and Explosives Safety Management of DoD Active and Inactive 26 Ranges within the United States and Abroad, the Navy has 27 developed procedures to conduct Range Sustainability 28 Environmental Program Assessment (RSEPA). RSEPA evaluates 29 past, current, and future range uses, assesses the current sources and 30 levels of contamination and the potential hazards to human health, 31 including hazards from off-range migration of ammunition 32 constituents, and provides a plan of action to ensure safe sustainable 33 use and implementation of a remediation process. The requirement 34 set forth in the 10 May 2004 update of 4715.11 related to hydrology 35 and hydrogeology are addressed within the RSEPA process.
36 NWSTF Boardman and Seaplane Base EOD Demolition 37 Training Range 38 Pursuant to Navy RSEPA guidance, in September 2004, a Range 39 Condition Assessment (RCA) was completed for NWSTF 40 Boardman, Oregon and the Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training 41 Range, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington. The assessment 42 consisted of a Phase II Pre-Site Visit Information Collection 43 Synopsis and the Phase III On-Site Information Collection and 44 Review Synopsis. The purpose of the Phase II element was to 45 review as much pertinent information as possible prior to conducting 46 on-site information collection and to identify potentially applicable
4-16 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 statutes and regulation. The Phase III element is a compendium of 2 information collected from records supplied by the U.S. Navy and 3 provided during interviews by Navy personnel. 4 5 Although the RSEPA guidance is explicit about the steps in the RCA 6 process and the Decision Point One questions, other factors are 7 present for NWSTF Boardman that are not specifically addressed. 8 While the RCA did not indicate a potential range related source of 9 perchlorate contamination in groundwater, regional sampling 10 conducted by the DEQ and EPA does indicate the presence of 11 perchlorate in groundwater throughout the Lower Umatilla Basin 12 Groundwater Management Area. In order to validate the RCA 13 conclusion that a perchlorate source does not exist at NWSTF 14 Boardman, it was recommended that additional analysis be 15 conducted (in context of a Comprehensive Range Evaluation [CRE]) 16 using wells specifically designed and constructed to monitor 17 groundwater quality on the site, as well as appropriate perchlorate 18 sampling and analytical methods. Another factor that influenced the 19 decision to undertake a CRE at the site is uncertainty that buried 20 munitions may exist at NWSTF Boardman. Historical photographs 21 and evidence of burial trenches at the range give reason to conduct 22 additional data collection. The lack of adequate records and 23 documentation of historical range activities does not allow for a 24 conclusive understanding of the scope of all potential releases from 25 NWSTF Boardman. Based on these considerations, the RCA 26 recommended that NWSTF Boardman proceed to the CRE phase of 27 the RSEPA process. 28 29 A Final CRE Phase I Report (Preliminary Screening Synopsis 30 Decision Point Two Report) was issued for NWSTF Boardman in 31 February 2006 (NAVFAC NW 2006). It included a series of reports 32 consisting of an environmental protection plan, a site-specific 33 sampling and analysis plan, quality assurance project plan, and 34 health and safety plan. The purposes of the Preliminary Screening 35 Synopsis and Decision Point Two Report are to summarize the CRE 36 Phase I field sampling results, compare munitions constituent results 37 with screening criteria, and to answer the Decision Point Two 38 question regarding munitions constituent (MC) migration off range. 39 40 Soil samples were collected at three source areas including the Army 41 Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD) Area, the Demolition 42 Crater Area, and the West Bomb Crater Area. Groundwater samples 43 were collected from monitoring wells installed at three range border 44 locations, at three Army OB/OD Area locations, and at one 45 Demolition Crater Area location. 46 47 Only soil samples collected from the Army OB/OD Area exhibited 48 detections of MC. Three of the five sampled segments at the Army 49 OB/OD Area had MC detections reported, with two samples 50 exhibiting detections above RSEPA screening levels. No soil 51 samples indicated perchlorate contamination.
4-17 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2 To answer RSEPA Decision Point Two (“Is there likely to be an off- 3 range release that poses a potential risk to human health and the 4 environment?”), CRE data indicates that no off-range release has 5 occurred. Perchlorate detections at the eastern border well and the 6 northern border well are consistent with the range of perchlorate 7 contamination found throughout the Lower Umatilla Basin 8 Groundwater Management Area. The eastern border well also 9 exhibited the highest nitrate concentrations. Both wells are also in 10 areas that are adjacent to neighboring agricultural properties that use 11 irrigation extensively. None of the potential source area wells 12 exhibited detections of perchlorate. The CRE Phase I supports the 13 conclusion of the Range Condition Assessment for the NWTRC: that 14 a perchlorate contamination source does not exist at NWSTF 15 Boardman. No HMX, RDX, or TNT was found in wells at NWSTF 16 Boardman or to the north in the Lower Umatilla Basin Study. Based 17 on these considerations, it is recommended that NWSTF Boardman 18 does not proceed to the CRE Phase II of the RSEPA process 19 (NAVFAC NW 2006). Though the CRE concluded that NWSTF 20 Boardman is not a potential source of off-range contamination, it is 21 noteworthy that EPA Region 10 and Oregon DEQ did not agree with 22 this conclusion. Discussions with EPA and DEQ are planned to 23 address this issue. 24 25 Although no environmental compliance issues were identified and 26 the CRE phase was not recommended for the Seaplane Base EOD 27 Demolition Training Range, it will be subject to another RCA in 5 28 years, along with NWSTF Boardman, in accordance with the RSEPA 29 program.
30 4.2.3.2 Operational Range Clearance (ORC) 31 Operational Range Clearance Policy for Navy Ranges (DoN 2004) 32 applies to clearance of munitions used for their intended purpose 33 (e.g., munitions that have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, 34 placed, or otherwise used) on Navy administered operational ranges, 35 excluding water ranges and small arms ranges. The Navy has a 36 responsibility to ensure it operates in an environmentally responsible 37 manner that is protective of the public, while sustaining the highest 38 levels of readiness to meet its mission requirements. 39 40 It is the policy that Navy commands and installations that administer 41 operational ranges shall establish and maintain a program for routine 42 clearance of impact areas and other range areas that are known, or 43 suspected of, containing UXO and range scrap/expendable materials. 44 Its purpose is to ensure the safety of Sailors, range operations and 45 maintenance personnel, range clearance personnel, and the public. 46 In accordance with the ORC policy, ORC shall be performed to the 47 range surface, to include UXO and range scrap/expendable materials 48 that are exposed and partially buried. Subsurface UXO removal 49 should be performed only as required (e.g., at construction work sites
4-18 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 in the target area, on surface routes used by range personnel to 2 egress/ingress the target area, for burying cables, etc., to a depth that 3 permits safe operations on the range). 4 6 The policy sets forth 8 clearance guidelines 10 for operational ranges 12 that are programmed 14 for continued use. 16 These same ranges 18 also require 20 preparation of an ORC 22 Plan prior to 24 conducting the 26 clearance operations. 28 The policy further sets 30 forth procedures for: Figure 4-2. NWSTF Boardman ORC 32 clearance operations, Trailer Loaded with BDU-33s 34 removal and Source: Bering Sea Eccotech, 2005. 35 disposal/recycling of UXO and range scrap expendable materials, 36 outreach programs, and safety. Two ORC compliance efforts 37 occurred at NWSTF Boardman in 2005. The first of these efforts 38 took place between March and May 2005 and was conducted by the 39 contractor, Bearing Sea Eccotech, with support by EOD Detachment 40 Northwest. During this initial endeavor, a total of 79 truck loads 41 transported 1,235 tons of scrap material (which included 790 tons of 42 processed cast, 280 tons of large scale inerts, and 165 tons of 43 miscellaneous metal and shreddable fins) (Gila Recyclers 2005). A 44 follow-on ORC effort was contracted in September, 2005. Eighty- 45 four tons of Mk-76s and range scrap were removed. Other items 46 removed included: 15 tons of BDU 48’s, 52 250-lb bombs, 499 500- 47 lb bombs, 39 1000-lb bombs, and 3 2000-lb bombs (Bering Sea 48 Eccotech 2005). In 2005, EOD technicians from EOD Detachment 49 Northwest were sent as Temporary Additional Duty (TAD) to 50 NWSTF Boardman for approximately 4-6 weeks in support of range 51 clearance required by the ORC program (Melaas 2006). 52 53 These initial ORC efforts were considered extensive (clearing 54 decades of range scrap) and can be seen as bringing NWSTF 55 Boardman into compliance with the ORC policy. EODMU 56 ELEVEN Detachment Northwest returned to NWSTF Boardman in 57 May 2006 as part of a regularly occurring ORC schedule. 58 Development of a formal Operational Range Clearance Plan for 59 NWSTF Boardman is scheduled for kick off in 2007.
60 4.2.3.3 2000 Range Survey Results 61 In the year 2000, Range Survey responses were provided by NAS 62 Whidbey Island’s environmental personnel regarding environmental 63 issues as they applied to ranges under the authority of NAS Whidbey 64 Island. The ranges covered in the survey included: W-237, Seaplane
4-19 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Base EOD Demolition Training Range, Crescent Harbor Underwater 2 EOD Range, Lake Hancock, Admiralty Bay Mining Range, and 3 NWSTF Boardman. Survey questions covered such topics as UXO, 4 endangered species, public comments, regulatory comments, and 5 NEPA documentation. A few of the highlights from the 2000 survey 6 include: 7 1. Up to the year 2000, Lake Hancock had been the only NAS 8 Whidbey Island (WI) range to have had a major range 9 debris/UXO removal action (in 1972/1973 and in 1998 under 10 CERCLA pursuant to a CLEAN contract). NWSTF Boardman 11 had several small scale clearance efforts documented in the past, 12 and since 2005 has had extensive range debris/UXO removal 13 projects, as discussed in the previous section. 14 2. Several of the ranges reported the possible presence of 15 endangered and/or threatened species including: chinook salmon, 16 gray whales, bald eagles, marbled murrelets, and Washington 17 ground squirrels. 18 3. Though limited subject matters have received public or 19 regulatory communications regarding environmental issues on 20 ranges, significant communication has addressed the potential 21 for groundwater contamination at NWSTF Boardman. 22 Additionally, at the Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range, 23 US Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries are 24 engaged with the NAS Whidbey Island Environmental 25 Department in monitoring the impact of EOD underwater 26 demolition training on endangered/threatened species. A 27 Biological Opinion is currently being drafted in response to the 28 Navy’s Biological Assessment for three EOD underwater 29 demolition training sites in Puget Sound.. 30 31 The 2000 Range Survey responses are valuable as an historical 32 snapshot of environmental compliance issues relevant to the 33 northwest Navy ranges. They form a basis of understanding 34 regarding how times have changed since the survey in terms of the 35 numbers of studies performed and the depth of knowledge of the 36 environmental conditions.
37 4.2.3.4 Air Quality Permitting
38 Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range Air 39 Quality Permitting 40 In 1994, the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) issued a 41 letter to NASWI in response to EOD Det Northwest’s mission 42 requirement to respond to and provide emergency response treatment 43 of discharged marine markers by burning (NWAPA 1194).. 44 NWAPA authorized these emissions conditioned on the following: 45 1. The marine markers will be burned as per the procedure 46 submitted to NWAPA at a distance 600 yards or greater from the 47 fenceline of the facility. Access to the burn area will be 48 restricted to personnel necessary for the burn.
4-20 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2. The burn rate will be no greater than one marker per fifteen 2 minutes. 3 3. An annual report will be submitted to NWAPA identifying the 4 type, quantity, and weight of markers burned in the previous 5 year. This report may be submitted at the same time as the 6 annual emission inventory report. 7 8 The most recent report submitted by EODMU 11 is dated January 9 12, 2005. The report notes that 4 Mk-25 Marine Markers and 1 10 Mk-58 Marine Marker were disposed of using 10 Blasting Cap M-6s 11 and 10 TH3 G900 Grenades during the year 2004 (DoN 2005).
12 4.2.3.5 Historical Range Use at Lake Hancock and Admiralty Bay
13 Lake Hancock Target Range 14 Historically, Lake Hancock was used for practice bombs and practice 15 mines in addition to rockets (Woodworth and Allen, 1972). Due to 16 the marshy conditions of the target area, any remaining ordnance is 17 likely at depths of 5-10 feet. 18 19 According to internal Navy correspondence dated 1991, the Lake 20 Hancock Target Range (2.75 inch rocket range) has been abandoned 21 in place since the late 1950s to early 1960s. According to the station 22 Initial Assessment Survey, it was swept and cleared of range 23 expendable materials by EOD in the early 1970s. Approximately 14 24 tons of ordnance were cleared from the range in 1972, including Mk- 25 23, Mk-43, Mk-76, and Mk-89 bombs, 2.25”, 2.75”, and 5” rockets. 26 Records indicate that the range was used for inert ordnance only. In 27 1973 a second clearance unearthed 1.5 tons of ordnance from the 28 range. A 1991 Trip Report by Charles Lateulere, of the Navy 29 Ordnance Environmental Support Office, which included a 30 description of a visit to Lake Hancock Target Range, noted that the 31 area was removed from the NAS Whidbey Island IR program; 32 however, its removal (prior to production of a confirmation report or 33 site investigation) may prove to be an issue in the future. The Trip 34 Report included the following recommendations: 35 36 1. Report the target range as excess property (per OPNAVINST 37 110110.10F and 11000.16A procedures). 38 2. Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for action under 39 Formerly Used Defense Sites procedures. 40 3. Consider entry into a Cooperative Agreement with The Nature 41 Conservancy. 42 4. Ensure that the deed to the range identifies the area as a former 43 rocket range. 44 5. Restrict future land use. 45 6. Fence the entire perimeter of the range. 46 7. Place appropriate warning signage on perimeter fencing (per 47 DOD Guidance DoD 6055.9STD and DoD 5160.56-M).
4-21 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Admiralty Bay Mining/Bombing Range 2 According to a letter dated 30 November 1956 from Commander, 3 Naval Air Bases, Thirteenth Naval District to the Chief, Bureau of 4 Aeronautics, Admiralty Bay was recommended as a substitute 5 mining range for the previously used Crescent Harbor site. The 6 project was to involve the construction of two rake stations for 7 triangulating splash points. Several 10-year leases were to be 8 secured from Island County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 9 10 A Local Notice to Mariners dated 8 November 1972 listed R-6701 11 (Navy 7), which is part of the Admiralty Bay mining range (along 12 with the Chinook A and B MOAs), as authorizing day time aircraft 13 usage for aerial training rockets, miniature bombs, and practice 14 mines. Ships were authorized to use the range continuously for 15 tactical exercises, inert ordnance and small arms fire. 16 17 The 1991 Trip Report by Mr. Lateulere covered Admiralty Bay 18 Bombing Range, as well. The report noted no range related 19 environmental problems, but did note operational/legal issues of 20 concern. Operational/legal issues included: 21 1. The Notice to Mariners entry in 33 CFR 334 does not mention 22 that the Admiralty Bay inlet area is used for bombing. 23 2. The range is not listed in the Washington Coastal Zone 24 Management Plan.
25 4.2.3.6 ESA, MMPA and the MSA 26 There are several listed species that inhabit the estuarine and land 27 range areas of the NWTRC. The majority of these species are 28 discussed in other sections, including Section 4.2.5.2 (Chinook 29 salmon, chum salmon, marbled murrelet, and bull trout), Section 30 4.2.2.3 (Washington ground squirrels at NWSTF Boardman), and 31 Section 4.3.3.1 (OCNMS endangered species). 32 33 Southern Resident Killer Whales. No species in the NWTRC has 34 received as much recent attention as the killer whale (Orcinus orca), 35 Southern Resident distinct population segment. These Southern 36 Resident killer whales are composed of three pods (J, K, and L) of 37 killer whales totaling approximately 90 individuals. Their range 38 during the spring, summer, and fall includes the inland waterways of 39 Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Southern Georgia Strait. 40 Figure 4-3 illustrates the proposed critical habitat for the killer 41 whales. 42 43 The NMFS issued a Final Rule on November 18, 2005 listing the 44 Southern Resident killer whales as endangered under the Endangered 45 Species Act. The rules became effective on February 16, 2006. This 46 small orca population suffers from a host of threats to its survival, 47 including disturbance from vessels, toxins in the water, and potential 48 limits on prey availability. The Final Rule discussed the issue of 49 noise in the water from military sources, including mid-frequency
4-22 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 sonar. The NMFS noted that the Proposed Conservation Plan (see 2 70 FR 57565, October 3, 2005) includes conservation measures to 3 address potential effects of sound, including military sonar. It 4 further noted that (after February 16, 2006) federal agencies must 5 consult on actions that may affect Southern Resident killer whales. 6 Another possible impact on Navy operations within the Puget Sound 7 area may include new regulations regarding vessel operation around 8 whales and/or the creation of protected areas. This reaction stemmed 9 from the MMPA prohibition against “takes” of marine mammals, 10 which includes harassment (Federal Register Volume 70, No. 222, 11 2005). Existing agency guidelines recommend that vessel operators 12 remain at least 100 yards away from all whales, including Southern 13 Resident killer whales, in order to avoid a take. 14 15 Other entities have established protective measures for the Southern 16 Resident orcas. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 17 listed the orcas as a state endangered species on April 3, 2004 (WAC 18 232-12-297). They are also listed as endangered under Canada’s 19 Species at Risk Act (SARA). Canada’s Department of Fisheries and 20 Oceans has convened a recovery team, which includes the 21 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and NMFS, and has 22 released a Draft Recovery Strategy for Southern and Northern 23 Resident Whales under SARA. 24 25 On June 15, 2006, the NMFS published a proposed rule and request 26 for comments in the Federal Register (Federal Register Volume 71, 27 Number 115, pages 34571-34588) regarding the designation of 28 critical habitat for the southern resident killer whale. The NMFS 29 proposed three areas for critical habitat as shown in Figure 4-3: the 30 Summer Core Area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan 31 Islands (shown in light orange), Puget Sound (shown in yellow), and 32 the Strait of Juan de Fuca (shown in green), which comprise 33 approximately 2,564 square miles (6,641 sq km) of marine habitat. 34 The proposed rule specifically exempted 18 DoD sites from the 35 proposed critical habitat. Most of these sites are Navy sites and 36 include all the applicable NWTRC range sites. According to the 37 proposed rule, “The benefit of excluding these particular areas is that 38 the Navy would only be required to comply with the jeopardy 39 prohibition of ESA Section 7(a)(2) and not the adverse modification 40 prohibition.” 41 42 The 18 exempted DOD sites include: 1) Naval Undersea Warfare 43 Center, Keyport; 2) Naval Ordnance Center, Port Hadlock (Indian 44 Island); 3) Naval Fuel Depot, Manchester; 4) Naval Air Station, 45 Whidbey Island; 5) Naval Station, Everett; 6) Naval Hospital 46 Bremerton; 7) Fort Lewis (Army); 8) Pier 23 (Army); 9) Puget 47 Sound Naval Ship Yard; 10) Strait of Juan de Fuca naval air-to- 48 surface weapon range, restricted area; 11) Strait of Juan de Fuca and 49 Whidbey Island naval restricted areas; 12) Admiralty Inlet naval 50 restricted area; 13) Port Gardner Naval Base restricted area; 14) Port 51 Orchard Passage naval restricted area; 15) Sinclair Inlet naval
4-23 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 restricted area; 16) Carr Inlet naval restricted area; 17) Port 2 Townsend/Indian Island/Walan Point naval restricted area; and 18) 3 Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range. The excluded areas are 4 shown in black on Figure 4-3. In addition, the entire Hood Canal 5 (and associated Dabob Bay Range Complex) is excluded from the 6 proposed critical habitat. 7 8 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 9 Act (MSA) 10 The MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 11 (Public Law 104-267), established procedures designed to identify, 12 conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for those species 13 regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to 14 the MSA: 15 16 Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all 17 actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken 18 by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (MSA section 19 305(b)(2)); 20 NOAA Fisheries must provide conservation recommendations 21 for any Federal or state activity that may adversely affect EFH 22 (MSA section 305(b)(4)(A)); 23 Federal agencies must provide a detailed response in writing to 24 NOAA Fisheries within 30 days after receiving EFH 25 conservation recommendations. The response must include a 26 description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, 27 mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the 28 case of a response that is inconsistent with the conservation 29 recommendations of NOAA Fisheries, the Federal agency must 30 explain its reasons for not following the recommendations (MSA 31 section 305(b)(4)(B)). 32 33 Essential Fish Habitat consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required 34 regarding any Federal agency action that may adversely affect EFH, 35 including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream 36 activities. EFH consultation objectives are to determine whether a 37 proposed action would adversely affect designated EFH and to 38 recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise 39 offset potential adverse effects to EFH. 40 41 Pursuant to the MSA the Pacific Fisheries Management Council 42 (PFMC) has designated EFH for federally-managed fisheries within 43 the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. Designated EFH 44 for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters 45 from the mean high water line, and upriver extent of saltwater 46 intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington, Oregon 47 and California, seaward to the boundary of the U.S. exclusive 48 economic zone (370.4 km). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon 49 includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water 50 bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, 51
4-24 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Figure 4-3. Proposed Critical Habitat for the Southern Resident Killer Whales
4-25 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain 2 impassable man-made, and longstanding, naturally impassable 3 barriers (e.g., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred 4 years). In estuarine and marine areas, designated salmon EFH 5 extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within 6 state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive economic 7 zone (370.4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California 8 north of Point Conception to the Canadian border. Detailed 9 descriptions and identifications of EFH are contained in the fishery 10 management plans for groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and 11 Pacific salmon. 12 13 In Alaska, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) 14 manages EFH. On May 6, 2005, the NPFMC published a Notice of 15 Availability of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for 16 Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska. 17 The EIS is a comprehensive analysis of the effects of identifying 18 EFH, approaches for identifying Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 19 within EFH, and options for minimizing the effects of fishing on 20 EFH. The NPFMC has prepared and implemented five fishery 21 management plans (FMPs) addressing: 1) the Bering Sea/Aleutian 22 Islands Groundfish, 2) Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, 3) Bering 23 Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab, 4) Alaska Scallop, and 24 5) Salmon.
25 4.2.4 Environmental Compliance Documentation at NUWC Keyport Ranges
26 4.2.4.1 Keyport Range Site 27 No specific environmental compliance documentation was 28 encountered or collected during development of this RCMP for the 29 Keyport Range Site. However, through review of the 1996 NUWC 30 Keyport Range Management Plan (NUWC 1996), some insight can 31 be gained as to environmental compliance documentation at the 32 Keyport Range Site. For example, according to the 1996 plan, 33 NUWC Keyport has an oil and hazardous substance contingency 34 response plan, which would apply to actions occurring at the Keyport 35 Range Site.
36 4.2.4.2 Quinalt Range Site 37 No specific environmental compliance documentation was 38 encountered or collected during development of this RCMP for the 39 Quinalt Range Site.
40 4.2.4.3 Dabob Bay Range Complex 41 A Biological Assessment was prepared in conjunction with an EA 42 for Ongoing and Future Operations at U.S. Navy Dabob Bay and 43 Hood Canal Military Operating Areas (NAVFAC NW 2001). See 44 Section 4.3.3.1.4 for more information regarding the EA. The BA 45 covered an estimated 285 annual launches of various underwater
4-26 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 vehicle systems in Dabob Bay, the Hood Canal, and their 2 interconnecting waters. No explosive warheads are used in these 3 tests. Threatened and Endangered species covered included: Hood 4 Canal summer chum salmon, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Stellar 5 sea lion, humpback whale, leatherback sea turtle, bull trout, coast 6 Puget Sound, bald eagle, marbled murrelet, and the Northern spotted 7 owl. The BA concluded that the proposed testing in the Dabob 8 Range Complex would have no effect on marine mammals, sea 9 turtles, or terrestrial species. It also concluded that the proposed 10 testing in the Dabob Range Complex may affect, but is not likely to 11 adversely affect, the aforementioned fish species. The project 12 actions would not destroy or adversely modify proposed critical 13 habitat, or jeopardize the continued existence of these three species. 14 15 A study prepared for NUWC Keyport by the Battelle Marine Science 16 Laboratory in 2001 determined whether the operation of the Dabob 17 Bay Range Complex (DBRC) has had an adverse effect on sediment 18 and water quality (Crecelius 2001). The study involved sampling 19 and analysis of the samples for concentrations of six metals 20 (cadmium, copper, lithium, lead, zinc, and zirconium). The study 21 found that concentrations of the metals in Dabob Bay were not 22 elevated. Four of the metals were of concentrations well below state 23 standards. Lithium was at the same concentration as that found in 24 the ocean, and zirconium was four orders of magnitude below the 25 lowest effect concentration for toxicity to aquatic organisms.
26 4.2.4.4 Nanoose Range Site 27 Environmental compliance by range users at Canada’s Nanoose 28 Range Site is per an international agreement between the U.S. and 29 Canada. The latest agreement is in the form of a Memorandum of 30 Understanding dated 02 October 2002. The majority of the MOU 31 covers the allocation of range time and costs between the US and 32 Canada, but it does contain provisions governing environmental 33 stewardship. The US and Canada are required to adopt protocols and 34 standard procedures for prevention, response and mitigation of 35 environmental damage. See Section 4.4.2.4 for more details.
36 4.2.5 Environmental Compliance Documentation at EOD and NSW Ranges
37 4.2.5.1 CERCLA Compliance
38 Bangor Site A 39 On July 22, 1987, Site A on Subase Bangor was listed on the U.S. 40 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List 41 (NPL) of hazardous waste sites. On August 30, 1990, the remainder 42 of the SUBASE, Bangor facility was listed on the NPL. 43 44 On January 29, 1990, a cooperative three-party Federal Facility 45 Agreement (FFA) was signed by the Navy, the EPA, and the
4-27 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for study and 2 cleanup of possible contamination on the SUBASE, Bangor 3 property. The potentially contaminated sites at Bangor were grouped 4 into eight operable units based on geographic location, suspected 5 contamination, or other factors. A separate study was conducted for 6 each operable unit to determine appropriate cleanup actions. 7 8 On December 10, 1991, a Record of Decision was signed for Site A 9 (Operable Unit 1) with several soil remediation and groundwater 10 remediation steps set forth as the selected remedy. According to the 11 site history, Site A consisted of a burn area used to detonate and 12 incinerate various ordnance materials beginning in 1962 and 13 continuing to 1975. The site originally consisted of 24 burn mounds 14 and support facilities for personnel, fire equipment and trucks. An 15 incinerator for small arms ammunition and dangerous pyrotechnic 16 items was added between 1965 and 1970 along with a shielded blast 17 pit used for detonation of TNT. 18 19 A portion of Site A is currently being used as the Bangor EOD 20 Demolition Training Range. According to the 1991 ROD, periodic 21 review will need to be conducted to ensure that the remedy continues 22 to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
23 Bangor Site B 24 Site B at Floral Point, on Subase Bangor was listed on the U.S. 25 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List 26 (NPL) of hazardous waste sites in 1990. It is located at the northern 27 end of SUBASE, Bangor. Pyrotechnic testing was reportedly 28 conducted both for quality assurance and for research and 29 development during the 1950s and 1960s (U.S. Navy 1983). In 1953, 30 Buildings 263 and 264 (now demolished) were designated for the 31 purpose of handling and storing pyrotechnics. Various materials 32 tested included star signals, smoke cans (aluminum types), smoke 33 pots, and hand grenades. Black powder also was reportedly burned at 34 Site B. 35 36 Floral Point was used for station dumping from approximately 1950 37 to 1968. Pit disposal, land filling, and trash burning all were reported 38 activities during this time period. For a short duration (1966 to 39 1967), the site was used for open burning of Royal Demolition 40 Explosives (RDX) and trinitrotoluene (TNT) residuals removed from 41 the segregation facility leachate pit (U.S. Navy 1983). Garbage from 42 Keyport also was reportedly disposed of at this location (circa 1967 43 to 1972). 44 45 This site is located at Floral Point, while the Floral Point Underwater 46 EOD Range is located in the water near the point and is not a 47 CERCLA site. It is included here for information only as a nearby 48 environmental compliance issue.
4-28 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 NAVMAG Indian Island 2 NAVMAG Indian Island was delisted from the NPL in July 2005. 3 Naval Magazine Indian Island (Indian Island) was included on the 4 NPL in June 1994. The Record of Decision (ROD) for Indian Island 5 (URS 1995b), signed in August 1995 by the Navy, EPA, and 6 Ecology, specified remedial actions for Site 10 (Northend Landfill) 7 and Site 21 (Building 86 Fill Area). Seven sites (Sites 11, 12, 15, 18, 8 19, 20, and 22) were declared in the ROD to require no further 9 action. Sites 13, 14, 16, and 17 were determined to require no 10 additional actions prior to the ROD and were not included in the 11 ROD. Sites 33, 34, 35, 36, EO101, and the Hazardous Waste 12 Storage Area (HWSA) have been identified and addressed 13 subsequent to the ROD. 14 15 Though not co-located with any of the NPL sites, the NAVMAG 16 Indian Island Underwater EOD Range is located offshore from Crane 17 Point, somewhat in proximity to the former NAVMAG Indian Island 18 NPL site. Mention of the former NPL site is included here for 19 information purposes only as a nearby environmental compliance 20 issue.
21 4.2.5.2 Biological Assessments
22 EOD Operations in the Puget Sound, Washington (2000) 23 The Navy completed a Biological Assessment (BA) (28 December 24 2000) to evaluate the impact of a training program for the Navy’s 25 Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units in the Puget Sound 26 region. The BA included assessment of the biological environment 27 in four locations (Crescent Harbor, Holmes Harbor, Subase Bangor, 28 and Port Townsend Bay). Although Holmes Harbor was initially 29 considered as a potential area for underwater demolition training 30 operations, it has never been utilized for training and is no longer 31 proposed for future training. The program was evaluated primarily 32 in relation to Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Hood Canal 33 summer-run chum (both listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999). 34 The BA also evaluated the EOD program impact on candidate 35 species coho salmon and cutthroat trout. The effect of the proposed 36 action was also addressed in relation to the listed species: Stellar sea 37 lion, humpback whale, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, and bull trout. 38 39 This BA was supplemented and amended by BA Addenda dated 14 40 December 2001, which set forth determinations of effect of EOD 41 operations on 1) Dungeness Crab populations in Crescent Harbor, 2) 42 juvenile and adult Chinook and chum salmon and forage fish, and 3) 43 marine mammals in Puget Sound, including harbor seal and 44 California sea lion. 45
4-29 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 As set forth in the Conservation Measures section of the BA, EOD 2 units currently employ practices during training exercises to reduce 3 the potential effects of explosions on marine biota. These include: 4 Surveying (via boat) within a 500-m radius of the detonation 5 site to determine whether marine mammals are present. 6 The charge is not detonated if marine mammals or birds are 7 within distances where injury could potentially occur. The 8 charge is detonated once the birds and mammals clear the 9 vicinity. 10 11 Figure 4-4 below sets forth the current distances from each EOD 12 training area to the nearest shoreline. According to the BA, juvenile 13 chum and Chinook salmon typically migrate in the shallows along 14 the shoreline. The noise/impulse effects (physical and behavioral) 15 from 20-lb charges and even 5-lb charges are calculated to reach into 16 these shallow water areas. Therefore, there is a potential for injury 17 or mortality of juvenile salmon at all of the training sites, if 18 detonations occur when juvenile salmon are present along the nearest 19 shorelines. 20 Distance from Training EOD Site Area to Nearest Shoreline Crescent Harbor 580m Port Townsend Bay 580m (NAVMAG Indian Island) SUBASE Bangor 200m (Floral Point) 21 Figure 4-4. EOD Training Area Distances from the Nearest 22 Shoreline
23 In light of the potential effects of the EOD training program on listed 24 species and protected marine mammals, additional measures were 25 proposed to minimize effects on these species. In correspondence 26 (18 December 2001) from Navy Region Northwest to the NMFS and 27 USFWS, the Navy proposed an update to the COMNAVREGNW 28 INSTRUCTION 8027 with the following mitigation measures: 29 30 1. At the Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend Bay sites, during the 31 juvenile migration season (March 15 to July 1 for salmon and 32 bull trout), charges larger than 5 lb. should not be used. If it is 33 necessary to use charges larger than 5 lb., and up to 20 lb., these 34 charges should be detonated at least 1000 m from the nearest 35 shoreline. 36 2. Maximum Net Explosive Weight (NEW) for any underwater 37 detonation in the U.S. Navy EOD Puget Sound Training Ranges 38 of Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend will be 20 pounds NEW. 39 3. Maximum NEW for any underwater detonation in the U.S. Navy 40 EOD Puget Sound Training Ranges of Hood Canal will be 5 41 pounds NEW.
4-30 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 4. At the Hood Canal site, charges larger than one pound will not 2 be used during the juvenile migration season (March 15 to July 1 3 for salmon and bull trout). 4 5. Thirty minutes prior to any underwater detonation, a minimum 5 of one EOD work boat will patrol the training range for potential 6 presence of marine mammals. 7 a. Pay particular attention for any Harbor Seal or California 8 Sea Lions known to occasionally haul out on the “haul 9 out rocks” along the eastern shoreline of Crescent 10 Harbor (approximately 48°17’15”N/122°34’00”W) and 11 off Forbes Point (approximately 48°16’22”N/ 12 122°37’50”W. 13 b. Per the Biological Assessment Addendum (2001), for 14 Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend any sightings of 15 marine mammals within a 600m radius of the 16 underwater detonation site will cause underwater 17 detonations to be cancelled and rescheduled. For Hood 18 Canal site, any sightings of marine mammals within a 19 345m radius of the underwater detonation site will cause 20 underwater detonations to be cancelled and rescheduled. 21 22 6. Following an underwater detonation, the site will be monitored 23 for a minimum of fifteen minutes and the EOD Detonation 24 Supervisor will fill out an Environmental Historical Monitoring 25 Sheet. Once completed, the Sheet will be maintained for a 26 historical record by each unit conducting underwater demolition 27 operations. 28 7. In order to avoid possible conflicts with tribal fishing, the acting 29 EOD unit will contact Navy Region Northwest at (360) 315- 30 5006 prior to operations at the Crescent Harbor site. Navy 31 Region Northwest will then notify a designated point of contact 32 for the Skagit System Cooperative (currently Ms. Lisa Turpin, 33 Swinomish Tribal Affairs at (360) 466-7228). If at all possible, 34 EOD unit shall give at least 10 days prior notice. 35 36 Note: The 2000 BA listed a procedural requirement of lifting 37 explosive charges 10 feet off the seafloor prior to detonation to 38 reduce seafloor disturbance. Since the BA, this procedure has 39 been eliminated with the determination that even though a 40 charge on the bottom is more disruptive to the benthic 41 environment, it is less disruptive of the water column, where 42 forage fish and salmon would potentially be found. This is 43 expected to reduce the magnitude of occasional impacts to the 44 species of concern. 45 46 A few other significant correspondence documents are worthy of 47 mention on this subject. In correspondence dated 28 April 2003, the 48 CNRNW sent a letter to the USFWS and the NMFS setting forth a 49 monitoring plan option. The monitoring plan has several objectives 50 including the determination of ESA listed and forage fish species 51 impacted by the EOD underwater detonation training. The detailed
4-31 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 monitoring plan sets forth roles and responsibilities, sampling net 2 placement, recordation requirements, detonation procedures, 3 sampling net recovery, numbers/species determination, sample 4 collection procedures, protocols, and equipment to be utilized. 5 Finally, CNRNW correspondence to NMFS and USFWS dated 2 6 February 2004 detailed two restoration projects in connection with 7 the receipt of a Biological Opinion. These two projects were: 1) 8 Restoration of the former salt marsh at Crescent Harbor marsh on the 9 Navy’s Seaplane Base and 2) Restoration of inter-tidal beach habitat 10 at Maylor Point in Oak Harbor at the Seaplane Base. 11 12 In 2005, NAS Whidbey Island Environmental Department staff 13 supplied supplemental information to the USFWS regarding the 14 effects of EOD training on marbled murrelets, details on the 15 numbers/sizes of detonations at each site, helicopter usage for diver 16 insertion/extraction, and two additional addenda to the Final BA 17 dated 28 December 2002, including: 18 1. Addendum: The Effects of EOD Underwater Detonations on 19 Salmon Critical Habitat (14 October 2005). The USFWS re- 20 designated critical habitat for the Hood canal summer-run chum 21 salmon and for Chinook salmon through a Final rule published 22 on September 2, 2005. The Final designating critical habitat 23 excludes Department of Defense (DoD) installations covered by 24 an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) or 25 associated with DoD easements or right-of-ways. The EOD 26 training area of Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor falls within these 27 exempted zones and is thus exempted from critical habitat 28 designation for both listed salmonid species. The EOD training 29 areas in Port Townsend Bay and Crescent Harbor are outside of 30 DoD easements or right-of-ways and thus fall within the critical 31 habitat designation area, which has been defined as from the 32 extreme high water line on shore out to no greater than 30 meters 33 of depth at mean lower low water. Nevertheless, the Navy 34 determined that its analysis in the BA adequately addressed the 35 potential effects to salmon critical habitat. Its determination 36 stands that EOD training may affect, but is not likely to 37 adversely affect the critical habitat. 38 2. Addendum: The Effects of EOD Underwater Detonations on Bull 39 Trout Critical Habitat (14 October 2005). The USFWS 40 published the Final Rule designating critical habitat for the 41 Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout in September 2005. The three 42 EOD training sites (Crescent Harbor, Hood Canal, and Port 43 Townsend) were excluded. Therefore, the Navy determined that 44 EOD training operations will have no effect to bull trout critical 45 habitat. 46 47 At the time of this writing, the USFWS has not yet issued a 48 Biological Opinion.
4-32 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range 2 The Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range is located in the 3 eastern portion of Crescent Harbor to the west of Polnell Point. 4 Water depths in the range area vary from approximately 40 feet to 90 5 feet. Underwater detonation training involves detonation of charges 6 both on the bottom and at or near the surface. Charges are detonated 7 approximately 1000 yards from shore areas. At the request of 8 CNRNW, EODMU-11 has implemented a self-imposed normal use 9 limit of 2.5 lbs NEW to help mitigate the impact of underwater 10 demolitions training. 2.5 lbs is the standard charge size currently 11 being used, but up to 20 lbs NEW is technically authorized. The 12 explosive used is C-4 (MIL-C-45010A), composed of approximately 13 91 percent RDX (Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) and 9 14 percent polyisobutylene. Approximately 52 detonations take place 15 per year. To help assess impact of operations and to facilitate 16 mitigation, underwater demolition operations are monitored by the 17 NAS Whidbey Island Environmental Department. Department 18 personnel operate out of an installation small boat and monitor 19 density patterns prior to demolition operations. Immediately 20 following detonations, the area is surveyed for fish kills, with species 21 identification and approximate counts taking place. Prior to 22 detonations, the range area is also surveyed for marine mammals. 23 Operations are postponed or cancelled if marine mammals are 24 present or if unusually large fish densities are observed. 25 26 Crescent Harbor was used during the period 1951-1961 by P2 and P3 27 patrol aircraft for dropping unknown quantities of practice bombs, 28 practice mines and smoke lights (Woodworth and Allen, 1972). The 29 record notes that no clearance operation was planned.
30 Floral Point Underwater EOD Range 31 Just offshore from Floral Point on Subase Bangor is the Floral Point 32 Underwater EOD Range. According to the 2000 Biological 33 Assessment of U.S. Navy EOD Operations in Puget Sound, WA, the 34 detonations conducted by EODMU-11 Detachment Bangor occur at 35 a single site in Hood Canal located approximately 200 m (600 ft) 36 offshore of Floral Point on SUBASE Bangor. At this site the water 37 depth is approximately 30 ft. Charges detonated at this site mostly 38 are in the size range of 1 to 8 ounces, although charges as large as 5 39 lbs. are possible. The explosives used are C-4 and A-3. As noted 40 previously, C-4 is a combination of 91.0% RDX and 9.0% 41 polyisobutylene. A-3 (MIL-C-440B) is comprised of 91.0% RDX 42 and 9.0% wax. Approximately four detonations occur at this site per 43 year. The Biological Assessment concluded that: 44 The EOD training program may affect, but is not likely to 45 adversely affect, Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood 46 Canal summer-run chum salmon, Stellar sea lion, humpback 47 whale, bald eagle, marbled murrelet, and bull trout within the 48 action area.
4-33 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Navy EOD training operations could have minimal, short- 2 term, localized impact to EFH for salmonids, ground fish, and 3 other finfish. However, there would be no long-term adverse 4 impacts to EFH as a result from Navy EOD training 5 operations. 6 7 These same effects determinations were made relative to the 8 NAVMAG Indian Island Underwater EOD Range and the Crescent 9 Harbor Underwater EOD Range.
10 NAVMAG Indian Island Underwater EOD Range 11 According to the 2000 EOD Operations BA mentioned previously, 12 training involving underwater detonations at the NAVMAG Indian 13 Island Underwater EOD Range are infrequent and take place 14 approximately four (4) times per year. Detonations typically occur 15 in 50 to 60 feet of water over sandy or muddy bottoms. These 16 locations are between 330 m (1100 ft) and 2200 m (7200 ft) from the 17 nearest shoreline. The explosive used is C-4; typically 2.5 lbs NEW, 18 but charges up to 20 lbs can be used. The effects determinations 19 made are the same as those set forth for Subase Bangor.
20 4.2.5.3 NSW Ranges - Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility 21 The Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility (CWTF) on Kodiak 22 Island, Alaska is leased by NAVFAC NW (for Naval Special 23 Warfare Center) from the U.S. Coast Guard. The 130 acres leased 24 through the year 2021 is located on the northeast tip of Kodiak 25 Island, Alaska (DOT 2000). This area is on the Spruce Cape portion 26 of the island (formerly the Coast Guard Loran Station). 27 Environmental compliance research data from the Coast Guard and 28 NSW is limited at this time; however a few environmental 29 compliance issues are known through other public sources. 30 31 Early Coastal Management Program resource maps identified 32 multiple sensitive environmental areas in the vicinity of the Kodiak 33 CWTF. These sensitive areas include: areas with a high density of 34 harbor seals, areas with whales in offshore waters, vital reproduction 35 areas for king crab and dungeness crabs, coho salmon streams, major 36 concentration areas for herring, archeological/historic sites, and areas 37 with some subsistence use of resources (ACMP 1981). 38 39 The Lease permit references areas of particular concern on the leased 40 premises including wetlands and possible archeological sites. In a 41 permit amendment, the Navy agreed to exercise due diligence in 42 their use of the permitted premises, implement appropriate 43 environmental protection measures for the wetland and archeological 44 sites, and ensure full compliance with the coordination requirements 45 of the following laws: 46 Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 47 470aa-470ll as amended)
4-34 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321- 2 4370 as amended) 3 Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (16 4 USC 469 as amended) 5 Clean Water Act – Wetlands (40 CFR 404, as amended; 6 Executive Order 11990)
7 4.2.6 Environmental Compliance Issues
8 4.2.6.1 Offshore Ranges 9 The Navy will need to continue to comply with the regulations and 10 prohibited uses set forth in the Olympic Coast National Marine 11 Sanctuary (OCNMS) EIS. It is emphasized that these regulations 12 apply only within the boundaries of the OCNMS (See Chapter 2 13 Figures for the location of the OCNMS within W-237 and the Pacific 14 NW Surface/Subsurface OPAREA). The Navy may also consider 15 consultations with NMFS for the other operations that take place 16 seaward of the NMS boundary. Such consultations will achieve 17 ESA/MMPA/MSA compliance and provide programmatic coverage 18 for such operations as ASW, TORPEX, A-G BOMBEX, ACM, 19 MISSILEX, and GUNEX.
20 4.2.6.2 Inshore Areas
21 Special Use Airspace 22 There are no known environmental compliance issues of concern 23 associated with airspace. With the introduction of the EA-18Gs to 24 NAS Whidbey Island, total annual mobile source emissions of CO, 25 NOx, and VOCs are projected to increase, and emissions of SO2 and 26 PM10 are projected to decrease. NAS Whidbey will require a 27 revision to their Title V operating permit; however, no significant 28 impacts on air quality were determined in the EA for the aircraft 29 introduction. Replacement of the EA-6Bs with the EA-18G will 30 create a small area of increased noise, but this will be offset by the 31 overall reductions in total area and population within the 65-dB DNL 32 noise contour. Overall, flight operations are projected to decrease, 33 and no vibrations would impact any historic structures.
34 Puget Sound Area 35 The Navy will need to actively participate with NMFS in discussions 36 revolving around the proposed Critical Habitat designation and 37 recovery plan for the Southern Resident killer whale. Though the 38 proposed critical habitat specifically excludes DoD facilities and 39 ranges, the Navy is still required to comply with the “no jeopardy” 40 provisions of ESA Section 7. Regulations related to the species’ 41 protection include potential Critical Habitat designations and vessel 42 proximity limits may affect Navy vessel movement to and from 43 ranges. The species’ endangered status also makes it increasingly
4-35 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 difficult for the Navy to lift its current restrictions on Puget Sound 2 sonar use.
3 Land Ranges - NWSTF Boardman 4 The Final CRE Phase I Report for NWSTF Boardman concluded no 5 off range release of munitions constituents had occurred, and that 6 NWSTF Boardman would not need to proceed to Phase II of the 7 RSEPA Process. However, the report lists a series of protective 8 measures to enhance range sustainment. These are detailed in the 9 Final CRE and are recommended for implementation. These 10 protective measures should be shared with the Oregon Army 11 National Guard. Naval Ordnance and Environmental Support Office 12 (OESO) Document 01-98, January 1998, “Outdoor Small Arms 13 Range Management Practices Guidebook” may also be relevant to 14 the Oregon Army National Guard’s proposed small arms usage at 15 NWSTF Boardman.
16 4.2.6.3 NUWC Keyport Ranges 17 The Dabob Bay Range Complex appears to have compliance issues 18 under control (i.e., water sampling indicated no elevated metal levels 19 and BA indicated that operations are not likely to adversely affect 20 listed species). However, environmental compliance issues will need 21 to be examined in relation to the proposed range extension. 22 Furthermore, should operations change substantially these issues 23 may need to be revisited. At the Nanoose Range Site, compliance 24 issues will follow any SOP developed to minimize environmental 25 impacts. Known issues and compliance practices at this range 26 include expendable materials left on the strait floor, avoiding low- 27 level flights over bird colonies and sea lion haulouts, and observing 28 stand-off distances from marine mammals.
29 4.2.6.4 EOD and NSW Ranges 30 The Navy will need to continue to adhere to the mitigation measures 31 set forth in the 2000 EOD Operations Biological Assessment. 32 Following these mitigation measures will keep the Navy in 33 compliance with ESA and MMPA. The Seaplane Base EOD 34 Demolition Training Range also will need to continue to prepare its 35 air permit reports indicating compliance with those permit 36 requirements. No environmental compliance issues have been 37 identified with regard to NSW operations that have not already been 38 identified with respect to the ranges that they share with other 39 operations.
40 4.2.7 Environmental Compliance Documents
41 Applicable environmental compliance documents are described in 42 Figure 4-5 below.
4-36 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Title Range(s) Covered Date Status Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Permit for Seaplane Base EOD 1994 Complete Burning of Mk-25/58 Marine Markers Demolition Training Range Final Site Visit/Record Search Technical Dabob Bay Range Complex 1996 Complete Memorandum Dabob Range Site Bangor EOD Demolition Final Record of Decision Naval Submarine Training Range, Base Bangor Operable Unit 8, Kitsap 2000 Complete Floral Point Underwater EOD County, Washington Range Crescent Harbor Underwater Final Biological Assessment for U.S. Navy EOD Range, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) NAVMAG Indian Island 2000 Complete Operations, Puget Sound, Washington Underwater EOD Range, Bangor EOD DTR Concentrations of Metals in Sediment and Dabob Bay Range Complex 2001 Complete Water of Dabob Bay Biological Assessment for Ongoing and Future Operations at U.S. Navy Dabob Bay Dabob Bay Range Complex 2001 Complete and Hood Canal Military Operating Areas Comprehensive Range Evaluation: Range NWSTF Boardman, Condition Assessment. Phase II and Phase Seaplane Base EOD 2004 Complete III Synopsis Demolition Training Range Final Close Out Report - Naval Magazine NAVMAG Indian Island 2005 Complete Indian Island Port Hadlock, Washington Comprehensive Range Evaluation: Environmental Protection Plan, Health and NWSTF Boardman 2005 Complete Safety Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan, and Sampling and Analysis Plan Annual Conventional Ordnance Disposal Seaplane Base EOD 2005 Complete Report Demolition Training Range Final Report Comprehensive Range Evaluation Phase I, Whidbey Island Complex Preliminary Screening Synopsis NWSTF Boardman 2006 Complete Decision Point Two Report, Naval Weapons System Training Facility, Boardman, Oregon
1 Figure 4-5. Environmental Compliance Documents for NWTRC
2 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
3 Environmental planning, as defined by DoD Instruction 4715.9 4 “Environmental Planning and Analysis,” is the process of identifying 5 and considering environmental factors that have an impact on, or are 6 impacted by, planned DoD activities and operations. Environmental 7 planning efforts are principally undertaken in compliance with 8 NEPA and EO 12114. The environmental documents produced 9 under these requirements must also provide for completion of the 10 federal consistency process under CZMA, and any consultation or
4-37 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 permitting undertaken in accordance with the ESA, NHPA, MMPA, 2 and the MSA, among others. Early consideration of potential 3 environmental impacts can actually enhance military readiness by 4 assuring access to critical training areas.
5 4.3.1 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
6 General requirements of the CZMA are included in Volume I of this 7 RCMP. The CZMA delegates regulatory authority to coastal states 8 having a federally approved Coastal Management Plan (CMP). All 9 of the states within the NWTRC (Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) 10 have federally approved CMPs that are discussed below.
11 4.3.1.1 Washington Coastal Zone Management Program 12 Washington was the first state to receive federal approval of a 13 Coastal Zone Management Program in 1976. The Department of 14 Ecology (Ecology) is the lead agency for Washington’s Coastal Zone 15 Management (CZM) Program as part of its Shoreland and 16 Environmental Assistance (SEA) Program. The six laws that form 17 Washington’s CZM Program are: 18 1. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (including local 19 government shoreline master programs, 20 2. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), 21 3. The Clean Air Act, 22 4. The Clean Water Act, 23 5. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Law, and 24 6. The Ocean Resource Management Act. 25 26 Washington’s coastal zone is comprised of the following fifteen 27 counties: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, 28 Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, 29 Wahkiakum and Whatcom. The coastal zone includes all lands and 30 waters from the coastline seaward for three nautical miles. For the 31 areas that abut the ocean, the coastline is defined as the position of 32 ordinary low water. The coastline along the inland marine waters is 33 located at the seaward limit of rivers, bays, estuaries, or Sound. The 34 inland political boundaries of the counties are used as the coastal 35 zone limit because they generally follow drainage divides, such as 36 the Cascade mountains, the Black Hills, and the eastern edge of the 37 Willapa Hills (Ecology 2001). 38 39 The Coastal Zone Management Act specifically excludes from the 40 coastal zone those lands that are, by law, subject solely to the 41 discretion of, or held in trust by, the federal government. The 42 CZMA’s regulations provide that states must exclude from their 43 coastal zone designations the lands that the federal government 44 owns, leases, holds in trust, or otherwise has sole discretion to 45 determine their use. These “excluded federal lands” within the 46 boundaries of Washington’s coastal zone are:
4-38 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Military reservations and other defense installations (e.g. Fort 2 Lewis, Bangor Naval Submarine Station, Naval Air Station 3 Whidbey Island), 4 All lands within National Parks, including private inholdings 5 (e.g. Olympic National Park, Mt. Rainier National Park), 6 Indian lands held in trust by the federal government, and 7 National Forest lands and National Recreation Areas owned 8 or leased by the federal government (private in holdings are 9 within the coastal zone). 10 11 Despite the foregoing exclusion, the CZMA federal consistency 12 requirement (Section 307) requires that federal agency activities be 13 consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 14 policies of a management program. There are three categories of 15 activities which trigger a federal consistency review: 1) activities 16 undertaken by a federal agency, 2) activities which require federal 17 approval, and 3) activities which use federal funding. If a project 18 falls into one of these categories AND is either in the coastal zone or 19 it impacts coastal uses or resources, then the federal consistency 20 process is triggered. 21 22 When a federal agency undertakes an activity, the following general 23 process must be followed: The federal agency determines if coastal 24 effects are reasonably foreseeable. In these cases, the federal agency 25 reviews the activity for consistency with the six laws and prepares a 26 “federal consistency determination.” The determination describes 27 the activity and whether the activity impacts coastal resources. If the 28 activity impacts coastal resources, a statement must be provided that 29 the activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 30 enforceable policies in the six laws. Ecology has up to 60 days to 31 concur with or object to, in writing, with the determination.
32 4.3.1.2 Oregon’s Ocean-Coastal Management Program 33 The lead agency for coastal zone management in Oregon is the 34 Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The 35 DLCD is comprised of the Land Conservation and Development 36 Commission’s (LCDC) staff. The DLCD carries out the LCDC’s 37 decisions and administers the Oregon Coastal Management Program 38 (OCMP). The OCMP is based on the Oregon Land Use Planning 39 Act (ORS 197). The LCDC has adopted nineteen planning goals of 40 which three (pertaining to estuarine areas, coastal shorelands, and 41 beaches and dunes) set specific standards for coastal resources. 42 These goals can be found at Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 43 660. 44 45 Federal Consistency Requirements: A project must be shown to be 46 consistent with the various applicable components of the OCMP, that 47 is with the statewide planning goals (see above list), with coastal city 48 and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations approved 49 by the LCDC, and with various state agency authorities (e.g., land
4-39 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 use planning statutes, the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan, the Removal- 2 Fill Law, water quality standards, and the Oregon Beach Bill). 3 4 DLCD can assist individuals or agencies on a case-by-case basis 5 with determining how to best go about demonstrating consistency 6 with the OCMP. In general, a federal agency starts by consulting 7 with the affected local city or county planning department to 8 determine applicable local land use requirements, and checks with 9 various state agencies to determine if any state approvals are 10 required. 11 12 The OCMP applies to the land and water areas within Oregon's 13 Coastal Zone. All shorelands and drainage basins which have a 14 significant and direct effect on coastal waters are included, with the 15 exception of the Columbia, Umpqua, and Rogue River basins, which 16 are included only to the extent of significant tidal influence. The 17 coastal zone is formally defined as extending from the Washington 18 border on the north to the California border on the south, seaward to 19 the extent of state jurisdiction as recognized by federal law (the 20 Territorial Sea, extending three (3) nautical miles offshore), and 21 inland to the crest of the coastal mountain range. The three 22 exceptions occur where the basins of the Columbia, Umpqua, and 23 Rogue Rivers lie predominantly inland of the crest of the coastal 24 mountains. In these cases the coastal zone boundary crosses these 25 rivers at Bradwood, Scottsburg, and Agness, respectively.
26 4.3.1.3 Alaska’s Ocean-Coastal Management Program 27 The Alaska State Legislature created the Alaska Coastal 28 Management Program (ACMP) in 1977. Although a voluntary state 29 program, the ACMP provides the State of Alaska and its coastal 30 communities important benefits authorized under the federal CZMA. 31 Specifically, projects that trigger a review under the ACMP must be 32 found consistent with the statewide standards and the enforceable 33 policies of a coastal district, such as the Kodiak Island Borough 34 (KIB). 35 36 The legislature stated that the purpose of the ACMP was to protect 37 natural and scenic resources, foster wise development in the coastal 38 area, and encourage coordinated planning and decision making. 39 Additionally, the objectives of the ACMP are documented in Alaska 40 Statutes (AS) 46.40.020 and include the following purposes: 41 The orderly, balanced utilization and protection of resources 42 of the coastal area consistent with sound conservation and 43 sustained yield principles; 44 The protection of historic, cultural, natural, and aesthetic 45 values and natural systems or processes; and 46 The full and fair evaluation of all demands on the land and 47 water in the coastal area. 48
4-40 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Legislation enacted in 2003 and regulations developed in 2004 made 2 some major changes to the ACMP. The legislation removed matters 3 regulated by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 4 from the coordinated consistency review process. Additionally, it 5 disbanded the Coastal Policy Council, a state-coastal district body 6 that implemented the ACMP. The program was transferred from the 7 Office of the Governor to the Department of Natural Resources. The 8 regulations deemphasized the role of coastal districts and narrowed 9 their ability to develop enforceable policies. 10 11 The original KIB Coastal Management Plan (CMP) received state 12 approval in 1983 and federal approval in 1984. The most recent plan 13 amendments were scheduled to be adopted in June of 2005. 14 15 Federal lands and waters are technically excluded from the Kodiak 16 Island district’s coastal zone. Activities on these lands and waters, 17 however, are reviewed for consistency with the district’s enforceable 18 policies if there would be spillover impacts to any land or water use 19 or natural resource (15 C.F.R. 923.33). The KIB CMP contains 20 numerous enforceable policies on topics such as: general policies; 21 coastal development; natural hazards; coastal habitats and resources; 22 air, land, and water quality; subsistence use; transportation and 23 utilities; fisheries and seafood processing; recreation; archaeological 24 and historic resources; energy facilities; mineral extraction and 25 processing; and specific habitat, resources, and use policies. 26 27 The ACMP district boundary for the Kodiak Island Borough includes 28 all of Kodiak Island, including the mountainous areas, and areas 29 annexed by the borough in 1990 (portions of the Alaska Peninsula) 30 which follow the 1000-foot contour and a one-mile corridor on either 31 side of anadromous fish streams. The corridor is measured from the 32 ordinary high-water mark on each bank. In addition, the boundary 33 includes a corridor 200 feet on either side of all tributaries to the 34 anadromous waters as measured from ordinary high water of each 35 bank. The seaward boundary includes all state waters within the 36 borough, generally those waters three (3) miles from shore. For the 37 purposes of this RCMP, all areas used for NSW training on Kodiak 38 Island are within the coastal zone boundary. 39 40 For the purposes of the ACMP on Kodiak Island, lands owned by 41 Native corporations are considered private lands. These lands make 42 up the vast majority of the private lands on Kodiak Island. Most of 43 the lands owned by the corporations are located on Afognak, Whale, 44 Spruce, and Sitkalidak islands. Native corporations also own land on 45 northern Kodiak Island (ACMP 2006). 46
47 4.3.1.4 California Coastal Management Program 48 The California Coastal Act (CCA) (California Public Resources 49 Code, sections 3000 et seq.) implements California’s CZMA
4-41 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 program. The CCA includes policies to protect and expand public 2 access to shorelines, and to protect, enhance, and restore 3 environmentally sensitive habitats including intertidal and nearshore 4 waters, wetlands, bays and estuaries, riparian habitat, certain wood 5 and grasslands, streams, lakes, and habitat for rare or endangered 6 plants or animals. 7 8 The California Coastal Management Program (CMP) was federally- 9 approved in 1978. The Federal Consistency Unit of the California 10 Coastal Commission (CCC) implements the CMP as it applies to 11 federal activities. Site specific descriptions of the coastal zone can 12 be found in Chapter 2.5 Section 30150- 30174 of the California 13 Coastal Act. The California coastal zone generally extends 1,000 14 yards inland from the mean high tide line. In some estuarine habitat 15 and recreational areas, it extends inland to the first major ridgeline or 16 5 miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less. In developed 17 urban areas, the boundary is generally less than 1,000 yards from the 18 mean high tide line. The coastal zone of California extends seaward 19 to the 3 nm territorial sea. 20 21 The enforceable policies of the California CMP are contained in 22 Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and include the 23 following: 24 25 Article 1 – General. 26 Article 2 – Public Access. 27 Article 3 – Recreation. 28 Article 4 – Marine Environment. 29 Article 5 – Land Resources. 30 Article 6 – Development. 31 32 Article 4, Section 30230, Marine Resources, could be applicable to 33 the Navy’s at sea training in the NWTRC. This section states: 34 "Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where 35 feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and 36 species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the 37 marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain 38 the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain 39 healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for 40 long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational 41 purposes."
42 4.3.2 Marine Resource Assessment
43 A marine resources assessment (MRA) is currently under contract by 44 the Navy to prepare a comprehensive compilation of existing 45 information on protected and commercial marine species, habitats 46 and oceanographic features including bathymetry, currents and 47 substrate, present in the Pacific Northwest Operations Area, Gulf of 48 Alaska and surrounding region, and to assess and interpret that 49 information for Navy environmental planning purposes (DoN, TBD
4-42 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2006). The MRA contributes to a database used in United States 2 Fleet Forces Command’s (USFFC’s) integrated long-range planning 3 process and provides data for analysis of future training needs in 4 relation to important marine resources. 5 6 All relevant literature, sighting and survey data, and other available 7 information will be compiled and analyzed. This review will address 8 the following: 1) distribution and/or migration patterns of 9 threatened/endangered marine species, marine mammals, and 10 commercially and recreationally important species; 2) in-water 11 foraging areas of federally protected seabirds; 3) Essential Fish 12 Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern; 4) other 13 important or sensitive areas, such as Native American Usual and 14 Accustomed fishing areas, tournament fishing grounds and special 15 aquatic areas; 5) cultural/historic sites (shipwrecks); and 6) any other 16 marine natural resources, including Marine Protected Areas, National 17 Marine Sanctuaries, and state protected areas, within or adjacent to 18 the specified OPAREA, that are vulnerable to impacts from Navy 19 activities. 20 A few items that set this MRA apart from other MRAs are: 21 Coverage shall include in-water foraging areas for federally 22 protected seabirds. 23 Coverage shall include up to the high tide line for the inshore 24 areas. 25 Coverage should only extend to three miles offshore except in 26 area W237A. 27 Coverage shall include transit areas in the Puget Sound 28 Region (which includes the Strait of Juan de Fuca, The 29 Georgia Strait, Puget Sound, Hood Canal, the waters 30 surrounding the San Juan Islands and several other associated 31 waterways in northwestern Washington State and 32 southwestern British Columbia, Canada). 33 34 The final MRA was completed in September 2006.
35 4.3.3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and EO 12114
36 A discussion of the general process and requirements for NEPA and 37 EO 12114 is found in the Range Complex Management Plan 38 Guidebook (DoN 2004). This section summarizes existing NEPA 39 and EO 12114 documents addressing training activities within the 40 NWTRC. The order of discussion follows the earlier structure: 41 offshore ranges, inshore ranges, NUWC Keyport ranges, and 42 EOD/NSW ranges.
43 4.3.3.1 Previous Environmental Planning 44 This section details completed environmental planning documents 45 that are still relevant and are the governing planning document for 46 their associated activities. Documents contained in this section are
4-43 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 for operations or exercises that are still be conducted; not one-time 2 activities.
3 4.3.3.1.1 Offshore Ranges
4 Pacific NW Ocean OPAREA and W-237 5 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) EIS. The 6 OCNMS EIS was finalized in November 1993. In accordance with 7 Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 8 (MPRSA), as amended 16 U.S.C. §§1431 et seq., the EIS established 9 the marine sanctuary off the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. 10 The Sanctuary boundary encompasses approximately 2,500 NM2. 11 The OCNMS boundary overlaps with and encompasses a portion of 12 W-237 A, B & E, and the underlying Pacific NW OPAREA. The 13 Sanctuary designation further prohibits the taking of marine 14 mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds (in addition to the protections 15 already built into MMPA, ESA, and the MBTA). However, 16 activities authorized or permitted pursuant to MMPA, ESA, or 17 MBTA are exempted from the prohibition. 18 19 The EIS determined that the Navy’s use of Sealion Rock within the 20 Sanctuary was incompatible with the designation. All bombing 21 activities are prohibited at the rock (On August 18, 1993, the 22 Secretary of the Interior had rescinded the permit authorizing the 23 Navy to use Sealion Rock as an alternative practice bombing site 24 after the Navy voluntarily ceased practice bombing activities there). 25 The EIS identified 14 Federal Endangered and 6 Federal Threatened 26 species that are known to occur in the area. The consultation process 27 also noted one state endangered and one state threatened species that 28 are known to inhabit the sanctuary ecosystem. These are listed in 29 Figure 4-6 below. 30 31 The OCNMS EIS recognizes the prior existing use of the Sanctuary 32 for a variety of Navy training (including subsurface, offshore surface 33 and aerial operations). Submarine operations described include: 34 1. transits between Puget Sound and the undersea operating area, 35 2. hull integrity tests and other deep water tests of 1 to 2 weeks 36 duration (performed between 7-30 miles off Cape Johnson), 37 3. in-water testing of non-explosive torpedoes 6-8 times/year 38 lasting 1-4 days (5-14 miles off Kalaloch), and 39 4. barging of defueled nuclear reactor compartments from Puget 40 Sound to the Columbia River.
4-44 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Federal Endangered Species in Federal Threatened Species OCNMS in OCNMS Aleutian Canada Goose Bald Eagle American Peregrine Falcon Stellar Sea Lion Blue Whale Loggerhead Turtle Brown Pelican Green Turtle Fin Whale Olive Ridley Turtle Gray Whale Sacramento River Winter- Run Chinook Salmon Humpback Whale Right Whale Sei Whale Short-tailed albatross Sperm Whale Leatherback Turtle Snake River Sockeye Salmon Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon
Washington State Endangered Washington State Species in OCNMS Threatened Species in OCNMS Snowy Plover Harbor Porpoise
2 Figure 4-6. Endangered & Threatened Species in the Olympic 3 Coast National Marine Sanctuary
4 Other Navy training activities identified in the EIS include: 5 1. minesweeping generally limited to passive surveying; 6 2. operation of an acoustical net off Washington; 7 3. air operations in W-237A/B such as air combat maneuvering, air 8 intercept, air refueling, air-to-air gunnery and rocketing, air-to- 9 surface gunnery and missile exercises, and anti-submarine 10 warfare training. The EIS explains that expenditure of 11 sonobuoys, marine smoke markers, and ordnance take place 12 under controlled conditions designed to minimize threats to the 13 environment. 14 4. surface operations, including live firing of guns, missiles, 15 torpedoes, and chaff. 16 5. operation of an undersea test range (Quinault Range Site) to 17 track aircraft, surface vessels, submarines, and undersea vehicles 18 (inert torpedoes, mines, and countermeasures, etc.). Operations 19 are typically conducted 8-15 times/year with operations lasting 20 1-7 days. 21 22 Range utilization data from 1991 indicated 2,572 hours of W-237 use 23 including 575 events. These events involved 156 Navy aircraft, 224 24 Air Force aircraft, 131 Coast Guard aircraft, 10 Navy ships, 27 Coast 25 Guard ships, and 27 civilian aircraft.
4-45 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Upon completion of the OCNMS EIS, the final rules were published 2 in the Federal Register on May 11, 1994 (See 15 CFR Part 925). All 3 Navy bombing in the Sanctuary is prohibited; however, other Navy 4 training is explicitly permitted if: 1) it is an existing military activity 5 including hull integrity tests and other deep water tests; live firing of 6 guns, missiles, torpedoes, and chaff; activities associated with the 7 Quinault Range Site, including the in-water testing of non-explosive 8 torpedoes; or anti-submarine warfare operations, or 2) the activity is 9 a new activity and exempted by the Director of the office of Ocean 10 and Coastal Resource Management or designee after consultation 11 between the Director or designee and the Department of Defense. 12 The DoD is required to avoid to the maximum extent practicable any 13 adverse impact on, destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary 14 resource or quality resulting from an untoward incident (15 CFR 15 925.5(e). 16 17 Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) Overseas Environmental Assessments 18 (OEAs). In 2005, an OEA was prepared for a SINKEX held in the 19 open ocean at the approximate coordinates latitude 47 00” north and 20 longitude 127 30” west. This location is approximately 130 nm 21 west of the coast of Washington state. This coordinate underlies 22 W237F and W237G in the Pacific NW OPAREA. The targets 23 utilized in the 2005 SINKEX included two decommissioned U.S. 24 Navy destroyers, the ex-USS OLDENDORF (DD 972), and the ex- 25 USS FIFE (DD 991). Each target measured 564 ft long, 55 ft beam, 26 29 ft draft, and had a displacement of 2,900 tons. This general area 27 was previously used for a SINKEX in June, 2004 involving the 28 sinking of the ex-HEPBURN (FF-1055). An OEA was prepared for 29 that event as well. A wide array of weaponry and participants were 30 involved in the event. The process for selecting the SINKEX area 31 involved a balance of operational suitability, meeting the 32 requirements of the MPRSA permit (40 CFR 229.2) granted to the 33 U.S. Navy, and identifying areas with a low likelihood of 34 encountering protected species (in accordance with the ESA and 35 MMPA). To preclude takes of marine mammals or sea turtles, a 36 series of protective measures were adhered to during the SINKEX, 37 including: daylight operations, avoidance of oceanographic fronts, 38 establishment of a 2.0 nm exclusion zone, and surveillance over 39 flights (DoN 2005).
40 4.3.3.1.2 Inshore Ranges: Air Ranges
41 Olympic “A” and “B” MOAs, Okanagan “B” MOA, 42 Boardman MOA and NWSTF Boardman 43 The EA for the A/OA-10 Beddown McChord AFB, Washington was 44 finalized in August 1992. This EA assessed the proposed BRAC 45 relocation of 18 A-10A and 6 A/OA-10 Primary Aircraft 46 Authorizations at McChord AFB, Washington. The A-10s have 47 since relocated to Texas and Florida, but the EA is described here for 48 information purposes. The proposed action included A-10 usage of
4-46 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 the Olympic “A” and “B” MOAs, and Okanogan “B” MOA for 2 flight training maneuvers, including self defense maneuvers. No 3 weapons would be fired and bombs, flares, or other materials would 4 not be dropped in the MOAs. The proposed action also involved A- 5 10 usage of NWSTF Boardman within the Boardman MOA (R- 6 5701) for strafing training with 30 mm guns, bomb dropping, and for 7 dropping of chaff and flares. The Yakima Firing Range and Fort 8 Lewis Range were proposed for similar weapons training. Aerial 9 refueling training was to take place primarily in the Okanogan 10 MOAs. The Olympic MOAs would contribute to high altitude (i.e. 11 6,000 ft AGL) flight training. The Olympic and Okanogan MOAs 12 are single mission MOAs because fuel consumption associated with 13 use of these MOAs for flight training and travel to the firing ranges 14 for target practice exceeds A-10 capacity. No significant impacts 15 were identified in association with the proposed A-10 beddown at 16 McChord AFB. 17 18 Approximately 35 percent of A-10 sorties would use NWSTF 19 Boardman under the proposed action outlined in the EA. The EA set 20 forth the proposed use of NWSTF Boardman for A-10s as: 1) 30 mm 21 Strafing (subject to approval of strafe pit), 2) 2.75” Rockets, 3) Inert 22 bomb drops up to 1,000 lbs., and 4) Chaff drop (no flares). 23 24 The following are highlights of the environmental consequences 25 associated with the proposed A-10 usage of these range areas:
26 NWSTF Boardman, Boardman MOA, R-5701 and R-5706 27 Slight increases in fugitive dust due to use of the strafe pit 28 and dropping of inert munitions. 29 Total noise levels would remain at 64 dB. This level is 30 compatible with land use guidelines. 31 No groundwater impacts are expected since inert bombs are 32 cleared from the range on a weekly basis. 33 Airspace scheduling authorities do not anticipate a significant 34 increase in operational load from the A/OA-10 training 35 missions. 36 The Boardman range impact zone contains one of the only 37 two remaining needle and thread grass-Sandberg’s bluegrass 38 communities in the U.S. Fires from bomb smoke charges and 39 operation of the strafe pit may damage some of this 40 community. However, the Nature Conservancy stated that 41 the effects of using the bomb impact area upon the ecosystem 42 appear negligible. 43 Standard low-level dry-runs to assure clearance of the strafe 44 area act to disperse sensitive bird species and thus avoid 45 impacts to them upon strafe commencement.
4-47 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Olympic and Okanogan MOAs 2 All MOA sorties would be flown over rural areas in 3 attainment for air quality. 4 The projected increase in operations in the Okanogan MOA 5 due to the A-10 is 72 daytime and 4 nighttime sorties per 6 month. The total noise level would remain at 52dB, which is 7 well within land-use compatibility guidelines. 8 Whidbey operations personnel indicate that there should be 9 no problem accommodating all current and potential users of 10 the MOAs. 11 By avoiding low-level flights along river corridors, A-10 12 pilots would not impact the bald eagle. 13 No consultative process is required with Indian Tribes when 14 planning operations or a change of mission at the MOAs (the 15 Colville Indian Reservation underlies 25% of the Okanogan 16 MOA).
17 Okanagan MOA 18 An EA was prepared for the Okanagan MOA in November 1976 19 (USAF 1976). The EA focused on the impacts produced by 20 converting the airspace known as Okanagan Air Traffic Control 21 Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) to the Okanagan Military Operations 22 Area (MOA). No significant adverse environmental effects were 23 reported. The EA described the operations as aircraft training at 24 minimum altitude of 1,000 feet AGL and radar interceptors attack 25 targets for simulated radar missile firing. The EA noted that no live 26 firing would take place, each mission would consist of 3-4 aircraft 27 with airspeeds varying from 250-500 knots (supersonic flight would 28 not be permitted), heaviest planned activity would be 12 aircraft per 29 day between the hours of 0900 and 1730, and there would be no 30 planned night missions below 3,000 feet AGL. 31 32 The EA identified no significant adverse environmental impacts. In 33 the discussion of land impacts, it was noted that the only release 34 from aircraft is electronic warfare chaff and there had been no 35 reports of adverse affects from chaff. Mentionable areas of concern 36 under the MOA include the City of Omak Airport and a Methow 37 Valley ski resort which may host 9,000 skiers each day in peak 38 season. 39 40 The FAA established the MOA (effective January 29, 1976) with a 41 purpose of providing general and commercial aviation warning and 42 knowledge of military training areas. The MOA does not establish 43 any flight restrictions or communication requirements on VFR 44 operations transiting the area. The EA noted that IFR operations 45 would be rerouted or provided IFR separation from the military 46 operations within the area when the MOA is being used.
4-48 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Military Training Route (MTR) IR-344 2 The EA for the Proposed C-17 Beddown McChord Air Force Base, 3 Washington was finalized in January 1997 and a Finding of No 4 Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on March 3, 1997. Though 5 this assessment was prepared for the Air Forces’ beddown of 48 C- 6 17 aircraft (and retirement of the C-141 aircraft), the document 7 describes the environmental impacts to various MTRs, including one 8 used by the Navy’s EA-6Bs. Of focus here, the EA describes the 9 baseline environmental conditions and environmental consequences 10 of aircraft usage of IR-344 (Department of the Air Force 1997). 11 According to the EA, no obstructions or towers extend through the 12 floor of the IR-344. On IR-344, the greatest potential for migratory 13 bird strikes is from August to January during the night, from surface 14 to 5,000 feet AGL; and for raptors from February to November 15 during mid-day and dawn/dusk, from surface to 2,000 feet AGL 16 (Department of the Air Force 1997).
17 Darrington OPAREA, Olympic MOA, Okanagan MOA, 18 Roosevelt MOA, W-237, and NWSTF Boardman 19 An EA was prepared for the Replacement of EA-6B Aircraft with 20 EA-18G Aircraft at NAS WI Washington, and a FONSI was signed 21 July 19, 2005 (DoN 2005). The EA covers three main mission areas 22 for the EA-18G, including Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA), Air to 23 Air combat, and Air to Ground training. The EA notes that AEA 24 will continue to be performed in the Darrington OPAREA as it was 25 with the EA-6Bs. Air to Air combat training will take place in W- 26 237, Olympic MOA, Okanagan MOA and Roosevelt MOAs. Air to 27 Ground training will take place in W-237 and at NWSTF Boardman. 28 W-237 supports the use of both live and inert ordnance (except that 29 within the boundary of the OCNMS only inert ordnance is 30 permitted). NWSTF Boardman supports inert ordnance only. 31 However, the EA notes that EA-18G air-ground ordnance delivery 32 will likely take place elsewhere, but may on occasion take place at 33 W-237 and NWSTF Boardman. The EA projects that EA-18G 34 operations in calendar year 2013 will total 25,283 annual operations, 35 of which annual P-3 operations would total 19,575, C-9 operations 36 would total 325, and transient P-3s would total 252. 37 38 Aircraft operating in the Darrington MOA and the Olympic MOA 39 practice electronic warfare through contact with electronic combat 40 training (ECT) facilities. One ECT facility at OLF Coupeville sends 41 controlled electronic signals to enable aircrews to practice rapid 42 identification, location, and reaction to simulated threat signals from 43 multiple ground sources. The Darrington MOA is identified as the 44 primary airspace in which aircraft can loiter for a required time while 45 conducting surveillance training, and while the ECT device 46 (AN/FSQ-T22) tracks the aircraft (NAVFAC NW 1997b).
4-49 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 4.3.3.1.3 Inshore Ranges: Land Ranges and Water Ranges
2 EIS Boardman Target Range (circa 1973-1975) 3 An EIS was drafted in the early 1970s regarding the use of NWSTF 4 Boardman. The use at that time was described as by A-6s for Mk-76 5 inert weapon delivery training between 65 and 135 hours per month. 6 The EIS included a discussion of encroachment pressures upon the 7 range, including pressures to relocate the range in order that the site 8 could be used for industrial or agricultural purposes after the 9 construction of the John Day Dam. In the early 1970s there was also 10 encroachment pressure in the form of a proposed nuclear power plant 11 project on neighboring Boeing property. The only environmental 12 impacts identified from continued use of Boardman range were: 1) 13 public dissatisfaction with the Navy presence which has precluded 14 other land uses; and 2) soil erosion stemming from cattle grazing on 15 outleased parcels. It was noted that a land management plan under 16 development for NWSTF Boardman would identify measures to 17 reduce the soil erosion.
18 Navy “3” Beneath old R-6713 19 In the 1974 Boardman Target Range EIS, old R-6713 was listed as 20 an alternative to Boardman under consideration. The area was 21 identified as a water area in the Straits of Juan de Fuca at 48° 19’N, 22 122° 50’W. According to the EIS, if it were feasible to construct a 23 raked target in this area it would still not alleviate the requirement to 24 retain Boardman, but would enhance existing training capabilities. 25 26 The list of advantages of a raked target in this area included: 27 1. Reduction of some of the Boardman training requirements; 28 2. Provision of a secondary facility for weapons training during 29 high density Boardman usage or inclement weather; 30 3. Alleviation of the requirement to use Sea Lion Rock, an 31 unmanned unraked coastal target as a secondary target. Sea Lion 32 Rock is considered inadequate; 33 4. Provision of a suitable target facility for Naval Air Reserve 34 aircraft.
35 4.3.3.1.4 NUWC Keyport Ranges
36 Nanoose Range Site: EA of the Operational Testing 37 Exercises at the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental 38 and Test Ranges (CFMETR), Nanoose, British Columbia. 39 This Canadian EA was prepared to evaluate the testing and training 40 activities at the CFMETR. Looking at the entire history of range use 41 and the future use, the environmental consequences of the activities 42 were found to be minimal, with the dominant issue being the 43 accumulation of expendable materials on the seabed of the Whiskey 44 Golf (WG) range area in the Georgia Strait (CFMETR 1996). The 45 chief social concerns of range activities are: the extensive use by the
4-50 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 U.S. Navy (6-7 times greater than Canadian usage), perceived risk of 2 the testing activities, and inconvenience to shipping caused by 3 restricted areas. The EA covers the multitude of operations 4 conducted at the WG range and the Jervis Inlet (Whiskey November 5 [WN]) range, including: 6 1. Torpedo testing, including surface, air and subsurface launches 7 (average of 500 Mk-46s tested/year, and average of 158 Mk-50s 8 tested/year); 9 2. Weapon system accuracy trials; 10 3. Sea trials for warships including ship turning, acceleration, and 11 de-acceleration; 12 4. Submarine torpedo firing exercises (200-300 Mk-48 firings from 13 submarines between 1970-1994); 14 5. Anti-submarine warfare exercises from surface ship and aircraft 15 (240 U.S. and 243 Canadian range ship visits between 1967- 16 1994 for lightweight torpedo exercises, 1,650 U.S. anti- 17 submarine air ops and 365 Canadian air ops at the WG range 18 between 1967-1994, and 6,700-6,800 heavyweight torpedo 19 firings [Mk-48] from ships between 1970-1994; 20 6. Torpedo defense and countermeasures exercises (approximately 21 100 countermeasure devices were launched between 1988-1991 22 during nuclear submarine visits, but typically averaged 1 23 countermeasure every two years); 24 7. Rocket-launched torpedo testing (as of 1994, there were 81 25 ASROC firings on range); 26 8. Torpedo mine testing and exercises (Between 1967-1994 300 27 Mk-60 [CAPTORs] had been air dropped); and 28 9. Sonobuoy quality assurance testing (averaged 1,570 sonobuoys 29 tested/year). 30 31 Between 1967 and 1994, CFMETR hosted a total of 240 U.S. Ship 32 visits, 154 U.S. submarine visits, 243 Canadian ship visits, 6 33 Canadian submarine visits, 8 foreign ship visits, and 1 foreign 34 submarine visit. Typical aircraft usage of CFMETR is depicted in 35 Figure 4-7. 36 Type of Aircraft Flight Usage Hughes 500 four passenger 4 days/week helicopter Beaver or Cessna Float Plane 1-2 times/day, 4 days/week Contract TurboBeaver 45/year CP140 Aurora aircraft 36/year P3 Orion aircraft 34/year S3 jets 6/year Canadian SeaKing Helicopter 8/year U.S. SeaKing Helicopter 2/year Large Helicopter No Data B52 2 visits in 1994 37 Figure 4-7. Average Aircraft Usage at CFMETR
4-51 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 None of the torpedoes have had explosive warheads, with the 2 exception of two live tests which were conducted in Nanoose harbor 3 in the 1960s. 4 5 Due to some environmental concerns noted during the EA process, a 6 series of mitigation measures were set forth, as follows: 7 1. A report should be commissioned on the engineering feasibility 8 and cost/benefit of reducing or eliminating the expendable 9 materials from each of the three aspects of range operations; 10 2. The Canadian and U.S. Navy should investigate moving to 11 entirely non-ballasted HOTTORPs and REXTORPs, if 12 necessary, by using a floatation collar to provide buoyancy for 13 recovery; 14 3. CFMETR should maintain internal records of the expendable 15 materials generated by range activities; 16 4. To protect the Peregrine Falcons nesting on Ballenas Island, it is 17 recommended that the island not be subjected to low jet 18 overflights during the period 1 March through 30 June. 19 5. To protect the Pelagic Cormorant nesting sites on Ballenas 20 Island, it is recommended that low jet overflights of these islands 21 be restricted between 1 April and 15 June. 22 6. It is recommended that some helicopters be made available for 23 bird surveys of the range areas. 24 7. It is recommended that CFMETR continue its present policy of 25 suspending torpedo testing when cetaceans are detected within 26 one thousand (1000) yards of the intended torpedo track or 27 within the fenced boundary of the torpedo in the case of ADCAP 28 torpedoes. 29 8. It is recommended that range vessels maintain a log of cetacean 30 use of the range. 31 9. Helicopter flights to Winchelsea should respect the pinniped 32 haulouts and fly high enough to avoid causing the seals and 33 sealions to leave their haulouts. 34 10. The further development and use of REXTORP and HOTTORP 35 dummy torpedoes is encouraged. 36 11. Records of spills are being kept and should be maintained. 37 12. U.S. personnel should receive briefings on the history of the 38 range and the principal concerns expressed by the community. 39 13. A U.S. representative should participate in the regular 40 stakeholder meetings which are proposed. 41 14. A written policy is recommended for dealing with range 42 intruders who are not cooperative. 43 15. NUWC Keyport should ensure that all their promotional and 44 briefing material clearly identify that the CFMETR ranges are 45 jointly run with the Canadian Armed Forces. 46 16. CFMETR should provide compensation in the event that a 47 foreign warship, weapon, or mooring buoy damages a small 48 Canadian craft or its operators. 49 17. CFMETR should ensure that the ranges are safe to transit in poor 50 visibility and at night either by suitably marking/lighting
4-52 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 mooring buoys and any other hazards to navigation or by 2 removing them when the range is not active. 3 18. The DND should prepare a study that addresses the clean-up 4 activities which are envisaged and the anticipated division of 5 clean-up responsibilities in the event that the WG or WN license 6 of occupation expires or either party to the agreement decides to 7 terminate its range operations. 8 19. CFMETR should continue its public education and awareness 9 programs in accommodating vessels transiting the range. 10 20. A log of interactions with boaters should be maintained 11 recording cooperative and uncooperative situations.
12 CFMETR Environmental Assessment Update (2005) 13 The CFMETR EA update was commissioned in 2003 to review the 14 findings of the 1996 EA (CFMETR 2005). The update includes a 15 more detailed assessment of the impacts of lead and lithium batteries 16 deposited in CFMETR waters, as well as some recommended 17 courses of action to improve environmental practice. Land based 18 operations, nuclear issues, and the effects of sonar on marine 19 mammals were outside the scope of the update. The update 20 generally agrees with the work done in the 1996 EA. A summary of 21 the update recommendations follows: 22 23 1. CFMETR should continue to ensure Canadian environmental 24 protocols are followed in all CFMETR operations; 25 2. CFMETR should conduct periodic review of activities and 26 operating procedures comparing them to applicable regulations; 27 New procedures should be implemented when economically 28 feasible to reduce environmental impacts; 29 3. Current expendable materials on the sea floor should not be 30 disturbed; 31 4. Design of new or upgraded practice weapons should aim to 32 minimize or eliminate expendable materials; 33 5. A database on expendable materials should be created to 34 maintain more detailed expendable materials information, and to 35 have such information readily available; 36 6. Sonar should be monitored and minimized where possible; 37 7. Bird studies should be undertaken to record the range usage by 38 vulnerable or threatened species; 39 8. A website should be made available to the public to make 40 CFMETR operations more visible and understandable; and 41 9. The Department of National Defense (DND) should continue 42 scientific studies on the effects of sonar on marine mammals and 43 fish.
44 Dabob Bay Range Complex: EA for Ongoing and Future 45 Operations at U.S. Navy Dabob Bay and Hood Canal 46 Military Operating Areas. 47 An EA was prepared for Ongoing and Future Operations at U.S. 48 Navy Dabob Bay and Hood Canal Military Operating Areas and a
4-53 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 FONSI was signed on June 10, 2002 (NAVFAC NW 2002). This 2 EA evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with 3 adoption and implementation of an Operations and Management 4 Plan (OMP) to regulate testing and operations occurring in Dabob 5 Bay and Hood Canal in Kitsap and Jefferson Counties, WA. 6 7 The operations conducted at the Dabob Bay and Hood Canal MOA 8 range sites can be divided into four categories: 1) research and 9 experimental (65%), 2) proofing (15%), 3) fleet operations (15%), 4) 10 other testing activities (5%). The estimated total number of launches 11 is 285 launches per year. Between 1997 and 1999, these operations 12 were conducted an average of 134 days per year. The table below 13 lists the types of systems tested and annual range usage. 14 Activity Platform/System Used OMP Estimated Annual Range Usage Thermal Otto Fuel II Approximately 90 tests Propulsion Stored Chemical Energy Propulsion Approximately 10 tests Systems System (Mk-50, Torpedo Defense Vehicle) Experimental Thermal Systems Approximately 20 tests Electric Systems General Test Vehicles Approximately 60 tests Unmanned Underwater Vehicles Approximately 60 tests Mk-30 Target Approximately 20 tests Other Testing Submarine Testing Approximately 45 tests Activities Mine Sweeping Approximately 20 tests Non-Navy Testing (such as Trawler Approximately 5 tests Exercises) Acoustic and Magnetic Array Testing Approximately 10 tests Countermeasures Approximately 50 tests Impact Testing Approximately 10 impacts Static Testing in Water Approximately 10 tests Fleet Operations Surface Ship Operations (including Approximately 10 tests launches) Aircraft Operations Approximately 10 tests Submarine Operations Approximately 30 tests 15 Figure 4-8. Types of Underwater Vehicles Systems Tested at the Dabob Bay Range Complex
16 EA for 2003 AUV Fest at NUWC Keyport. 17 The EA for the 2003 AUV Fest at NUWC Keyport covered 200 18 operations of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) (crawlers, swimmers, and 19 surface AVs) during the two-week fest event and 120 follow-on 20 operations (conducted over 2 years through August 2005). 21 Operations involved sonar emissions. Operations took place within 22 the Keyport Range Site and a contiguous area of Port Orchard 23 Reach. This level of operations was determined to cause no 24 significant impact on environmental resources at the Keyport Range 25 Site.
4-54 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2 The no-action alternative in the EA analyzed operations that 3 currently take place at the Keyport Range Site. The EA describes 4 Keyport Range Site current operations as those that involve “testing 5 areas, including in-shore shallow water sites to support integrated 6 undersea warfare systems and undersea vehicle maintenance and 7 engineering activities.” The EA also noted that the site has surface 8 and air tracking capabilities and is used approximately 6 times a year 9 for a variety of boat and diver training activities lasting from 1 to 10 10 days (NUWC Keyport 2003). Current operations, as outlined in the 11 no-action alternative, were determined in the EA to have no 12 significant impact in any environmental issue area. 13 14 Of note, the EA mentions that NUWC Keyport was listed on the U.S. 15 EPA's National Priorities List in October 1989. A Public Health 16 Assessment was prepared in 2001 to evaluate exposure pathways and 17 to respond to community concerns about past, current, and potential 18 future exposures to contaminants. The assessment determined that 19 exposures to contaminants in the ground water underneath and 20 adjacent to NUWC Keyport and in shellfish in marine waters 21 surrounding NUWC Keyport do not pose a public health hazard 22 (ATSDR 2001). To date, a number of remediation, ground water 23 monitoring, and sediment sampling actions have been completed, 24 and on-going monitoring of selected areas will continue as 25 appropriate (ATSDR 2001).
26 4.3.3.1.5 EOD and NSW Ranges
27 EA for the Detonation Training Range, Seaplane Base 28 (1993) 29 This EA evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting 30 from the establishment and operation of a Detonation Training 31 Range (DTR) at NAS Whidbey Island, Seaplane Base. The 32 preferred location identified in the EA is a 4.5 acre parcel of land 33 located between Inert Storage Magazines 444 and 445 near the 34 northeastern border of the Seaplane Base. The purpose of the project 35 was to provide an on-station DTR with a limit of 0.5 lb Net 36 Explosive Weight, TNT equivalent, using only uncased, non- 37 fragment producing bulk explosives for EOD training. Because the 38 range would only be used for training, it was determined not to need 39 a RCRA permit. 40 41 To mitigate the impacts of DTR usage, the Navy agreed to undertake 42 the following mitigation measures: 43 44 1. Detonation training will be conducted only during normal 45 working hours (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM). 46 2. Detonation training will be conducted only during days 47 when the weather is favorable.
4-55 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 3. When not in use, the detonation area will be covered to 2 prevent water intrusion. 3 4. Soil samples will be taken annually and the sand will be 4 replaced prior to reaching the allowed threshold level for Pb 5 or PbO precipitate. 6 5. The upland forest area at Site B will be retained to reduce 7 sound wave propagation, thereby reducing the potential 8 impact noise and providing a visual block to bald eagle 9 nesting and foraging areas. 10 6. A 400 square foot barricaded exclusion area will be 11 established around the detonation area. 12 7. A restricted area will be established outside of and 13 surrounding the exclusion area and will be marked clearly 14 with explanatory signs. 15 8. Red flags will be raised at access points to the restricted area 16 before detonation training operations begin, and they will 17 remain raised until operations are completed. 18 9. A Navy qualified and certified Safety Officer will visually 19 check the exclusion area before each detonation. 20
21 EA for Relocation of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal 22 Demolition Training Range (2000) 23 The EA for Relocation of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal 24 Demolition Training Range addressed the construction and operation 25 of a new Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Demolition Training 26 Range (DTR) at NAS Whidbey Island, Seaplane Base, Oak Harbor, 27 Washington. A FONSI was signed on December 22, 2000. The 28 EOD DTR was to be operated by EODMU ELEVEN and EODMU 29 SEVENTEEN for approximately 15 detonations per week. Use was 30 proposed for up to 5-lb. Net Explosive Weight (NEW), 31 trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent, of non-fragment producing 32 materials. The site for the new DTR is on a terraced grassy clearing 33 on a hillside immediately north of the road that parallels the Crescent 34 Harbor shoreline, referred to as the Terrace Site. Three alternative 35 sites were eliminated for failure to meet one or more of five criteria. 36 37 The Navy committed to the following mitigation measures in order 38 to offset certain potential impacts, as follows: 39 1. Modeling indicates that increasing the explosives from .5 lbs to 40 5.0 lbs NEW explosives would create potentially significant 41 impacts to nearby residents. To greatly reduce the potential for 42 noise complaints and to eliminate the potential for damage, 43 detonations should only be conducted during specific 44 meteorological conditions that take into account the temperature 45 gradient, wind direction and speed, and the amount of explosive 46 to be detonated. The DTR was to adopt a table of these 47 meteorological conditions into their new Standard Operating 48 Procedures.
4-56 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2. EODMU would conduct an open-house to inform, educate and 2 establish correspondence with the residents affected by high 3 noise levels and the expected frequency of occurrence of the 4 detonations, as well as what they may experience (e.g., rattling 5 of windows). 6 3. Demolition training will not occur when marine mammals are 7 present on the haul-out rocks located just off shore from the 8 proposed site. 9 10 Despite completion of the EA for the Relocation of the EOD DTR in 11 2000, the requirement that dictated the need to relocate the range did 12 not occur. The EOD DTR has remained in the original location 13 identified in the July 1993 EA. The completed EA for the relocation 14 has been shelved, but could be a beneficial document in the event 15 that relocation of the DTR is proposed again in the future.
16 EA for Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) Exercise 17 (2005) 18 Though the JLOTS EA does not address EOD operations in the Port 19 Townsend Bay, it is included here as it does assess potential 20 environmental impacts related to the proposed JLOTS exercises 21 which take place, in part, in these waters primarily used by EOD 22 Mobile Unit ELEVEN and EOD Mobile Unit SEVENTEEN. The 23 JLOTS exercises have been held at NAVMAG Indian Island 24 Underwater EOD Range for the past seven years on an annual basis. 25 This past year’s exercises were held in August 2005. The exercise 26 involves units from the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and U.S. Coast Guard 27 training on container throughput operations to replicate the joint 28 delivery of cargo in an underdeveloped beach environment. The 29 JLOTS afloat operations that take place in part within the NAVMAG 30 Indian Island Underwater EOD Range consist of boats from the U.S. 31 Navy, Military Sealift Command, Maritime Administration, the U.S. 32 Coast Guard Auxiliary, and other assets previously scheduled by 33 Commander THIRD Fleet. A strategic lift vessel will deploy a 34 homeport lighterage to NAVMAG. The JLOTS 05 also involved 35 SEAHAWK, which is a harbor defense/port security training event. 36 This event will involve ten 25’ U.S. Navy MSS-3 craft, two privately 37 owned Coast Guard Auxiliary craft and two Boston Whalers. To 38 minimize afloat environmental impacts the following measures were 39 incorporated into the training sequence. 40 Small boat insertions would be conducted at high tide to 41 avoid possible damage to eel grass beds. 42 For all vessel landings, no anchor drops will be performed or 43 permitted within 300 feet of the shoreline due to the presence 44 of eelgrass beds adjacent to these ramps. 45 46 Based on factors such as the limited duration of the exercise, the 47 avoidance of seasonal migrations, and measures to avoid habitat 48 impacts, it was determined that the JLOTS exercise would not 49 adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon (threatened), Hood
4-57 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Canal summer-run chum salmon (threatened), Stellar sea lion 2 (threatened), humpback whale (endangered), bull trout (threatened), 3 bald eagle (threatened), or the marbled murrelet (threatened).
4 4.3.3.2 Ongoing Environmental Planning Efforts
5 4.3.3.2.1 Offshore Ranges 6 Other than the previously mentioned programmatic OEA for 7 SINKEX events, there are no known on-going environmental 8 planning efforts in connection with the offshore ranges.
9 4.3.3.2.2 On-shore/Land Ranges
10 EA - Boardman Bombing Range Complex – New Weapons 11 Training Ranges 12 The Oregon Army National Guard has prepared a Draft EA for the 13 Boardman Bombing Range Complex – New Weapons Training 14 Ranges (National Guard Bureau 2005). The EA covers proposed 15 construction and operation of two weapons training ranges and 16 support areas at NWSTF Boardman. This proposed training area 17 would provide a Multi-Purpose Training Range (MPTR) capable of 18 allowing several different types of vehicles carrying different 19 weapons to use the range at the same time and a Multipurpose 20 Machine Gun Range (MPMGR). The project would provide training 21 in live-fire exercises and small arms qualification for the Oregon 22 Army National Guard. The EA describes NWSTF Boardman as an 23 active bombing range for inert bombing use by Navy, Marine Corps, 24 Air Force (F/A 18s, S-3As, F-15s, F-16s, and other aircraft). 25 Occasional use of the range is by Army or Air Force helicopter 26 gunnery and non-standard small arms training. 27 28 The National Guard Bureau supports the findings in its EA with pre- 29 existing studies such as: 30 Land Use Requirements Study (December 2003); 31 Rare Plant Survey (2004); 32 Cultural and Archeological Survey (2005); 33 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (1999). 34 35 The National Guard Bureau estimates that once the ranges become 36 operational (approximately 2007-2008), the ranges would be used on 37 weekends for unit Inactive Duty for Training (IDT) and Annual 38 Training (AT) by approximately 4,000 soldiers on an annual basis. 39 40 The MPMGR would be used to train soldiers in the use of various 41 small arms, up to and including .50 caliber rifles and machine guns. 42 Targets would consist of stationary infantry targets, stationary 43 armored targets and moving infantry targets. The MPTR would be 44 used to train soldiers on foot and in vehicles in the use of various 45 vehicle-mounted and ground-deployed weapons including, but not
4-58 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 limited to, small arms up to .50 caliber, 25mm cannons, 40mm 2 grenade launchers, TOW missiles, and 120mm tank guns. The range 3 may also be used for training by helicopter gunnery crews using 4 5.56mm and 7.62mm caliber machine guns. 5 6 The EA concluded that the proposed training range activities would 7 not cause any significant adverse impacts given implementation of 8 the proposed mitigation measures. Twelve (12) mitigation measures 9 are proposed, including those that minimize fugitive dust, involve 10 site restoration with native grass re-vegetation, avoid wildlife nesting 11 sites, avoid WA ground squirrel nesting colonies, establish a ground 12 squirrel monitoring plan, establish a shrub-steppe grassland 13 ecosystem monitoring plan, propose a locked gate to control access 14 to important cultural resources, call for UXO surveys and use of 15 UXO free areas, contribute to Morrow County Public Works 16 Department for road maintenance, and establish a Fire Management 17 Plan.
18 4.3.3.2.3 NUWC Keyport Ranges
19 EIS/OEIS for NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex Extension 20 NUWC Keyport is currently preparing an EIS/OEIS for a proposed 21 range complex extension. According to the NOI published in the 22 Federal Register on September 11, 2003, the Navy needs to extend 23 the NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex operating area to provide 24 multiple in-water environments that meet the evolving operational 25 requirements for manned and unmanned vehicle testing in 26 Washington. The NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex is comprised 27 of three marine ranging areas in the Pacific Northwest (Washington 28 state): 1) The Dabob Bay Military Operating Area (MOA), two Hood 29 Canal MOAs and the connecting waters known as the Dabob Bay 30 Range Complex (DBRC); 2) the Keyport Range Site; and 3) the 31 Quinault Range Site which is located within W-237A. The range 32 extension is required in order to provide adequate testing area and 33 volume in multiple marine environments to fulfill the NUWC 34 Keyport mission of providing test and evaluation services in both 35 surrogate and simulated war-fighting environments for emergent 36 manned and unmanned vehicle program operations. 37 38 Four open house scoping meetings were held during the week of 39 November 17, 2003. The DEIS team issued a newsletter in 40 November 2004 providing an update on the status of the project and 41 estimated that a DEIS would be available for public comment in late 42 2005. A second newsletter published in March 2006 noted that, due 43 to other Navy priority NEPA efforts and changes in Navy guidelines, 44 publication of the Draft EIS/OEIS was not anticipated until 2007. 45 Concerns raised by the public during the scoping process included: 46 safety of marine mammals, use of sonar, economic impacts to the 47 region as a result of the inability to access fisheries, tourism and 48 recreational activities. According to the posters available to the
4-59 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 pubic during the scoping meetings, the DEIS proposes to both: 1) 2 extend the boundaries of these three ranges; and 2) continue existing 3 and add new operations.
4 4.3.3.2.4 EOD/NSW Ranges 5 The NWTRC EIS will include all current EOD ranges in its analysis, 6 Additionally, a draft EA was produced for the Crescent Harbor EOD 7 Underwater Training Range. It has since been decided to include 8 environmental planning for this range in the NWTRC EIS. A 9 Biological Opinion is currently being developed by the USF&WS 10 and NOAA Fisheries for the Crescent Harbor EOD range. NSW 11 training takes place on NAVSEA NUWC Keyport ranges and is 12 covered in the NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex Extension 13 EIS/OEIS.
14 4.3.3.3 Scope of Future Environmental Planning Efforts 15 Under the Tactical Training Theater Assessment and Planning (TAP) 16 program, the Navy will initiate, if necessary, additional 17 environmental planning documentation for the NWTRC. The 18 analytical approach in this documentation will be “programmatic” in 19 that it will address training operations repetitive in nature and 20 occurring within the same geographical area. Existing 21 environmental planning documentation will be incorporated by 22 reference into any new programmatic environmental planning 23 documentation. 24 25 Most training operations by other users of the NWTRC, including 26 Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and foreign military, 27 will conform to the baseline operations covered in the programmatic 28 environmental planning documentation. Otherwise, the user will be 29 required to fund and/or prepare supplemental environmental 30 planning documents.
31 4.3.4 Environmental Planning Issues
32 The NWTRC planners are already actively engaged with regulators 33 and have several NEPA documents in draft stages, so there are few 34 environmental planning issues requiring mention. One 35 recommended item is Navy representation within the OCNMS 36 Management Plan review process, which began in 2006. Scoping 37 meetings were held to shape the future of management priorities. 38 The Navy can also shape action and management plans that are 39 developed to address priority issues.
40 4.3.5 Environmental Planning Documents
41 Applicable environmental planning documents are described in 42 Figure 4-9 below.
4-60 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN Title Range Covered Date Status Environmental Impact Statement: Boardman NWSTF Boardman 1974 Complete Target Range, Oregon Environmental Assessment for the Okanagan Okanagan MOA 1976 Complete Military Operating Area EIS and Supplement to Final Environmental Pacific NW OPAREA 1977 Complete Impact Statement (TRIDENT) Final Draft Environmental Assessment: Proposed Tideflat Impoundment NUWES, Keyport, Keyport Range Site 1984 Complete Washington Final Environmental Impact Statement for Carrier Battle Group Puget Sound Region Ship Pacific NW OPAREA 1985 Complete Homeporting Project Olympic, Okanogan, and Final Environmental Assessment for the A/0A-10 Boardman MOAs; Boardman 1992 Complete Beddown, McChord AFB, Washington. NWSTF Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement / Management W-237 1993 Complete Plan Volumes 1&2 Environmental Assessment for the Detonation Seaplane Base EOD Training Range, Naval Air Station, Whidbey 1993 Complete Demolition Training Range Island, Seaplane Base Environmental Assessment of the Operational Testing Exercises at the Canadian Forces Nanoose Range Site 1996 Complete Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges, Nanoose, British Columbia Environmental Assessment for Electronic Combat Training Facility at OLF Coupeville, OLF Coupeville 1997 Complete Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington Final EIS for Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Pacific NW OPAREA 1999 Complete Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (Coronado, CA, Bremerton, WA, Everett, WA, Pearl Harbor, HI) Environmental Assessment: Pier Replacement Keyport Range Site 2000 Complete Environmental Assessment: Relocation of the Seaplane Base EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal Demolition 2000 Complete Demolition Training Range Training Range Keyport Range Site, Nanoose NAVSEA Ranges and Test Sites: Theater Range Site, Dabob Bay 2001 Complete Assessment Planning Range Complex, and Quinault Range Site Environmental Assessment for Ongoing and Future Operations at U.S. Navy Dabob Bay and Dabob Bay Range Complex 2002 Complete Hood Canal Military Operating Areas Environmental Assessment: Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Fest, Keyport Range, Keyport Range Site 2003 Complete WA Environmental Assessment for Joint Logistics NAVMAG Indian Island Over-the-Shore 2005 (JLOTS 2005), Naval 2005 Complete Underwater EOD Range Magazine, Indian Island.
4-61 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN Title Range Covered Date Status None, but the Floral Point Environmental Assessment: Installation and Underwater EOD Range is Operation of Underwater Surveillance System located adjacent to the EA 2005 Complete (USS) at Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Silverdale, project area at SUBASE Washington Bangor Environmental Assessment Update: Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges, Nanoose Range Site 2005 Complete Nanoose, British Columbia OEA: Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) July 2005 Pacific NW OPAREA 2005 Complete Environmental Assessment for Replacement of OLF Coupeville; Darrington EA-6B Aircraft with EA-18G Aircraft at Naval OPAREA; All MOAs; 2005 Complete Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington Boardman NWSTF; W-237 Marine Resource Assessment for the PACNW Pacific NW OPAREA TBD In Progress Surface/Subsurface OPAREA Draft Environmental Assessment: Boardman Bombing Range Complex New Weapons NWSTF Boardman TBD In Progress Training Ranges Dabob Bay Range Complex, Keyport Range Site, W-237 NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex Extension TBD In Progress (including the Quinault Range Site) Programmatic OEA for Sinking Exercises Pacific NW OPAREA TBD In Progress 1 Figure 4-9. Environmental Planning Documents for NWTRC
2 4.4 LAND USE PLANNING AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
3 4.4.1 State and Local Planning and Land Use Laws and Ordinances
4 4.4.1.1 State Land Use Laws
5 Washington State Land Use Laws 6 It's been 11 years since Washington enacted its Growth Management 7 Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.130), one of the most comprehensive and 8 modern planning statutes in the country. While there is consensus 9 that the law is slowing sprawl and guiding growth out of rural lands 10 and into urban growth areas, each year different interest groups offer 11 changes to the 1990 law. The GMA requires state and local 12 governments to manage Washington’s growth by identifying and 13 protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban 14 growth areas, preparing comprehensive plans and implementing 15 them through capital investments and development regulations. This 16 approach to growth management is unique among states. 17 18 In a Summary Report dated 2004 entitled, “Washington State and its 19 Partnership with the US Military Installations” then Governor Gary
4-62 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Locke instructed local governments to prohibit inappropriate 2 development in the vicinity of military installations that would 3 interfere with the base’s ability to perform its mission. In addition, 4 cities or counties considering amending their comprehensive plans or 5 development regulations regarding properties adjacent to military 6 installations are required to notify the base commander of the 7 intended amendment and to allow 60 days for comment on the 8 proposed change. This provides a means for local governments to 9 stay informed of the needs of the military.
10 Oregon Land Use Laws 11 In 1973, the Oregon legislature replaced the basic land use planning 12 program with a much more extensive one. With Senate Bill 100, the 13 1973 legislature created the Land Conservation and Development 14 Commission and directed it to establish new statewide planning 15 goals and guidelines “not later than January 1, 1975.” The 16 legislation listed 11 “areas and activities” which were to be given 17 “priority consideration” as the new commission developed its goals. 18 The list of goals has now grown to 19, including several coastal 19 resources goals. 20 21 County planning and zoning regulations are contained in ORS 22 Chapter 215. Section 215.050 states, “(1) Except as provided in 23 ORS 527.722, the county governing body shall adopt and may from 24 time to time revise a comprehensive plan and zoning, subdivision 25 and other ordinances applicable to all of the land in the county.” The 26 plan and related ordinances may be adopted and revised part by part 27 or by geographic area. More information about Oregon’s Morrow 28 County Comprehensive Plan is provided in a subsequent subsection.
29 Alaska State Land Use Laws 30 When Alaska became a state in 1959, the state received 28% of the 31 375 million acres of land. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska 32 Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) which granted 44 million 33 acres to Native American corporations and villages. The federal 34 government retained ownership to 60% of the state (222 million 35 acres) for national parks, refuges, forests, military reservations, and 36 petroleum reserves. Private land area (other than Native Corporation 37 lands) comprises less than 1% of the state. 38 39 Within the Kodiak Island Borough, 13% of the land is owned by 40 Native Corporations, including those whom permit NSW training 41 under license agreements. The Alutiiq people participated in the 42 ANCSA in 1971 and 2,500 live in the Kodiak Archipelago (Kodiak 43 Island Borough 2006). 44 45 Alaska Statutes (AS) 29.40.030 requires first and second class 46 boroughs in Alaska to compile policy statements, goals, standards, 47 and maps guiding the physical, social, and economic development, 48 both public and private, including but not limited to 1) statements of
4-63 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 policies, goals, and standards, 2) a land use plan, 3) a community 2 facilities plan, 4) a transportation plan, and 5) recommendations for 3 implementation of a comprehensive plan. AS 29.40.040 grants 4 localities the power to develop zoning ordinances and other land use 5 regulations to further the goals of the comprehensive plan. 6 7 A number of AK state agencies also have land use regulatory 8 authority. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), 9 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of 10 Transportation and Public Facilities (ADT&PF), and Alaska 11 Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) all play a role 12 in regulating land use within the Kodiak Island Borough. ADNR is 13 primarily responsible for managing state owned land and resources, 14 including oil and gas, water and tidelands, and has recently 15 completed a Management Plan for state-owned lands in the Borough. 16 Its Division of Forestry also regulates timber harvest and 17 reforestation of Borough and private land (Kodiak Island Borough 18 2006). 19 20 ADFG has the authority to review activities that affect fish bearing 21 streams, wetlands, or state owned fish and wildlife habitat areas. 22 ADEC also has the authority to review a number of land use 23 activities that can affect water quality, including water supply and 24 sewage disposal systems, subdivision plats, oil spill contingency 25 plans and solid waste disposal sites. ADT&PF has asserted the 26 prerogative to regulate land use and building construction on state 27 land (leased from the USCG and subleased to private operators) that 28 is part of the Kodiak State Airport terminal area. This includes all 29 aircraft terminal facilities and other nearby facilities (Kodiak Island 30 Borough 2006).
31 4.4.1.2 Local Land Use Laws
32 Island County Comprehensive Plan 33 The Island County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 in 34 accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act. 35 The plan was established to manage growth in the county through the 36 year 2020. As mandated under RCW 36.70A.070, the elements 37 addressed include Land Use, Rural, Housing, Capital Facilities, 38 Utilities, Transportation, and Shoreline Management. Several 39 optional elements are addressed in the plan as well, including Parks, 40 Recreation and Open Space, Natural Lands, Historic Preservation, 41 and Water Resources (Board of Island County Commissioners et al. 42 1998). The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the county’s 43 association with NAS Whidbey Island, as well as the impacts 44 associated with aircraft operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. 45 The plan designates an “Airport and Aviation Safety Overlay,” 46 which recommends that future land use adjacent to Ault Field and 47 OLF Coupeville be maintained as rural and rural agricultural. 48
4-64 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 These areas are designated rural and rural agricultural to encourage 2 low-density development within the air station’s noise zones. Island 3 County adopted the noise contours from the 1993 noise study as 4 published in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 5 Management of Air Operations at NAS Whidbey Island (U.S. 6 Department of the Navy 1993) to implement the Airport and 7 Aviation Safety Overlay district through the county’s zoning 8 ordinance and other elements of the Island County Code. Existing 9 land uses and zoning are consistent with the Navy’s 10 recommendations for land use compatible within the Accident 11 Potential Zones (APZ), although specific regulations have not yet 12 been adopted for that purpose. However, the goals and policies exist 13 in the county’s Comprehensive Plan to support the adoption of codes 14 for compatible development within the APZ. Consistent with the 15 Comprehensive Plan for land uses impacted by aircraft operations, 16 Island County has adopted a Zoning Ordinance; an Airport and 17 Aircraft Operations Noise Disclosure Ordinance for property sold, 18 rented, or leased within the noise zones around Ault Field and OLF 19 Coupeville; and a Noise Level Reduction Ordinance to specify 20 minimum standards for building construction within the noise zones 21 around Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. In addition, to help ensure 22 the safety of aircraft operations, the county has adopted a Signs and 23 Lighting Ordinance that is designed to help preserve the dark skies 24 and rural character of the county.
25 City of Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan 26 The City of Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003 in 27 accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act. 28 The plan was established to manage growth in the city through the 29 year 2013. As mandated under RCW 36.70A.070, the elements 30 addressed include Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, 31 Transportation, and Shoreline Management, as well as several 32 optional elements. 33 34 The Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that address the 35 Navy’s Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) land use 36 compatibility recommendations, and an element on “City of Oak 37 Harbor and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Community 38 Cooperation,” which supports growth and development compatible 39 with operations at Ault Field. The AICUZ recommendations are 40 implemented through the city’s adopted Aviation Environs Overlay 41 Zone, noise attenuation standards, and noise disclosure requirement 42 in the municipal code. Land uses within the Aviation Environs 43 Overlay Zone are designated for low-density development. 44 45 The City of Oak Harbor adopted the noise contours from the 1993 46 noise study as published in the Draft EIS for the Management of Air 47 Operations at NAS Whidbey Island (U.S. Department of the Navy 48 1993) to implement the Aviation Environs Overlay Zone through the 49 city’s Zoning Ordinance and other elements of the municipal code.
4-65 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Existing land use and zoning are consistent with the Navy’s 2 recommendations for land use compatible within the APZ.
3 Town of Coupeville Comprehensive Plan 4 The Town of Coupeville Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003 5 in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act. 6 The plan was established to manage growth in the town through the 7 year 2013. As mandated under RCW 36.70A.070, the elements 8 addressed include Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, 9 Transportation, and Shoreline Management, as well as several 10 optional elements. The town has not adopted any policies or goals 11 designed specifically to ensure development compatible with AICUZ 12 recommendations. However, the goals and policies of the 13 Comprehensive Plan and current zoning for the town foster minimal 14 development on the east, where aircraft noise from OLF Coupeville 15 has a greater impact. The plan also recommends infill development 16 in the central core of the town, where aircraft noise has less of an 17 impact.
18 Morrow County Comprehensive Plan 19 The latest available Morrow County Comprehensive Plan (1987) 20 classifies NWSTF Boardman as 2A (no conflicting use). The plan 21 notes that the 73-square-mile Boardman Bombing Range is unique 22 in that the range contains: 1) relict grassland communities (i.e., 23 native grasses undisturbed by agricultural practices), 2) the only 24 known colony of Washington Ground Squirrels in Oregon, and 3) a 25 portion of the Oregon Trail and an historic cemetery. It further notes 26 that the US Navy administers the range; part is used for bombing 27 practice, part leased for grazing and part (3 separated parcels; A, B 28 and C) managed as a Natural Research Area (NRA). 29 30 It is unclear at this time how plans set forth in the Morrow County 31 Comprehensive Plan or land use plan may affect development near 32 NWSTF Boardman.
33 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 34 The Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan was adopted May 7, 1998, 35 and amended June 10, 2002, December 8, 2003, and October 25, 36 2004. The plan is currently undergoing a 10-year review, with 37 public input meetings due to take place during most of 2006. The 38 current plan recommends diversifying the county’s economic base to 39 become less dependent on the U.S. Navy. Kitsap County's economy 40 relies heavily on employment by the federal government at five 41 military installations and facilities and by military-related businesses. 42 In 1995, these facilities employed approximately 33% of the total 43 work force in Kitsap County. The Kitsap County land area includes 44 SUBASE Bangor, NUWC Keyport, and abuts the NUWC Keyport 45 ranges: Hood Canal and Keyport Range Site. 46
4-66 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 One stated open-space policy (OS-17) is to “work with the federal 2 government to preserve open space on military properties.” The 3 comprehensive plan includes a section on Natural Systems and 4 establishes goals and policies related to: 1) Geologically Critical 5 Areas; 2) Aquifer Recharge Areas; 3) Surface Water Resources; 4) 6 Frequently Flooded Areas; 5) Plant, Fish and Wildlife Habitat 7 Conservation Areas; and 6) Air Quality. The framework for the 8 Natural Systems section is based on the goals of the Growth 9 Management Act, Destination 2030 and the Kitsap Countywide 10 Planning Policies. Specifically, the Growth Management Act 11 requires comprehensive plans to protect the environment and 12 enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water 13 quality and the availability of water (Kitsap County 1998, amended 14 2004).
15 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 16 The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a decision-making tool 17 for officials and citizens in guiding future growth and development 18 in Jefferson County on a 20-year planning horizon. It provides the 19 policy basis for the Unified Development Code, capital facilities 20 improvements, and other County endeavors. The plan underwent 21 substantial update and revision in 2004. Pursuant to the Growth 22 Management Act at RCW 36.70A.130(4), Jefferson County was 23 required to review and, if necessary, revise its Comprehensive Plan 24 and implementing regulations by December 1, 2004. Although the 25 mandatory update focused on issues such as population projections 26 and capital facilities planning, as a complementary project the 27 County updated and streamlined the entire Comprehensive Plan 28 initially adopted in 1998 (Jefferson County 2004). 29 30 The Jefferson County area includes NAVMAG Indian Island, and it 31 borders the NUWC Keyport ranges: Hood Canal and Dabob Bay. 32 The plan attempts to balance land use development with 33 environmental protection. It includes four main strategies to achieve 34 this goal: 1) Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management 35 Strategy, 2) Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental 36 Review, 3) Critical Areas Protection Strategy, and 4) Public 37 Education and Involvement Strategy. The first of these strategies 38 focuses on the Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon, Puget Sound 39 Chinook Salmon, and bull trout, all listed as threatened under the 40 Endangered Species Act (Jefferson County 2004). 41 42 Several of the comprehensive plan policy statements lend themselves 43 to cooperative efforts between the County and federal agencies, such 44 as the Navy. One stated water resource policy (ENP 1.2) is to, 45 “Participate in the Jefferson County Water Resources Council and 46 other collaborative watershed and salmon habitat conservation 47 planning processes with state, federal and tribal governments and 48 local stakeholders, in order to integrate water resource management 49 for human needs with fish and wildlife habitat protection and
4-67 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 restoration.” ENP 2.3 strives to “Protect surface water and its 2 functions through mitigation measures developed in coordination 3 with the Department of Ecology, the Department of Transportation, 4 and other local, state, federal, and tribal agencies.” The Natural 5 Resource Conservation Element policy (NRP) 1.6 states, “Support 6 cooperative resource management among natural resource 7 landowners, environmental groups, state, federal and tribal 8 governments.”
9 Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan 10 The Kodiak Island Borough is in the process of updating its current 11 Comprehensive Plan, which was originally prepared in 1968. After a 12 period of public input, the plan is expected to be finalized in 2007. 13 The draft plan notes the NSW presence on the island as a US Coast 14 Guard tenant. One goal noted in the land use section of the 15 Comprehensive Plan is, “Maximize compatibility of adjacent land 16 uses and minimize conflicts through zoning, buffering, design 17 standards and other means (Kodiak Island Borough 2006).” 18 19 The population on Kodiak Island has stabilized over the past ten 20 years at between 13,500 and 14,000 residents. Land use or 21 development pressure around NSW training areas does not appear to 22 be an issue at this time.
23 4.4.2 Land Use Planning
24 Volume I of this document outlines the Navy’s Air Installations 25 Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ), Range Air Installations 26 Compatible Use Zones (RAICUZ), and Regional Shore 27 Infrastructure Plan (RSIP) programs. The various types of real estate 28 instruments potentially applicable to range complex assets are also 29 described in Volume I. Specific information related to the NWTRC 30 is provided below.
31 4.4.2.1 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) 32 An AICUZ Study Update for NAS WI’s Ault Field and OLF 33 Coupeville, Washington was completed in March 2005. The noise 34 study used calendar year 2003 and calendar year 2013 noise contours 35 for aircraft operations associated with the use of the two Navy 36 airfields and the proposed transition from the EA-6B to the new EA- 37 18G aircraft (NAVFAC SW 2005). The study notes only modest 38 changes in noise contours. More substantial changes in the APZ 39 have occurred due to changes in operations and updated operator 40 descriptions of flight tracks. Local communities have enacted 41 commendable AICUZ related land controls, including: compatible 42 land use zoning, sound reduction provisions in the building code, and 43 noise fair disclosure provisions for rental or purchase of real estate. 44 AICUZ study recommendations include: 45 1. Maintaining a Community Planning Liaison for AICUZ program 46 implementation,
4-68 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 2. Continued public awareness and intergovernmental coordination, 2 3. Support for local planning and zoning ordinance updates to 3 reflect compatible land use related to changes in the APZ, 4 4. Support for maintaining aircraft noise related compatible land 5 use and zoning provisions, and 6 5. Encouraged implementation for AICUZ land use compatibility 7 recommendations with the Town of Coupeville.
8 4.4.2.2 Range Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (RAICUZ) 9 The only RAICUZ Study in the NWTRC is for NWSTF Boardman, 10 and it is dated (DoN 1987). The RAICUZ study depicts the location 11 of VR 1350, 1351, 1353, 1354 and 1355 intersecting with the range. 12 It also depicts IR 342, 344 and 346 intersecting with the range, with 13 IR 341 and 343 located NE of the range, but not intersecting with it. 14 The RAICUZ study also illustrates the restricted areas (R-5701 and 15 R-5706) overlying the range and areas east, west, and north of the 16 range. Avigation easements are also shown under R-5701. 17 18 The RAICUZ study notes that NWSTF Boardman includes static 19 targets, laser guidance equipment, and a moving land target. The 20 targets are supported by spotting towers, as well as maintenance, 21 administration and other supporting facilities. The range is described 22 as important for Gruman A-6 Intruder aircraft training, with features 23 such as laser alignment board at the main target, and electric scoring 24 for the mobile land target and main bull. The range is said to operate 25 five, and sometimes six, days and/or nights a week. In 1984, there 26 were 15,391 operations (or an average of 62 per day). 27 28 After mapping the Range Safety Zone (RSZ) A, B and C and setting 29 forth tables for land use compatibility given safety and noise 30 concerns, the RAICUZ study concluded noting that land use and 31 zoning (existing and proposed by the County [Morrow]) around the 32 range are basically compatible with the recommended land use 33 guidelines contained in the study. As follow-on Navy actions, the 34 RAICUZ study recommends: 35 1. Community information programs (utilizing slide presentations, 36 brochures, reports, newsletters and press releases), 37 2. Community interaction (with periodic Navy information 38 programs on changes in NWSTF operations), 39 3. Maintenance of a Noise Complaint Log and response program, 40 4. Monitoring Programs (with an eye on zoning changes, 41 comprehensive plan changes, land sales, EISs, changes in 42 building codes, BLM plans, land ownership conversions, and 43 newspaper articles), and 44 5. Involvement of a Community Planning Liaison.
45 4.4.2.3 Regional Shore Infrastructure Planning (RSIP) 46 The Navy Region Northwest Regional Overview Plan (2004) is the 47 region’s RSIP, which presents an overview of shore infrastructure 48 and identifies existing facility conditions and potential future
4-69 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 requirements based on the operational needs within Navy Region 2 Northwest. Draft Chapter 3 of the RSIP (Ranges and Operating 3 Areas Overview) provides descriptions of the various NWTRC 4 ranges (e.g., location, size, types of operations supported, and 5 ordnance authorized). This particular document is an update of RSIP 6 Phase I which has as its primary purpose to identify, update, and 7 integrate the findings of the functional studies that have been 8 completed since the original overview plan in 1999. Numerous 9 functional studies have been completed for CNRNW. The RSIP 10 describes the Bangor EOD demolition training range and the small 11 arms range at Ault Field as specialty land ranges also worthy of 12 protection. The range overview section concludes with a brief 13 description of the proposed NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex 14 Extension EIS and the controversy over low frequency sonar use.
15 4.4.2.4 Real Estate Use and Agreements
16 NWSTF Boardman 17 The Department of the Navy and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 18 signed a Cooperative Management Agreement in 1988. This 19 agreement defines a cooperative arrangement between the 20 organizations for managing Research Natural Areas (RNA) on the 21 range to preserve high quality examples of Columbia River Basin 22 grassland and steppe vegetation communities and associated wildlife. 23 Under the agreement TNC establishes grass plots and monitors them, 24 controls weeds, encourages research, and maintains fences around 25 the RNA (DoN 1988).
26 Joint Canada/US Agreement (1965) and Memorandum of 27 Understanding Between the U.S. Department of the Navy 28 and the Canadian Department of National Defense 29 Concerning Supplementary and Administrative 30 Arrangements for the Operation of the Torpedo Test 31 Ranges in the Strait of Georgia and Jervis Inlet, British 32 Columbia (2002) 33 A series of agreements between the US and Canada have governed 34 the shared use of range time and responsibilities associated with the 35 Nanoose Range Site (including area WG and WN in the Strait of 36 Georgia and the Jervis Inlet). A cooperation agreement was 37 established in May 1965. This agreement is renewed every 10 years 38 and the next date of renewal is 2009. Memoranda of Understanding 39 supplement the cooperative agreement and set out administrative 40 arrangements. Section VII of the 1994 amendment states that the 41 “USN will be bound by and comply with the Canadian 42 environmental law and policies when using the Range, to the same 43 extent as the Canadian Forces. Commanding Officer, CFMETR will 44 be responsible for informing NUWC Keyport of the environmental 45 requirements for range operations.” The 2002 Amendment
4-70 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 supersedes previous amendments and contained the following 2 Section VII: 3 4 “The participants will adopt and maintain protocols that 5 ensure responsible environmental stewardship. 6 Specifically, standardized procedures to ensure prevention, 7 response, and mitigation of environmental damage will be 8 adopted. This will include guidelines for exercising 9 associated response teams in various related scenarios. 10 These guidelines will include, but not be limited to, range 11 operating policies and procedures, test plan and 12 development and approval, range systems installation and 13 maintenance operations orders, and range craft and visiting 14 ship operating procedures.” 15 16 The use of the Nanoose Range Site by the US has been the subject of 17 a degree of public scrutiny in Canada. Concerns have been raised by 18 commercial fishery groups and environmental groups concerned 19 about the presence of nuclear submarines in Canadian waters. After 20 Canadian anger over alleged failure by the US to comply with the 21 Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Premier of British Columbia sent a notice 22 of license cancellation to the Prime Minister of Canada (Chrétien). 23 This notice was intended to cancel the license granted by British 24 Columbia to the Canadian federal government for the seabed under 25 the Nanoose Range Site. The Canadian federal government sued 26 British Columbia in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 27 August 1997 for a declaration that the Notice of Cancellation is 28 invalid and for other damages. Subsequently, in the summer of 29 1999, an intense public debate began over Canada’s decision to 30 expropriate the Nanoose Bay seabed to take federal ownership of the 31 range area from the Province of British Columbia. In 2002, the 32 expropriation decision was successfully challenged in the [Canadian] 33 federal court by the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, 34 but that decision was subsequently overturned. Currently, the 35 expropriation of the seabed stands. The water column and the 36 seabed in the WG area are considered (Canadian) federal lands and 37 are subject to (Canadian) federal laws (CFMETR 2005). 38 39 The following Canadian environmental laws/policies may influence 40 operations at CFMETR: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 41 the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, Department of Defence 42 Policy Framework, Manoeuvre Area Planning System Protocol, 43 DND Directives, CFMETR Policy Framework, International 44 Agreement, Provincial Legislation, and Municipal Legislation 45 (CFMETR 2005). The CFMETR EA Update recommends seeking 46 legal opinions on CFMETR exemptions from certain portions of 47 these laws. It further notes that although CFMETR is not required to 48 meet provincial and municipal regulations due to its federal status, it 49 should strive to meet the spirit of the regulations.
4-71 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility 2 The Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility (CWTF) on Kodiak 3 Island, Alaska is leased by NAVFAC NW (for Naval Special 4 Warfare Center) from the U.S. Coast Guard. The 130 acres leased 5 through the year 2021 is located on the northeast tip of Kodiak 6 Island, Alaska (DOT 2000). This area is on the Spruce Cape portion 7 of the island (formerly the Coast Guard Loran Station). 8 9 The lease agreement contains many standard provisions found in a 10 typical lease between a landlord and a tenant. In the permit 11 amendment the Navy further agrees to exercise due diligence in their 12 use of the permitted premises, implement appropriate environmental 13 protection measures for the wetland and archeological sites, and 14 ensure full compliance with the coordination requirements of the 15 following laws: 16 Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 17 470aa-470ll as amended) 18 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321- 19 4370 as amended) 20 Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (16 21 USC 469 as amended) 22 Clean Water Act – Wetlands (40 CFR 404, as amended; 23 Executive Order 11990) 24 25 In addition to the main lease agreement, data collection efforts have 26 revealed the existence of three other known real estate agreements 27 that are either executed or under negotiation. These agreements 28 relate to a few of the remote training ranges used by NSW. The 29 agreements are summarized as follows: 30 31 1. License Agreement for the Use of Leisnoi Native Corporation 32 Property in Kodiak, Alaska (1995). This license has no 33 specified termination date, and it allows NSW Group One to 34 utilize the Leisnoi Native Corporation property for cliff 35 negotiation training and beach landings. Blank ammunition is 36 authorized, but no live fire or explosives are permitted. 37 2. License Request for the Use of Afognak Native Corporation 38 Property in Kodiak, Alaska (1997). This correspondence from 39 NAVFAC NW was for NSW use of three tracts of Afognak 40 property on a limited basis for the NSW training (e.g., use of 41 small boats to land and retrieve training personnel on and from 42 beaches, navigation, contact drills, and communication training). 43 It was suggested that only blank firing would be used. It is not 44 known whether the request was granted by the Afognak Native 45 Corporation. 46 3. Land Use Permit for the Use of USCG Property for 47 Overland Navigation by Navy Students (2006). This permit 48 was for a period of time from 20 January 2006 to 1 July 2006. 49 The permit authorized NSW training over a portion of a Lot 44 50 US Survey 2539 Page 18 in the vicinity of Cliff Point. The
4-72 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 permit specifically excluded the northern portion of the lot from 2 use due to the presence of culturally sensitive archeological sites.
3 4.4.3 Resource Management
4 Resource management is the means of conserving, protecting, and 5 restoring the environment, including the natural and cultural 6 resources, while ensuring military readiness and sustainability. The 7 basis for environmental management in the NWTRC is ecosystem 8 management, which takes a long-term view of human activities, 9 including military uses, and considers biological and cultural 10 resources as part of the same environment. The planning documents 11 that implement this management approach are integrated natural 12 resources management plans (INRMPs) and integrated cultural 13 resource management plans (ICRMPs).
14 4.4.3.1 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPS) 15 The Navy has completed Sikes Act-compliant INRMPs for all 16 NWTRC assets requiring INRMPs. INRMPs are not required for the 17 at-sea OPAREAS, water-based targets, or private facilities.
18 NWSTF Boardman 19 An INRMP was prepared for NWSTF Boardman in 1999, in 20 compliance with the Sikes Act Improvement Amendments (SAIA). 21 An INRMP update is now underway for NWSTF Boardman with an 22 expected completion date of late-2007. The following are some of 23 the highlights from the 1999 INRMP: NWSTF Boardman is habitat 24 for the Washington ground squirrel, a species that the USFWS has 25 determined to be a candidate for listing as a federally threatened or 26 endangered species under the ESA. Candidate status does not 27 provide species protection under the ESA listing process, and neither 28 consultation nor conference, formal or informal, is required. 29 However, USFWS encourages federal agencies to consider 30 implementing conservation measures for candidate species, because 31 these measures may help avoid the future necessity of listing. The 32 only rare plant species with federal status within the NWSTF 33 Boardman area is Laurence’s milk-vetch, a federal species of 34 concern; however, this designation does not provide species 35 protection under the ESA. 36 37 A variety of migratory bird species are located on or migrate through 38 NWSTF Boardman and are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty 39 Act and EO 13186. Because NWSTF Boardman has a limited 40 hunting program, 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §2671 (Military 41 reservations and facilities: hunting, fishing, and trapping)applies. 42 EO 13112 applies to the management of invasive species such as 43 cheatgrass at NWSTF Boardman.
4-73 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Ault Field, Seaplane Base, OLF Coupeville, and Lake 2 Hancock 3 An INRMP for NASWI was prepared in 1996 in accordance with the 4 SAIA requirement. An INRMP update is underway, but will not be 5 available until early 2007. The INRMP presents 1) the 6 environmental constraints on planning presented by ecologically 7 sensitive areas and 2) a management approach to protecting 8 resources while accommodating land uses and activities vital to the 9 station mission. The NAS Whidbey Island INRMP covers four (4) 10 land areas, including: Ault Field, Seaplane Base, OLF Coupeville, 11 and Lake Hancock.
12 Ault Field 13 Ault Field is the command center for NAS Whidbey Island. Though 14 it is not a range covered in this RCMP, it is mentioned briefly here as 15 it was included in the 1996 NAS Whidbey Island INRMP. Ault 16 Field is 4,253 acres and, though highly developed, it includes a wide 17 variety of natural resources. Some INRMP management 18 recommendations include: wetland enhancements; fuel spill control 19 measures; preservation of native dune plant communities at Rocky 20 Point; invasive weed control; plant species inventories; landscape 21 management, forest thinning and reforestation; streamside 22 management; protection of bald eagle habitat and great blue heron 23 habitat; and provision of outdoor education.
24 Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range 25 The range is not known to be habitat to any wildlife or plant species 26 of regulatory importance. Although three pairs of federally 27 threatened bald eagles are known to nest on the Seaplane Base, the 28 closest nest is approximately 7,000 feet south, on Polnell Point. A 29 potential winter night bald eagle roost site was identified in the 30 forested portion of the “Survival Area” approximately 1,000 feet 31 north of the range (Navy 2000). Range activities do not appear to 32 trigger ESA requirements. 33 34 The bird habitat of the EOD Demolition Training Range is marginal, 35 but birds could forage in the grasses within its boundaries. 36 Migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 37 EO 13186. Because no hunting is conducted within the range 38 boundaries, 10 U.S.C. §2671 (Military reservations and facilities: 39 hunting, fishing, and trapping) does not apply to the EOD 40 Demolition Training Range. Executive Order 13112 (Invasive 41 Species, February 3, 1999) applies to any management of invasive 42 species at the range. The 1996 INRMP identified Scot’s broom 43 (Cytisus scoparius) for eradication from the oak woodland area by 44 hand pulling and root removal. Other plant species identified as 45 invasive were: Spartina, gorse (Ulex europaeus), fennel (Foeniculum 46 vulgare), and tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) (NAS WI 1996).
4-74 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 OLF Coupeville 2 According to the EA for the EA-18G, OLF Coupeville consists of a 3 5,400-foot runway, which is used primarily for FCLP operations. 4 Other military training operations conducted at OLF Coupeville 5 include helicopter, parachuting, and ground training. Most of the 6 OLF’s 664 acres consist of undeveloped open space and agricultural 7 outleases. A Natural Resources Management Plan was completed 8 for OLF Coupeville in 1989. The Natural Resources Management 9 Plan notes that birds and deer should be discouraged due to air strike 10 hazard. Two Bald eagle nests are located within one mile of the 11 OLF, but eagle visits to the OLF are not likely to be interrupted 12 because the eagles tend to visit during the day, while flights occur 13 mostly at night. Aircraft noise does not appear to be a problem for 14 the eagles either and shouldn’t be a problem in the future unless 15 flight patterns are changed or volume is significantly increased 16 (USDA 1989). 17 18 The NAS Whidbey Island INRMP (1996) also covers OLF 19 Coupeville. Its management recommendations include, in summary: 20 1) quarterly monitoring of groundwater quality, 2) biannual 21 inventories of white-top aster (federal candidate species for ESA 22 listing), 3) management of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, an 23 invasive weed species), 4) tree and shrub planting around buildings 24 subject to BASH plan and tree height limitations, 5) various forest 25 unit thinnings, and 6) agricultural outlease recommendations 26 regarding groundwater pollution prevention and alignment with the 27 installation BASH goals.
28 Lake Hancock 29 The NAS Whidbey Island INRMP (1996) covers the Lake Hancock 30 range. The range is described as almost entirely undeveloped, 31 consisting mostly of forest and wetlands. The range is listed on the 32 Washington Register of Natural Areas. This listing came after an 33 agreement between the Navy and the Nature Conservancy in 1992. 34 In addition to high quality natural features, the range received the 35 listing in part due to adequate buffering from nearby development. 36 The range is off limits to public access due to the potential hazard of 37 unexploded spotting charges on practice ordnance dropped in the 38 past. Though the range is no longer used for target bombing 39 practice, an area offshore on Admiralty Inlet is used for target 40 practice with inert ordnance. The management emphasis for the 41 Lake Hancock range is for hands-off protection of the site. 42 Management recommendations for the wetlands include control of 43 invasive Spartina by means of spot application of the herbicide, 44 Rodeo®. Broad spraying should be avoided to protect water quality. 45 Though no threatened and endangered plant species have been 46 identified at the Lake Hancock range, the INRMP recommends 47 protection of the wetlands for potential habitat. Forest management 48 recommendations are for forest preservation, and maintenance of 49 bald eagle habitat.
4-75 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Bald Eagle Management Plan 2 NAS WI also has a Bald Eagle Management Plan. The plan was 3 carried out in cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish 4 and Wildlife. One year of eagle monitoring revealed that 19 eagles 5 use portions of Ault Field, Seaplane Base, and Lake Hancock on 6 nearly a daily basis. NAS WI formulated a set of management 7 measures designed to: improve habitat through forest and wetland 8 management, minimize disturbance to eagles at critical times of the 9 year, minimize direct hazards to eagles and provide long-term 10 monitoring (NAVFAC NW 1996b). The plan notes that Lake 11 Hancock is managed for wildlife and is used only on rare occasions 12 for military purposes. The plan identifies military activities 13 occurring at Ault Field as: aircraft take-offs and landings, small 14 firearm and rifle practice, fire fighting training, and military housing. 15 In addition to the presence of military housing and the EOD area, the 16 plan identifies military activities at Seaplane Base as: fuel barge 17 activity, military survival training, small boat training, and helicopter 18 search and rescue training. Eagle perching sites were identified 19 within the Military Survival Training area at Seaplane Base, near the 20 small arms and rifle ranges at Ault Field, and at a few scattered trees 21 throughout the Lake Hancock range. The Plan identified a few 22 operational activities that have historically affected bald eagle 23 habitat, including: aircraft operations, search and rescue training at 24 Crescent Harbor and Seaplane Base (involving low-level helicopter 25 flights), EOD demolition training range at Seaplane Base (which 26 involve approximately 15 detonations per week), the EOD activities 27 that occur in Crescent Harbor (which effectively eliminate foraging 28 habitat from bald eagles for short periods of time), and military 29 survival training at Seaplane Base. On the other hand, land 30 restorative activities have occurred as well, which provide additional 31 bald eagle habitat.
32 SUBASE Bangor 33 The Explosive Ordnance Detachment (EOD SUBASE) occasionally 34 performs underwater detonation for training purposes. According to 35 the Subase Bangor INRMP, this activity will be coordinated with all 36 Endangered Species Act requirements for the listed salmonids. 37 Other groups such as Construction Battalion and Marines 38 occasionally hold training exercises in forested areas. These training 39 areas are monitored for compatibility with natural resource 40 management and protection. 41 42 According to the Subase Bangor INRMP, Site A on the Subase is an 43 Installation Restoration Site. The soils in this area were found to 44 contain TNT and RDX concentrations derived from past activities 45 when this area was an EOD burn site. The soils have achieved 46 cleanup levels and there are two 120,000-gallon open-air storage 47 tanks that will be converted to a trout hatchery.
4-76 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 4.4.3.2 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMPs)
2 A systems approach to historical and archeological resource 3 management has also been implemented through ICRMPs. The 4 plans are patterned after the INRMPs and are aimed at cultural 5 resource management to comply with applicable laws and 6 regulations, while ensuring the capability of the installation to 7 support the military mission.
8 NWSTF Boardman 9 Numerous archaeological surveys of various portions of NWSTF 10 Boardman have been conducted since the 1960s. These surveys have 11 identified cultural resources in the form of archaeological and 12 historic sites, and artifacts. The Wells Springs Segment of the 13 Oregon Trail was listed on the National Register in 1978. Features 14 identified in the National Register listing include (NAVFAC NW 15 1994d): 16 1. the seven miles of continuous wagon ruts in a corridor 200 feet 17 on each side of the trail; 18 2. the Well Spring site; 19 3. remnants of a stagecoach station; and 20 4. a cemetery which dates from the Oregon Trail migration. 21 22 Additional sites at NWSTF Boardman have been determined to be 23 eligible for listing on the National Register. The sites that are 24 eligible for listing include: 1) The Tub Springs site (a northern 25 segment of the Oregon Trail which includes historic and prehistoric 26 artifacts) and 2) The Juniper Canyon Archeological Site (a site 27 containing bones from a prehistoric camel (“yesterday’s camel”). 28 No sacred items of cultural significance have been identified at 29 NWSTF Boardman. DoDINST 4715.3 requires the preparation, 30 maintenance, and implementation of ICRMPs for DoD facilities. A 31 Historical and Archeological Resources Protection (HARP) Plan 32 exists for NWSTF Boardman, and an ICRMP is currently in draft 33 form (at the 90% completion stage).
34 Lake Hancock Target Range 35 The 1997 Archaeological Resources Assessment and Protection Plan 36 for the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island found two properties 37 within Lake Hancock to be National Register Eligible under 38 Criterion (d) (NAVFAC NW 1997a). These resources appear to 39 contain intact prehistoric shell midden or lithic scatter deposits in 40 relatively undisturbed areas. One disturbed site at Lake Hancock 41 appeared ineligible for listing in the National Register. The Plan 42 recommended consultation with a professional archaeologist to: 43 Inventory cultural resources in each Area of Potential Effect; 44 Determine which resources are eligible for listing in the 45 National Register of Historic Places, evaluate project effects 46 on eligible resources, and develop measures to avoid or 47 mitigate the adverse effects; and
4-77 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Assist NASWI to develop a plan to provide protection or 2 mitigation for National Register-eligible resources potentially 3 affected by continued base operations.
4 Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range 5 Cultural resources surveys of the Seaplane Base have identified 6 archaeological sites, archaeologically sensitive areas, and 7 ethnographically named places within its boundaries. Several 8 properties appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register 9 (NAVFAC NW 1997a). However, no cultural resources have been 10 identified on the EOD training range itself. The State of Washington 11 Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has indicated (by 12 letter dated July 29, 1991) that they concur that no archeological 13 resources are located at the proposed project sites (NAS WI 1993). 14 DoDINST 4715.3 requires the preparation, maintenance, and 15 implementation of ICRMPs for DoD facilities. A HARP Plan (1994) 16 and an Archeological Resources Assessment and Protection Plan 17 (1997) have been prepared for NAS WI facilities, including Seaplane 18 Base.
19 4.4.3.3 Additional Studies and Plans
20 Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Esquimalt Facilities 21 An Environmental Baseline Study was performed in 1992 of 22 Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt Facilities, including the CFMETR 23 located in Nanoose Bay, which includes the main Nanoose Range 24 Site (Whiskey Golf [WG]), Jervis Inlet (Whiskey November [WN]), 25 and a small range at Hotham Sound. The ranges are described as 26 primarily for testing of torpedoes and sonobuoys, but also for the 27 training in anti-submarine warfare. The chief environmental concern 28 raised is the waste stream entering the Nanoose Range Site. The 29 waste consists of torpedo guidance wire, sonobuoys, and lead 30 ballasts. The baseline study notes that no Federal jurisdiction 31 appears applicable to these materials. However, the study 32 recommends that an attempt be made to “quantify the amount of 33 seabed litter that has accumulated on the WG Range over the years 34 and assess the possible impacts of this waste on the surrounding 35 environment.” The study mentions that this contaminant 36 accumulation may have a negative impact on the marine food chain. 37 Important species mentioned include: chum salmon, Coho salmon, 38 pink salmon, rockfish, herring, lingcod, oysters, and clams. Finally 39 the study mentions that killer whales also pass through the area (CFB 40 Esquimalt 1992).
41 NUWC Keyport Pacific NW Range Sites 42 A Range Management Plan (RMP) was prepared to form the 43 baseline environmental characterization for several range sites under 44 NUWC Keyport cognizance (NUWC Keyport 1996). The RMP 45 provides an overview of the range sites (including structures,
4-78 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 equipment, and support platforms), provides a baseline assessment of 2 the impact of range operations on the environment, and outlines 3 proposed mitigation in keeping with existing federal and Navy 4 policies concerning environmental protection. The study concludes 5 with a series of recommended future measures to safeguard the 6 environment. These recommendations follow here in summary: 7 1. Provide environmental training for personnel designing 8 equipment used on range; 9 2. Establish a NEPA team to screen range projects for 10 environmental compliance; 11 3. Incorporate policy of NEPA planning into Range Operation 12 Procedures NUWC Report 1509; 13 4. Formalize current policy of no discharges into range waters; 14 5. Produce a cost/benefit analysis of replacing lead with a less toxic 15 ballast material; 16 6. Ensure that retrofitting or redesign of Mk-46 exercise system 17 involves a buoyancy system which does not drop lead; 18 7. Continue plans to phase out the Mk-46 REXTORP and replace it 19 with the Mk-50 or a lightweight version without a ballast system; 20 8. Conduct further research regarding the impact from the release 21 (during a catastrophic event) of both the reactants and products 22 from the reaction of lithium and sulfur hexafluoride on the 23 environment; 24 9. Initiate a study to determine the potential impact of guidance 25 wire on the environment. A feasibility study could be completed 26 to research the possibility of wire recovery or use of fiber-optic 27 material; 28 10. Study the impact of surface noise to determine its effect on range 29 inhabitants, particularly seabirds; 30 11. Investigate a matrix of the pulse type, and power of signals 31 generated during specific operations versus the sensitivity of the 32 marine inhabitants to these outputs; 33 12. Investigate the general method of deployment and the 34 components of temporary tracking range equipment for 35 environmental impact; 36 13. Keep an informational database of all equipment used and its 37 associated individual impacts; 38 14. Establish a database to track the accumulation of expendable 39 material and the potential impact of range operations; 40 15. Initiate further study to investigate reducing the quantity of 41 material, with emphasis on reduction or recovery of expended 42 sonobuoys and parachute hardware; 43 16. Analyze hazardous material use; 44 17. Conduct further study to define the impact from atypical APEX 45 and impact shot tests; 46 18. Conduct sediment and water sampling to determine the effect of 47 past operations on the range environment; 48 19. Seek public input to determine the impact of restricting access to 49 ranges during testing operations.
4-79 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 4.4.4 Land Use Planning & Resource Management Issues/Recommendations
2 The following recommendations are made with regard to existing 3 land use planning and resource management documentation: 4 5 AICUZ Implementation. The 2005 AICUZ included several 6 recommendations. The active involvement of the community 7 planning liaison was one of these recommendations and is 8 recognized as a vital role in encroachment prevention and good 9 public relations. 10 11 RAICUZ Update. OPNAV Instruction 3550.1: Range Air 12 Installation Compatible Use Zone Program and Guidelines requires 13 that RAICUZ studies be reviewed every two years and updated as 14 necessary to reflect changing operational and training requirements, 15 new aircraft types, new weapons and delivery tactics, tempo of 16 aviation activity, and land use development. The 1987 Boardman 17 RAICUZ may be due for a review and update to account for the 18 cessation of range use by the A-10s and the expected future use of 19 the range by the EA-18Gs, UAVs, and potentially Oregon Air 20 National Guard helicopters. 21 22 Nature Conservancy Agreement Amendment. It is recommended 23 that the Cooperative Management Agreement between the Navy and 24 the Nature Conservancy (re: NWSTF Boardman) be 25 reviewed/revisited in light of possible new EA-18G use of the range 26 and the Oregon Army National Guard use of the range. 27 28 Local Land Use Decision Involvement. Continue to encourage 29 Navy community planning liaison participation in local land use 30 decisions which may have an impact on operations and range usage. 31 Among other important issues requiring the liaison’s attention is 32 awareness of the Morrow County land use plans in relation to 33 NWSTF Boardman. Should there be a desire to expand range use for 34 ordnance delivery, it would be very important to ensure that range 35 encroachment via development or recreational use be minimized. 36 37 CZMA De Minimis Activities. Develop and negotiate approved de 38 minimis activities in each coastal state that will not require additional 39 coordination under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
40 4.4.5 Land Use Planning & Resource Management Documents
41 Applicable land use planning and resource management documents 42 are described in Figure 4-10 below. 43 Title Range(s) Covered Date Status NAS Whidbey Island Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 1986 Complete Lake Hancock Target Range Morrow County Comprehensive Plan N/A 1987 Complete
4-80 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN Title Range(s) Covered Date Status Range Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) Study. Naval Weapons NWSTF Boardman 1987 Complete Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon Cooperative Management Agreement between U.S. Department of the Navy, NWSTF Boardman 1988 Complete Boardman, Oregon and the Nature Conservancy Natural Resources Management Plan – Outlying Field Coupeville. NAS Whidbey OLF Coupeville 1989 Complete Island, Whidbey Island, Washington Environmental Baseline Study Volume I. Nanoose Range Site 1992 Complete Approach, Regulations and Site Setting Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range Historic and Archaeological Resources OLF Coupeville Protection (HARP) Plan for the Naval Air NWSTF Boardman 1994 Complete Station Whidbey Island, Washington Lake Hancock Target Range Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range Wyle Research Report WR 94-13 Aircraft NAS Whidbey Island Noise Study for Naval Air Station Whidbey 1994 Complete OLF Coupeville Island, Washington License Agreement for the Use of Leisnoi Kodiak Cold Weather Training Native Corporation Property in Kodiak, 1995 Complete Ranges Alaska Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Bald NAS Whidbey Island 1996 Complete Eagle Management Plan NAS WI and OLF Coupeville Integrated Natural Resources Management Lake Hancock Target Range Plan (INRMP) - Naval Air Station Whidbey Seaplane Base EOD 1996 Complete Island Demolition Training Range Survival Area on NAS WI Keyport Range Site Range Management Plan: Baseline Dabob Bay Range Complex Environmental Characterization of NUWC Nanoose Range Site 1996 Complete Keyport Pacific Northwest Range Sites Floral Pt Underwater EOD Range Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range Archaeological Resources Assessment and OLF Coupeville Protection Plan for the Naval Air Station NWSTF Boardman 1997 Complete Whidbey Island, Island County, Washington Lake Hancock Target Range Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range License Request for Use of Afognak Native Kodiak Cold Weather Training Corporation Lands for Extraction, 1997 Unknown Ranges Navigation and Communications Training
4-81 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN Title Range(s) Covered Date Status Avian Population Studies at Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, NWSTF Boardman 1998 Complete Oregon Island County Comprehensive Plan http://www.islandcounty.net/planning/comp N/A 1998 Complete plan.htm Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) - Naval Weapons Systems NWSTF Boardman 1999 Complete Training Facility Boardman, Oregon Permit for the Use of Real Estate (for the Kodiak Cold Weather Training Operation of a Cold Weather Training 2000 Complete Ranges Facility) Integrated Natural Resources Management Bangor EOD Demo Range Plan (INRMP)- Naval Submarine Base 2001 Complete Floral Pt Underwater Range Bangor City of Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan N/A 2003 Complete Town of Coupeville Comprehensive Plan N/A 2003 Complete OLF Coupeville; MOAs Lake Hancock Target Range NWSTF Boardman NAS Whidbey Island Activity Overview NAS Whidbey Island 2004 Complete Plan Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range Seaplane Base EOD Demolition Training Range Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/10year/defa N/A 2004 Complete ult.htm Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelo N/A 2004 Complete pment/complan.htm#Updated2004 Boardman; All MOAs; W-237 Regional Overview Plan and Regional Admiralty Bay Mining Range 2004 Complete Shore Infrastructure Plan Darrington Operating Area AICUZ Study Update for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying OLF Coupeville 2005 Complete Landing Field Coupeville, Washington Land Use Permit for USN Special Warfare Kodiak Cold Weather Training Center Kodiak for Use of USCG Property 2006 Complete Ranges for Overland Navigation Training Kodiak Island Borough Comprehensive Plan Kodiak Cold Weather Training 2006 In-Progress http://www.kibcompplan.com/pi/draft_plan. Ranges html 1 Figure 4-10. Land Use Planning and Resource Management Documents for NWTRC
4-82 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 4.5 EXISTING RANGE ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SOPS AND 2 INSTRUCTIONS
3 Range managers are responsible for ensuring that SOPs reflect all 4 relevant environmental and land use constraints and that these SOPs 5 are distributed. Range users are responsible for adhering to these 6 SOPs. If SOPs for training on land ranges and PMAP for at-sea 7 operations are comprehensive, up-to-date, and complied with, Navy 8 unit level training should comply with all applicable laws and 9 regulations. This section, and Figure 4-11, outlines the 10 environmental and resource management information available to the 11 operators in the conduct of their training activities. 12 Title Range(s) Covered Date Status NASWHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 5090.10A. BIRD AIRCRAFT STRIKE NAS WI and OLF Coupeville 2001 Complete HAZARD (BASH) PLAN Crescent Harbor Underwater COMNAVREG NW INSTRUCTION EOD Range, Floral Point 8027.2 (Puget Sound Underwater Underwater EOD Range, 2002 Complete Demolition Training) NAVMAG Indian Island Underwater EOD Range Dabob Bay Range Complex Operations Dabob Bay Range Complex 2003 Complete and Management Plan Admiralty Bay Mining Range, COMPACFLT MSG 210440Z JUN 03 Dabob Bay Range Complex, 2003 / and CFFC/CPF MSG 071954Z OCT 04 Complete EOD Ranges, 2004 (Sonar Operation in Puget Sound) Nanoose Range Site COMFLTFORCOM MSG 071954Z OCT 04 (Fleet-wide Implementation of the PACNW OPAREA, Puget 2004 Complete Protective Measures Assessment Protocol Sound and Inland Waterways (PMAP) CD-ROM Application Crescent Harbor Underwater EODMUELEVEN INSTRUCTION EOD Range, Seaplane Base 3120.1G (SOP for Explosive Ordnance 2005 Complete EOD Demolition Training Disposal Demolition Training) Range Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges Nanoose 3D Range User Nanoose Range Site 2005 Complete Guide NASWHIDBEY INSTRUCTION PACNW OPAREA and all W- 3770.1C: Pacific Northwest Operations areas within, all MOAs, 2006 Complete Area Manual Darrington OPAREA. 13 Figure 4-11. NWTRC Training Area SOPs and Instructions
14 4.5.1 Protective Measures Assessment Protocol (PMAP)
15 FFC developed PMAP (DoN 2005) as a set of precautionary 16 standard operating procedures, policies, and planning tools to assist 17 Commanders and COs with environmental compliance for training
4-83 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 activities at sea. PMAP is a GIS-based CD ROM tool that provides 2 situational awareness during at-sea unit level training events. It 3 provides protective measures for 17 specific RTE and exercises to 4 maximize the Navy’s protection and conservation of important 5 marine resources. PMAP measures are to be implemented during 6 routine unit-level training and are dependent on the geographic 7 location and type of training exercise being performed. PMAP 8 applies to the 17 RTEs listed below: 9 a. GUNEX (surface-to-surface), 10 b. GUNEX (surface-to-air), 11 c. GUNEX (air-to-surface), 12 d. TORPEX (excluding service weapon/warshot tests) 13 involving use of mid-frequency sonar, 14 e. Small Arms Training, 15 f. MISSILEX (surface-to-air), 16 g. MISSILEX (air-to-air), 17 h. MISSILEX (air-to-surface), 18 i. Practice Bombing (explosive), 19 j. Practice Bombing (non-explosive), 20 k. Mine Countermeasures (mechanical mine avoidance/mine 21 sweeping), 22 l. Mine Countermeasures (acoustic mine avoidance/mine 23 sweeping using mid-frequency sonar), 24 m. Mine Countermeasures (explosive), 25 n. Anchor Operations, 26 o. Ship and Submarine Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Usage, 27 p. Multistatic High Output Source (IEER, AEER Training 28 Operations, electromechanical) and 29 q. Helo Dipping Sonar-Training Operations. 30 The protective measures outlined in the assessment tool should be 31 applied to most ocean areas of the world for routine training events. 32 Specifically: 33 Outside of ranges and OPAREAs, excluding US-recognized 34 Foreign Exclusive Economic Zones (FEEZ) and Foreign 35 Fishing Zones (where the unit commander should seek 36 guidance from the appropriate numbered fleet staff to 37 determine applicable protective measures), or 38 Within ranges and OPAREAs where Navy does not otherwise 39 have specific environmental requirements. 40 41 When the proposed location, date, and nature of the training event 42 are entered into the PMAP program, it will generate the natural 43 resources considerations (e.g., marine mammals, endangered and 44 threatened species, etc.), the cause of potential impacts (e.g., 45 acoustic, collision, etc.), and the training area controls. 46 47 Sonar use guidance is specifically provided in the PMAP CD-ROM 48 introduction as follows: 49 50 “Navy units will avoid training with active sonar in areas 51 where they could encounter conditions that could contribute
4-84 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 to a marine mammal stranding event. These conditions 2 include a strong surface duct, significant bathymetry (steep 3 or complex bathymetric features such as continental shelf 4 break, constricted channels, seamounts and canyons), 5 multiple sonar employment over extended periods of time or 6 limited egress for marine mammals. If a situation arises in 7 which units must conduct sonar training or exercises where 8 the aforementioned conditions are present, prior approval is 9 required from the appropriate numbered feet staff.”
10 4.5.2 Training Area SOPs and Instructions
11 Sonar Operation in Puget Sound (COMPACFLT MSG DTG 12 210440Z JUN 03) 13 This message provides direction to Navy vessels operating in the 14 Puget Sound waters. Pending the release of more specific guidance 15 from OPNAV, the use of active sonar for routine training and 16 maintenance in the Puget Sound area requires prior approval by 17 COMPACFLT who will coordinate with CNRNW. This guidance 18 applies to the water from Buoy J eastward, including all inland 19 waters (including Canadian waters) of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the 20 Puget Sound, and the Strait of Georgia. The policy does not apply to 21 the use of active sonar for antiterrorism-force protection or for safe 22 navigation.
23 COMNAVREGNWINST 8027.2 24 This instruction applies to EODMU 11 and EODMU 17 and their 25 respective detachments. The instruction emphasizes the mitigation 26 measures set forth in the 2000 Biological Assessment for EOD 27 Operations in Puget Sound, as follows: 28 At the Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend Bay sites, during 29 the juvenile migration season (March 15 to July 1 for salmon 30 and bull trout), charges larger than 5 lb. should not be used. If 31 it is necessary to use charges larger than 5 lb., and up to 20 32 lb., these charges should be detonated at least 1000 m from 33 the nearest shoreline. 34 The maximum net explosive weight for any underwater 35 detonation in the U.S. Navy EOD Puget Sound Training 36 Ranges of Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend will be 20 37 pounds. 38 At the Hood Canal site, charges larger than 1 lb. should not 39 be used during the juvenile migration season (March 15 to 40 July 1 for salmon and bull trout). 41 Thirty (30) minutes prior to any underwater detonation, one 42 EOD workboat will patrol the training range for potential 43 presence of marine mammals. 44 o Pay particular attention for any harbor seal or California 45 sea lions known to occasionally haul out on the haul out 46 rocks along the eastern shoreline of Crescent Harbor
4-85 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 (approximately 48°17’15”N/122°34’00”W) and off 2 Forbes Point (approximately 48°16’22”N/122° 37’50”W). 3 o Any sightings of marine mammals within a 600-meter 4 radius of the underwater detonation site will cause 5 underwater detonations to be cancelled and rescheduled. 6 o Following an underwater detonation, the site will be 7 monitored for fifteen (15) minutes and the EOD 8 demolition supervisor will fill-out a Monitoring Sheet. 9 Once completed, the Monitoring Sheet will be maintained 10 for a historical record by each unit conducting underwater 11 demolition operations. 12 o Ten (10) days prior to detonations in Crescent Harbor, the 13 acting EOD unit will contact Navy Region NW, Assistant 14 Chief of Staff for Environment and Safety at (360) 315- 15 5400. Navy Region NW will then notify the Swinomish 16 Tribe at (360) 315-5400 in order to avoid conflict with 17 tribal fishermen.
18 EODMU ELEVEN INSTRUCTION 3120.1G: Standard 19 Operating Procedures for Explosive Ordnance Disposal 20 Demolition Training 21 This instruction, dated 06 September 2005, sets forth standard 22 operating procedures for EOD demolition at the NAS Whidbey 23 Island Survival Area and at the Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD 24 Range. Though the instruction is primarily focused on procedures to 25 ensure safe and secure EOD training, there are some environmental 26 aspects to the instruction as follows: 27 At both sites, prior to demolition, the fire department and 28 public affairs officer shall be notified (among other 29 departments). 30 At the Survival Area Demolition Training Range, the 31 maximum net explosive weight per shot is .5 (1/2) lbs. (non- 32 fragmenting). Multiple explosive charges attached to a main 33 line/branch line are still considered the same shot. 34 At the Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range (as 35 mentioned in the COMNAVREGNWINST 8027.2), a 10 day 36 advance notice is required for any underwater detonation. 37 The Readiness & Training (R&T) Officer must contact Navy 38 Region Northwest and NASWI Environmental Office. 39 NASWI Environmental is required to monitor all explosive 40 operations conducted in the Crescent Harbor Underwater 41 EOD Range. R&T department personnel will coordinate with 42 the Environmental Office to ensure a representative is present 43 for each explosive operation. Also at Crescent Harbor, shots 44 up to 20 lbs. net explosive weight are authorized. According 45 to the instruction, “Due to environmental concerns the net 46 explosive weight per shot has been reduced. The Demolition 47 Operations Supervisor (DOS) is required to check with the 48 R&T Department for current charge weights before 49 requesting explosives.” Finally, if an Environmental
4-86 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 representative is not available, the DOS will fill out the 2 Environmental Historical Monitoring Sheet and transmit the 3 sheet via email to the R&T Officer. [Note: the 4 Environmental Historical Monitoring Sheet records basic 5 information about the underwater detonation including: 6 date/time, location, lat/long, DOS, explosive charge used, and 7 type and amount of fish taken in the Underwater Detonation].
8 NAS WHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 3770.1C: Pacific Northwest 9 Operations Area Manual 10 This instruction, dated 17 March 2006, provides an overview of 11 training airspace areas, outlines safety precautions, and establishes 12 procedures for scheduling use. The instruction provides procedures 13 for conducting such exercises as: surface gunnery, anti-aircraft 14 gunnery, anti-submarine warfare, air-to-air gunnery, air-to-surface 15 exercises, air-to-air MISSILEX, air-to-surface and surface-to-air 16 MISSILEX, electronic countermeasures and chaff requests. From an 17 environmental perspective, there are a few relevant procedures 18 included in the instruction, including: 19 Section 1.2: Each aircrew will be familiar with the noise 20 profiles of their aircraft and shall be committed to minimizing 21 noise impacts without compromising operational and safety 22 requirements; 23 Section 1.14.10: When it is necessary to fly over known 24 habitat of wild fowl, an altitude of at least 3,000 feet shall be 25 maintained, conditions permitting; 26 Section 3.9: The use of illumination flares is not authorized in 27 the MOAs; 28 Section 5.3.2: The activities permitted within the OCNMS are 29 listed (see earlier discussion from Final Rule publication in 30 Federal Register). 31 Section 5.3.3: OCNMS restrictions and prohibitions are 32 listed, including: 33 o No bombing live or inert; 34 o Flying less than 2000’ within one nautical mile of the 35 Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, or Copalis National 36 Wildlife Refuge; 37 o Flying less than 2000’ within one nautical mile of the 38 coastal boundary (Shoreline to 1 nm seaward). 39 Section 5.4.4: The six preferred drop zones are noted (note 40 that all zones are located outside the OCNMS boundary due 41 to the OCNMS restrictions). Drops may be requested 42 anywhere outside the OCNMS, but these are preferred for 43 coordination with COMSUBTRAGRU.
44 NAS WHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 5090.10A: Bird Aircraft 45 Strike Hazard (BASH) Plan 46 The 2001 BASH plan (DoN 2001) focuses on reducing bird hazards 47 in and around NAS Whidbey Island. For the purposes of this 48 RCMP, only BASH plan elements relevant to the complex ranges are
4-87 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 highlighted. The BASH Plan notes that OLF Coupeville has a large 2 and potentially dangerous bird population. OLF Coupeville 3 reporting requirements are as follows: 4 1. Prior to scheduled FCLP operations, OLF personnel will make a 5 BASH sweep of the runway and pass BHC reports to the ODO 6 and LSO. 7 2. OLF personnel will make periodic sweeps of the runway when 8 breaks in flight operations allow, and report BHC to the ODO 9 and LSO as necessary. 10 3. The LSO shall also report BHC to the ODO and issue radio 11 advisories to inbound and pattern aircraft. 12 13 BASH procedures regarding Low Level Routes are as follows (DoN 14 2001): Guidance for aircrew actions on routes or segments with 15 severe bird activity is contained in amplifying COMVAQWINGPAC 16 instructions. All flights must avoid those segments that are under 17 BHC RED (severe) based on migration patters and Weather Radar 18 reports. Additional low-level hazard guidance will be obtained from 19 Bird Hazard Avoidance data provided by the US Air Force BASH 20 Team. Each squadron safety office should maintain a copy of this 21 data. The following are some general operational changes to reduce 22 threats from bird strikes, mission permitting: 23 1. When practical, reduce low-level flight time. Ninety-nine 24 percent of all bird strikes occur below 2300 feet AGL. 25 2. Reduce formation flying. The first aircraft can redirect birds into 26 trailing aircraft. 27 3. Reduced airspeeds will allow birds to be seen sooner and lessen 28 damage in event of a strike. 29 4. Avoid areas with known raptor concentrations during summer, 30 especially during 1000-1700 time frame due to increased 31 thermals.
32 Dabob Bay Range Complex Operations and Management 33 Plan 34 The purpose of the Operations and Management Plan (OMP) is to 35 describe the test activities within the geographic boundaries of the 36 Dabob Bay Military Operating Area, the Hood Canal Military 37 Operating Areas, and connecting waters (collectively referred to as 38 the “Dabob Bay Range Complex [DBRC]”) in a descriptive, 39 functional format. The plan focuses on the categories of test range 40 activities, test range management, and resource management and 41 coordinated measures. The overall action ensures continued test 42 range operations and maximizes the existing and future potential 43 Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division, Keyport, 44 Washington use of resources in the Dabob Bay Range Complex. 45 The Final OMP is dated November 19, 2003 and was supported by 46 an environmental assessment and biological assessment. 47 48 Based on the analysis in the EA, the Navy has determined that 49 implementation of the OMP would not cause significant impacts to
4-88 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 the environment. The Operations and Management Plan is divided 2 into five parts and an appendix. Part 1 (Introduction) describes the 3 purpose, scope, and format of the plan. Part 2 provides an overview 4 of the Dabob Bay Range Complex and its geographical and physical 5 characteristics. Part 3 discusses the Navy’s management program 6 for the Dabob Bay Range Complex. Part 4 describes the 7 characteristics of the tests that take place within the Dabob Bay 8 Range Complex. Part 5 addresses environmental issues associated 9 with general operations. The Appendix charts Dabob Bay Range 10 Complex testing activities and associated environmental issues. 11 12 The OMP notes in part that every project that is proposed for test on 13 the range will have a complete environmental review before 14 conducting any on-range testing. Tasks that will be performed as 15 part of this review include: 16 1. Examine for inclusion under existing range NEPA 17 documentation; 18 2. Examine existing NEPA documentation available for the project; 19 and 20 3. Examine for potential impacts to NUWC environmental 21 stewardship goals. 22 23 The governing regulations for the DBRC, include: 24 1. OPNAVINST 5090.1B; 25 2. NUWCINST 5090.1B; and 26 3. Range Operating Procedure (ROP), NUWC Report 1509. 27 28 For each type of operation, the ROP provides objectives, policies, 29 responsibilities, procedures (including attached applicable forms), 30 and approval. The ROP also includes provisions for dealing with 31 marine mammal sightings and other related environmental issues. 32 33 The OMP also details range monitoring procedures, recording 34 requirements, and data maintenance requirements. Furthermore, the 35 OMP details outreach responsibilities related to American Indian 36 Tribes and the Point No Point Treaty Council.
37 Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges 38 Nanoose 3D Range User Guide (2005) 39 The Nanoose 3D Range User Guide sets forth a description of the 40 facilities and equipment available at the Canadian Forces Maritime 41 Experimental & Test Ranges (CFMETR), as well as the rules for 42 their usage. The CFMETR ranges include and instrumented 3-D 43 range-Area WG (with associated airspace CYR 107), the non- 44 instrumented Whiskey Foxtrot (WF) area, the Jervis Inlet range area 45 (WN), and the Hotham Sound range area. The User Guide notes that 46 no explosives may be used on the range and sets forth several 47 operating procedures to address environmental concerns. These 48 include:
4-89 VOL II, CH 4ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 RESOURCES, AND LAND USE PLANNING THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 1. For visits by nuclear-powered/capable vessels (NPVs/NCVs), a 2 Nuclear Emergency Response Team (NERT) is placed on alert. 3 Water and air samples are taken at various times during the visit 4 and the NPV is monitored continuously for Gamma Shine. 5 2. No waste, effluent, or garbage is to be discharged overboard in 6 Nanoose Harbour or in the Strait of Georgia (including ranges 7 areas), with certain exceptions applicable to treated sewage and 8 grey water. See User Guide for details as to these exceptions. 9 3. No form of oily waste or bilge water may be dumped at any 10 time. No solid waste, garbage or food waste may be dumped. 11 All Biohazardous Infectious Waste must be retained on board 12 until proper disposal arrangements can be made.
13 4.5.3 Training Area SOP and Instruction Recommendations
14 Range managers will review their SOPs and Instructions (see list in 15 Figure 4-11) to ensure that operating procedures therein address all 16 environmental, resource management, and land use constraints 17 prescribed by relevant plans, permits, agreements, real estate 18 instruments, and other compliance documents. 19 20 The following recommendations are made regarding existing 21 operational constraints. 22 23 EOD Mitigation Measure Training (Recommend). Among other 24 requirements, the COMNAVREGNWINST 8027.2 implements the 25 Biological Assessment mitigation measures for EOD operations in 26 the Puget Sound training ranges. These mitigation measures are very 27 detailed and potentially complicated. The recommendation is for 28 thorough EOD training in order that these mitigation measures can 29 be implemented successfully. In addition, the 30 EODMUELEVENINST 3120.1G requires that DOSs record the 31 types of fish taken during an underwater detonation when a NASWI 32 Environmental Department personnel is unable to attend the 33 detonation. It may be recommended that fish species identification 34 training be required for either DOSs, or those under DOS supervision 35 to ensure that the data is properly recorded.
36 4.6 ENCROACHMENT ISSUES BASED ON EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
37 Appendix B compares mitigation measures/restrictions identified in 38 existing environmental documents applicable to the encroachment 39 issues outlined in chapter 5.
4-90 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5 ENCROACHMENT AND SUSTAINMENT CHALLENGES
2 This section analyzes encroachment on the Navy’s training ranges in 3 the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC).
4 5.1 ENCROACHMENT ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY
5 The encroachment analysis identifies and describes encroachment 6 pressures in the NWTRC. The analysis uses a series of 20 matrices, 7 summarized in Appendix C, which evaluate encroachment issues 8 against the Ranges to Readiness (R2R) study training impact factors. 9 The 20 matrices represent individual ranges within four major range 10 areas that, combined, make up the NWTRC. Sources of information 11 that were used to develop the matrices included numerous 12 interviews, telephone conversations, and e-mail messages with staff, 13 range managers, and operators. Each of the 20 major range entities 14 included in the matrices was evaluated for these 12 encroachment 15 issues: 16 Endangered species or their critical habitats 17 Cultural resources 18 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and munitions 19 Frequency encroachment 20 Maritime sustainability 21 Airspace restrictions 22 Air quality 23 Clean water 24 Wetlands 25 Airborne noise 26 Urban growth 27 Range transients 28 29 The impact of each of these encroachment issues was evaluated 30 against the following 12 training factors: 31 Creates avoidance areas 32 Reduces training days 33 Prohibits certain training events 34 Reduces range access 35 Segments training and/or reduces realism 36 Limits application of new weapons technologies 37 Raises flight altitudes 38 Inhibits tactics development 39 Complicates night and all-weather training 40 Reduces live-fire proficiency 41 Increases personnel tempo 42 Greatly increases Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs
5-1 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Each encroachment issue with its corresponding training impact was 2 ranked as severe impact (red in the Appendix C matrices), moderate 3 impact (yellow), minimal impact (green), or not observed (white). 4 5 These ranking represent the encroachment impact observations taken 6 directly from subject matter experts (SMEs) of the Northwest 7 Training Range Complex. Accordingly, the encroachment rankings 8 are not statistical measures. Rather, they reflect subject matter 9 experts’ knowledge and judgment about environmental issues and 10 subjective impacts. 11 A severe impact is one that prohibits a training event or 12 activity or makes the training event or activity ineffectual 13 when measured against training standards. 14 A moderate impact marginalizes training to the extent that 15 the training can be done but must use alternate standards and 16 methods that detract from otherwise optimum training. 17 A minimal impact does not effectively detract from training 18 content, procedure, or outcome. 19 20 All of the impacts are included in the Appendix C matrices. 21 However, only the moderate and severe impacts are described in this 22 analysis narrative.
23 5.2 ENCROACHMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX
24 The encroachment analysis determined that there is a moderate 25 amount of encroachment in the NWTRC and that when 26 encroachment occurs, impacts are generally minimal. There are 27 some situations, described in detail in the following sections, in 28 which encroachment is causing moderate interruptions or impacts to 29 training realism. 30 31 Some of the impacts identified are related to restrictions imposed on 32 aircraft by the presence of the Olympic Coast National Marine 33 Sanctuary (OCNMS) and fall under the Maritime Sustainability 34 category of encroachments. Also in this category, encroachments 35 exist due to marine mammal migrations. There is also airspace 36 restriction encroachment associated with the limitations of firing 37 live, air-to-surface ordnance. The final impacts in the range are 38 recorded in the Pacific Northwest Ocean Surface/Subsurface 39 Operating Area and come under the category of Urban Growth. 40 Seismic instruments deployed on the ocean floor by civilian 41 scientists force Navy submarines to avoid the area. 42 43 The NWTRC includes five Military Operating Areas (MOAs), 44 Darrington Area, the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility 45 (NWSTF) Boardman Range and associated airspace, Admiralty Bay 46 Restricted airspace, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca water space. In 47 this air, water, and land space, the encroachment impacts were 48 assessed as severe, moderate, and minimal as summarized in
5-2 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Appendix C. These impacts will be discussed in the sections that 2 follow and were identified under Frequency Encroachment (Section 3 5.2.1), Maritime Sustainability (Section 5.2.2), Airspace Restrictions 4 (Section 5.2.3), and Urban Growth (Section 5.2.4). 5 6 Chapter 5 herein exclusively addresses encroachment, and does not 7 consider shortfalls in range capabilities. Shortfalls in range 8 capabilities are described in Chapter 7, Range Complex Capabilities 9 Assessment. The combined consideration of encroachment analysis 10 and capability shortfalls provides insight into the range complex’s 11 ability to support NTAs. For a listing of the NTAs, see Chapter 3 12 (Current Range Complex Operations).
13 5.2.1 Frequency Encroachment
14 Frequency encroachment in the NWTRC has been driven by the 15 technological advances in the telecommunication industry and the 16 reallocation of frequency spectrum bandwidth. This encroachment 17 will continue to be an issue into the future as technologies and 18 increased demand for frequency spectrum bandwidth is placed upon 19 the finite frequency spectrum. Frequency encroachment in the 20 PACNORWEST OPAREA has an overall minimal impact on 21 training operations. Frequency restrictions on Link 16, SPY-1 radar, 22 SPS-49 radar, and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems are 23 causing a minimal degradation to training within the 24 PACNORWEST OPAREA. Although this section addresses the 25 general operational restrictions placed upon these systems in the 26 Northwest Range Complex, many of the restrictions are classified 27 and maintained in a document available on the SIPRNET at the 28 following location: 29 http://iweb.spawar.navy.smil.mil/projects/afloatsm /main.htm 30 31 The Joint Restricted Frequency List (JRFL) imposes restrictions on 32 aircrews training in Electronic Attack missions. Elaboration on 33 these restrictions exceeds the UNCLASSIFIED nature of this 34 document. Additionally, there are difficulties in obtaining clearance 35 from the FAA to conduct airborne jamming. For example, electronic 36 jamming, the primary mission of the locally based EA-6B Prowler, is 37 not allowed in the Okanogan and Roosevelt MOAs due to the 38 presence of a satellite communication station. Jamming is permitted 39 in the Olympic MOA when the aircraft is heading west and the radio 40 frequency (RF) energy is directed toward the Pacific Ocean. 41 Periodically (average one event per crew each quarter), Electronic 42 Attack training is conducted elsewhere, in part to take advantage of 43 different range assets and training with other aircraft. Events 44 involving new technology are occasionally conducted away from the 45 NWTRC. 46 47 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 48 Minimal 49 NTA affected by encroachment: 3.2.1.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.5.
5-3 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 R2R training impact & current workaround: Restrictions from 2 the JRFL and the FAA create avoidance areas, prohibit certain 3 training events, segment training/reduce realism, limit application of 4 new weapons technologies, and inhibit new tactics development. 5 Currently, aircrews travel to SOCAL or Fallon to conduct portions of 6 their training syllabus. 7 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 8 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Unknown. EA-18G 9 will replace EA-6B, but full impact of replacement is not known. 10 The Growler aircrews are expected to have training requirements 11 similar to the Prowler. 12 Source of Encroachment: JRFL and FAA. 13 Recommendation: None.
14 5.2.1.1 Link 16 Restrictions 15 Link 16 is a relatively new tactical data link which is being 16 employed by the United States Navy, the Joint Services, some 17 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and 18 Japan. The Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), 19 the communications component of Link 16, is a data 20 communications system that provides the Army, Navy, Air Force, 21 and Marine Theater Command and Control (C2) elements with a 22 secure, jam-resistant, high capacity data link communications system 23 for use in a tactical combat environment. Link 16 is DoD's primary 24 tactical data link for command, control, and intelligence, providing 25 critical joint interpretability and situation awareness information. 26 27 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has constrained the use 28 of the airborne Link 16 system within the territorial limits of the 29 United States coastline as negotiated in the memorandum of 30 agreement (MOA) between the Department of Transportation (DOT) 31 and the DoD. The MOA places limits on time slots and pulse 32 frequency. In addition, Link 16 employment applications require up 33 to 90 days advance submittals, and approvals often are issued only 34 within 24 hours of pending use. The MOA also limits total Link 16 35 transmissions to 6 hours per day. These restrictions are placed upon 36 the Navy because the frequency band in which the system operates is 37 allocated for aeronautical radio navigation and is shared with the 38 FAA. As a result, Fleet Commanders have implemented procedures 39 that limit Link 16 use by naval forces within 50 miles of the coast 40 and in order to use the Link 16 equipment the bandwidth must be 41 shared. These restrictions limit the number of Link 16 equipped 42 units that can operate the system simultaneously, thereby reducing 43 overall training efficiency. 44 45 Operational impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 46 Minimal. 47 NTAs affected: 3.2.1.1; 3.2.3; 3.2.5. 48 R2R training impact & current workaround: Restrictions on Link 49 16 usage prohibit/reduces training days, limit application of new
5-4 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 weapons technologies, and inhibit new tactics development. 2 Training using Link 16 training is conducted outside of 50 miles 3 from the coast, or the training is accomplished through meticulous 4 management of the frequency spectrum, which results in less than 5 optimal training. 6 Impact of introduction of new weapons systems, tactics, or 7 missions: New weapons systems tend to be networked and more 8 data intensive, thereby requiring more frequency spectrum. 9 Increasing constriction of the spectrum available for military uses 10 will continue to impact Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 11 (RDT&E), and development of new tactics and training on new 12 systems. This encroachment and the ongoing installation of the Link 13 16 capability on platforms such as the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), 14 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and other platforms will continue to have 15 an impact on training operations. 16 Source of encroachment: MOA between DOT and DoD; National 17 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 18 frequency assignment restrictions and communications procedures 19 contained in Annex Kilo to USFLTFORCES/COMLANTFLT 20 OPORD 2000-03. 21 Areas where the restrictions exist: All SUA and OPAREAS in the 22 complex within 50 miles of the coast. 23 Recommendation: Continue all coordination efforts with the FAA 24 for sharing of this frequency bandwidth to prevent further Link 16 25 restrictions and investigate opportunities for increased Link 16 use. 26 The DoD has successfully demonstrated JTIDS compatibility with 27 aeronautical radio navigation equipment. There has been significant 28 and successful negotiation between the NTIA (who allocates national 29 frequency spectrum), the FAA, and the DoD to ease the restrictions 30 on JTIDS/Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) 31 operations. The Navy Marine Corps Spectrum Center (NMSC) is 32 delegated the assignment as the lead in JTIDS/MIDS coordination 33 for the DoD. The NMSC, on behalf of the DoD, coordinates 34 continuously with the Frequency Assignment and Engineering 35 Division (ASR-100) of the FAA directly on all issues concerning 36 JTIDS/MIDS frequency management. Future negotiations have the 37 following goals in sight: 38 1. Permitting uncoordinated 150/50% Time Slot Duty Factor 39 (TSDF) operations in specific geographic areas where large 40 numbers of platforms simultaneously train on a routine basis; 41 2. Unlimited contention access TSDF; 42 3. Reducing the authorization processing time to five days with 43 electronic media; and 44 4. Authorize permanent assignments for all military locations, 45 including those with fixed ground platform installations (DoD 46 2004b). 47 Should additional resources allow, increasing the negotiation or 48 coordination efforts should be considered.
5-5 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5.2.1.2 SPY-1 Restrictions 2 The SPY-1 phased array radar system is the primary air and surface 3 radar for the Aegis Combat System installed in the Ticonderoga 4 (CG-47) and Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)-class warships. It is a multi- 5 function, phased-array radar capable of search, automatic detection, 6 transition to track, tracking of air and surface targets, and missile 7 engagement support. It operates in the 3-5 gigahertz (GHz) band. It 8 is used by Aegis platforms in all Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) and 9 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) events. Tactical data from this system can 10 be shared through data links (like Link-16) to other link-capable 11 commands. 12 13 Inside 25 from land, the SPY-1 may only operate in the maintenance 14 mode with the antenna radiating straight up. Live antenna radiation 15 operations are unrestricted outside of 25 miles of land. These 16 radiation restrictions stem mainly from the protection of other DoD 17 activities which operate navigational equipment within the 3-5 GHz 18 bandwidth, including other DoD surface search radars. 19 20 Operational impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 21 Minimal. 22 NTAs affected: 3.2.1.1. 23 R2R training impact & current workaround: Restrictions on 24 SPY-1 usage reduce training days, prohibit certain training events, 25 segment training/reduce realism, limit application of new weapons 26 technologies, and inhibit new tactics development. Despite an 27 increased Navy emphasis on the littorals, ships must conduct SPY-1 28 related exercises outside of 25 miles, which is beyond littoral waters. 29 Impact of introduction of new weapons systems, tactics, or 30 missions: Training with new missile and weapons systems would be 31 affected where tactics, techniques, and procedures require use of 32 SPY-1 radars. 33 Source of encroachment: NTIA frequency assignment restrictions 34 and communications procedures contained in Annex Kilo to 35 USFLTFORCES/COMLANTFLT OPORD 2000-03. 36 Areas where the restrictions exist: All portions of OPAREAS 37 within 25 miles of the land within the complex. 38 Recommendation: NMSC should continue coordination with the 39 NTIA through the Military Communications Electronics Board 40 (MCEB) Joint Frequency Panel on SPY-1 frequency management 41 issues. The MCEB Joint Frequency Panel is the principal DoD 42 coordinating agency for spectrum management. The MCEB Joint 43 Frequency Panel is broken into a number of permanent working 44 groups. The key working group that manages SPY-1 issues is the 45 equipment spectrum guidance permanent working group (J-12 46 PWG). Responsibilities of the J-12 PWG may be found in the 47 MCEB Organization, Mission and Functions Manual (MCEB Pub 1 48 of 1 March 2002).
5-6 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5.2.1.3 SPS-49 Radar Restrictions 2 Frequency encroachment also applies to other Navy transmitters 3 including the AN/SPS-49 radar. The SPS-49 Air Search Radar is a 4 long-range, two-dimensional (range and bearing) air search radar 5 which provides target position data to a ship command and control 6 system. It is capable of detecting targets as high as 100,000 feet at a 7 distance of 2 to 300 miles. U.S. ships which operate the SPS-49 8 include the following ship classes: CV/CVN, CG-47, FFG-7, LSD- 9 41/49, and LHD-1-class ships. The Radar is an L-band, long-range, 10 two-dimensional, air-search radar system that provides automatic 11 detection and reporting of targets within its surveillance volume. 12 13 When the Navy first developed the SPS-49 radar in the late 1970’s, 14 they were allocated a band of the frequency spectrum by agreeing to 15 share it with civilian telephone users. Until the late 1980’s the Navy 16 could and did use frequencies throughout the tuning range of 850- 17 950 megahertz (MHz) without causing any interference. With the 18 continued growth of cellular systems in highly populated areas, Navy 19 use of the full bandwidth started causing interference problems. 20 Although the DoD is assigned the 902-928 band in which it operates, 21 the radar will interfere with other civilian and FAA navigational 22 radars tuned to the same frequency, thus causing problems for the 23 Navy. Current restrictions on the SPS-49 radar limit its use within 24 100 miles of land. In addition, other land based communications 25 systems can be interfered with by this radar and operational 26 restrictions are placed upon Navy units regionally. 27 28 Operational impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 29 Minimal. 30 NTAs affected: 3.2.1.1, 3.2.5. 31 R2R training impact & current workaround: Restrictions on 32 SPS-49 radar usage reduce training days, prohibit certain training 33 events, segment training/reduce realism and inhibit new tactics 34 development. Ships must conduct required training and operations 35 associated with these systems outside 100 miles from land. 36 Impact of introduction of new weapons systems, tactics, or 37 missions: Minimal additional impact is anticipated. 38 Source of encroachment: NTIA frequency assignment restrictions 39 and communications procedures contained in Annex Kilo to 40 USFLTFORCES/COMLANTFLT OPORD 2000-03. 41 Areas where the restrictions exist: All portions of OPAREAS 42 within 100 miles of land within the complex. 43 Recommendation: NMSC should continue coordination with the 44 NTIA through the Military Communications Electronics Board 45 (MCEB) Joint Frequency Panel on SPS-49 frequency management 46 issues. The MCEB Joint Frequency Panel is the principal DoD 47 coordinating agency for spectrum management. The MCEB Joint 48 Frequency Panel is broken into a number of permanent working 49 groups. The key working group that manages SPS-49 issues is the 50 equipment spectrum guidance permanent working group (J-12
5-7 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 PWG). Responsibilities of the J-12 PWG may be found in the 2 MCEB Organization, Mission and Functions Manual (MCEB Pub 1 3 of 1 March 2002).
4 5.2.1.4 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Restrictions 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) is a two-channel system, with one 6 frequency (1030 megahertz) used for the interrogating signals and 7 another (1090 megahertz) for the reply. There are four major modes 8 of operation currently in use by military aircraft plus one sub-mode. 9 Mode 1 is a non-secure low cost method used by ships to track 10 aircraft and other ships. Mode 2 is used by aircraft to make carrier 11 controlled approaches to ships during inclement weather. Mode 3 is 12 the standard system also used by commercial aircraft to relay their 13 position to ground controllers throughout the world for air traffic 14 control (ATC). Mode 4 is secure encrypted IFF (the only true 15 method of determining friend or foe). Mode "C" is an automatic 16 altitude encoder. 17 18 FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at 19 an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must 20 be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of 21 automatic altitude reporting (this is the reason that two of the modes 22 are used by both military and civilian aircraft). Use of the IFF 23 interrogation system within 25 miles of land is restricted due to 24 interference with FAA interrogation systems associated with civil 25 airports. Further restrictions limiting IFF use are classified and can 26 be found at the following site: 27 http://iweb.spawar.navy.smil.mil/projects/afloatsm/main.htm. 28 29 Operational impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 30 Minimal. 31 NTAs affected: 3.2.1.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.5. 32 R2R training impact & current workaround: Restrictions on IFF 33 usage reduce training days, prohibit certain training events, and 34 segment training/reduce realism. Ships must conduct required 35 training, including flight operations, and operations associated with 36 IFF outside 25 miles from land. 37 Impact of introduction of new weapons systems, tactics, or 38 missions: The Navy’s policy of moving toward increased littoral 39 operations and training will be impacted by these restrictions. LCS, 40 the Navy’s newest surface ship, is designed specifically for use in the 41 littorals and along with the MH-60S helicopter, will be limited by 42 these restrictions. 43 Source of encroachment: NTIA frequency assignment restrictions 44 and communications procedures contained in Annex Kilo to 45 USFLTFORCES/COMLANTFLT OPORD 2000-03. 46 Areas where the restrictions exist: All portions of OPAREAS 47 inside the complex within 25 miles of land. 48 Recommendation: Continue to work with FAA to prevent further 49 restrictions with IFF. NMSC should continue coordination with the
5-8 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 NTIA through the Military Communications Electronics Board 2 (MCEB) Joint Frequency Panel on IFF management issues. The 3 MCEB Joint Frequency Panel is the principal DoD coordinating 4 agency for spectrum management. The MCEB Joint Frequency Panel 5 is broken into a number of permanent working groups. The key 6 working group that manages IFF issues is the equipment spectrum 7 guidance permanent working group (J-12 PWG). Responsibilities of 8 the J-12 PWG may be found in the MCEB Organization, Mission 9 and Functions Manual (MCEB Pub 1 of 1 March 2002).
10 5.2.2 Maritime Sustainability
11 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is one of the most 12 significant contributors to encroachment in the PACNORWEST 13 OPAREA. MMPA encroachment impacts relate primarily to the 14 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) 15 mission areas and are associated with the restrictions placed on the 16 introduction of sound from active sonar into ocean waters. Although 17 the mitigation measures under maritime sustainability encroachment 18 include procedures which support requirements of the Endangered 19 Species Act (ESA), the encroachment issue specifically attributed to 20 these Acts is maritime sustainability. 21 22 Fleet-directed environmental mitigation measures stem primarily 23 from the North Atlantic right whale Biological Opinion (National 24 Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 1997) which addressed the impact 25 of Navy training activities off the southeastern coast on endangered 26 species (primarily the North Atlantic right whale). This document is 27 recognized as a precedent in Navy/NMFS relations and the 28 foundation from which most environmental protective measures 29 spring from in subsequent Navy at-sea documents. Mitigation 30 measures include: 31 All surface combatants and surfaced submarines shall 32 designate and post marine mammal and sea turtle visual 33 lookouts with marine mammal training. 34 Vessels shall maintain at least 500 yards distant from an 35 observed marine mammal and shall operate at a safe speed to 36 avoid marine mammal collisions. 37 Vessels shall conduct passive acoustic searches for close- 38 aboard marine mammals. 39 Surface combatants, submarines, and towed arrays shall 40 reduce acoustic search power levels or shut down active 41 sonar commensurate with marine mammal proximity. 42 Water detonations and air-to-ground ordnance delivery must 43 be preceded by a visual and acoustic all-clear for marine 44 mammals and sea turtles in the target area. 45 Live-ordnance delivery shall not be employed within five 46 miles of a marine mammal and within two miles of a sea 47 turtle.
5-9 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5.2.2.1 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 2 Restrictions on aircraft altitude and proximity in the OCNMS impact 3 training in W-237 blocks A & B. OCNMS was established off the 4 coast of Washington state in 1994 as the fourteenth maritime 5 sanctuary added to the National Marine Sanctuary System. The 6 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary covers an area of 7 approximately 3,300 square miles and contains some of the richest 8 fishing and shell fishing grounds on earth. Olympic Coast National 9 Marine Sanctuary supports one of the world's most diverse kelp 10 communities and is visited by 29 species of whales, dolphins and 11 porpoises. The sanctuary contains some of the largest colonies of 12 seabirds in the continental United States. This sanctuary underlies 13 the eastern portion of W-237 A/B and includes a 5 nautical mile 14 (nm) buffer zone seaward. Sanctuary regulations prohibit or limit 15 numerous activities within this 5 nm buffer zone. 16 17 Marine mammal mitigation measures cause limited periods of range 18 non-availability. Commander, U.S. Third Fleet (COMTHIRDFLT) 19 OPORDER 201 requires US Navy aircraft and vessels to remain 20 clear of whales, which are frequently found in W-237. Aircrews 21 must avoid flying near them and are prohibited from dropping 22 objects in the water, such as sonobuoys or ordnance that could 23 disturb them. 24 25 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 26 Moderate 27 NTA affected by encroachment (refer to Ch 3 figure 3-1) : 2.2.3, 28 R2R training impact & current workaround: Compliance with 29 the OCNMS recommended avoidance areas by military aircraft 30 results in the creation of avoidance areas, segments training / reduces 31 realism, raises flight altitudes. The requirement to avoid whales by 32 military aircraft and ships results in reduced range access. 33 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 34 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? No 35 Source of Encroachment: Marine Mammal Protection Act and 36 National Marine Sanctuary Act. 37 Recommendation: This is a self-encroachment recommended 38 avoidance.
39 5.2.2.2 Active Sonar Mitigation Measures 40 The draft Navy Interim Sonar Policy entitled, “Mid-Frequency 41 Active Sonar Effects Analysis Interim Policy,” has the purpose of 42 implementing a policy and approach for assessing the potential 43 adverse marine environmental effects of Navy active sonar use 44 associated with routine military readiness and scientific research 45 activities. It prescribes the procedures to be utilized to ensure 46 continued compliance with federal environmental law and regulation 47 in light of recent scientific advancements and regulatory 48 interpretation in determining significant biological effects of Navy 49 active sonar use on marine mammals and endangered species. In this
5-10 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 draft policy it directs that Navy activities will continue implementing 2 unit level and major exercise protective measures designated by the 3 appropriate fleet commander. Those mitigation measures are 4 contained in Navy Protective Measures Assessment Protocol 5 (PMAP). 6 7 The Secretary of the Navy’s (SECNAV) “at sea policy,” signed in 8 December 2000, tasked the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to 9 develop protective measures to minimize potential operational 10 impacts on marine mammals/endangered species for operations at- 11 sea. PMAP is designed to meet the SECNAV tasking. 12 13 PMAP provides a Fleet-wide set of protective measures to 14 Commanding Officers for particular activities, special areas, and 15 designated areas of interest. PMAP applies to the following: gunnery 16 exercises and missile exercises (surface/surface, surface/air, and 17 air/surface); torpedo exercises; small arms training; mine 18 countermeasures; practice bombing (live and inert); anchor 19 operations; explosive echo ranging; hull-mounted sonar training; and 20 dipping sonar training. These procedures prevent the inadvertent 21 collision with or other impact to a marine mammal or sea turtle. If a 22 mammal, turtle, or raft is sighted in the vicinity of training activities, 23 certain operational activities must be altered or suspended. Altered 24 or suspended activities negatively affect training as they impose non- 25 tactical procedures into the tactical training environment (i.e., they 26 do not permit crews to train as they would fight), restrict the number 27 and type of training activities, and divert manning resources to 28 observation duties. 29 30 PMAP restricts active sonar operations at sea so as to not impact 31 marine mammals or sea turtles which may be in the vicinity. 32 Consistent with essential training requirements, Navy units should 33 avoid training with active sonar in areas where they will encounter 34 conditions which in their aggregate may contribute to a marine 35 mammal stranding event. These conditions include: strong surface 36 duct, significant bathymetry (steep or complex bathymetric features 37 such as the continental shelf break, seamounts and canyons), use of 38 multiple sonar over extended periods of time, and constricted 39 channels or limited egress for marine mammals. If a situation arises 40 in which units must conduct training/exercise under such conditions, 41 prior approval shall be received by contacting COMPACFLT staff. 42 In all cases the following protective measures apply to sonar 43 operations: 44 Surface units shall use trained lookout(s) to survey for 45 marine mammals (whales, dolphins, sea lions, etc) and sea 46 turtles prior to commencement and during the exercise. 47 Submarines shall monitor acoustic detection devices for 48 indications of close aboard marine mammals (high bearing 49 rate, biologic contacts).
5-11 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 When a surface combatant or a submarine conducting active 2 sonar training detects a marine mammal close aboard, it shall 3 reduce maximum sonar transmit level to avoid harassment in 4 accordance with the following specific actions: 5 o When whales or dolphins are detected by any means 6 (aircraft, lookout, or aurally) within 450 yards of the 7 sonar dome, the ship or submarine will limit active 8 transmission levels to at least 6 dB below their equipment 9 maximum for sector search modes. 10 o Ships and submarines will continue to limit maximum 11 ping levels by this 6 dB factor until they assess the 12 marine mammal is no longer within 450 yards of the 13 sonar dome. 14 o Should the marine mammal be detected closing to inside 15 200 yards of the sonar dome, the principal risk to the 16 mammal changes from acoustic harassment to one of 17 potential physical injury from collision. Accordingly, 18 ships and submarines shall maneuver to avoid 19 collision/Closest Point of Approach (CPA) less than 200 20 yards to the degree possible consistent with safety of the 21 vessel. Standard whale strike avoidance procedures 22 apply. 23 o Special conditions applicable for dolphins and porpoises 24 only: If after conducting an initial maneuver to avoid 25 close quarters with dolphins or porpoises, the ship or 26 submarine concludes that dolphins or porpoises are 27 deliberately closing on ship to ride the vessel's bow wave, 28 no further mitigation actions are necessary: while in the 29 shallow wave area of the vessel bow, dolphins or 30 porpoises are out of the main transmission axis of the 31 mainframe active sonar and only exposed to significantly 32 lower power levels. 33 34 Operational impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 35 Minimal. 36 NTAs affected: 1.3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2 37 R2R training impact & current workaround: Active sonar 38 mitigation measures: create avoidance areas, segment training and/or 39 reduce realism, and inhibit tactics development. Upon sighting a 40 marine mammal or sea turtle, units must suspend training exercise 41 until the marine mammal/sea turtle has cleared the area, or the unit 42 has moved to a different location. 43 Impact of introduction of new weapons systems, tactics, or 44 missions: Continued work by non-government organizations to seek 45 out injunctions against use of mid-frequency sonars could have 46 significant impact on sonar operations in the future. Training with 47 new sonar systems could be significantly impacted by these 48 injunctions. As well, increased ASW tactics in the littorals could 49 also be impacted by these injunctions.
5-12 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Source of encroachment: PMAP (DON, October 2004), North 2 Atlantic Right Whale BO (NMFS 1997), Naval Gunfire OEA (DON 3 Feb 2004). 4 Areas where the restrictions exist: The PACNORWEST Surface 5 and Sub-surface OPAREA. 6 Recommendation: In addition to the impending promulgation of a 7 sonar policy the Navy is currently pursuing an activity based, vice 8 geographically area-based compliance strategy. This strategy 9 includes completing a mid-frequency sonar EA/OEA which was 10 started in the fall of 2006. The SECNAV/SECDEF policy 11 exemption of January 2007 authorizes the Navy to use mid- 12 frequency sonar for two years.
13 5.2.2.3 AN/SSQ-110 Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) Sonobuoy Employment 14 Restrictions 15 The IEER is an ASW sensor. It is a sonobuoy deployed by P-3 16 aircraft that initiates two small explosive charges (4.2 lb net 17 explosive weight each) used to create a noise as a source of acoustic 18 energy, to detect submarines at long ranges, including diesel-engine 19 submarines operating in littoral waters. Use of the IEER is an 20 important ASW capability that requires considerable practice to 21 develop proficiency. 22 23 To avoid potential impacts to marine mammals in near-shore waters, 24 current Navy policy places the following restrictions on the 25 employment of AN/SSQ-110 IEER sonobuoys: 26 Prohibit IEER employment within 50 miles of the coast; 27 Prohibit employment in depths less than 200 meters; and 28 Prohibit employment within 50 miles of marine sanctuaries 29 and known marine mammal breading areas. 30 31 Operational impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 32 Minimal. 33 NTAs affected: 3.2.1.2. 34 R2R training impact & current workaround: Restrictions on 35 IEER employment prohibit certain training events. Currently, Navy 36 prohibit IEER testing and training in the littoral environment for 37 which it provides a crucial capability. Navy allows IEER 38 employment in deep-water operations and simulation. This deprives 39 the ASW community of the opportunity to train in challenging 40 littoral environment, thereby potentially putting naval units at greater 41 risk from quiet diesel submarines. 42 Impact of introduction of new weapons systems, tactics, or 43 missions: AN/SQS-110 restrictions continue to hinder further 44 development and training of this system in the littoral environment. 45 Introduction of the LCS and its associated mission of ASW in the 46 littorals could be impacted by this restriction in training. New 47 technologies such as the Advanced Extended Echo Range System 48 (AEER) will be similarly impacted by these restrictions.
5-13 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Source of encroachment: Navy IEER EA (DoN 2001c) and 2 imposed AN/SQS-110 restrictions found in PMAP (DoN 2004c). 3 Areas where restrictions exist: The PACNORWEST OPAREA that 4 lies within 50 miles of the coast and the OCNMS. 5 Recommendation: FFC will include IEER in its sonar analysis and 6 subsequent environmental planning effort.
7 5.2.3 Airspace Restrictions
8 5.2.3.1 Electronic Reconnaissance 9 VQ Aircrews based at NAS Whidbey Island train in Electronic 10 Reconnaissance in Darrington OpArea. They routinely experience 11 difficulty getting clearance from Seattle ARTCC (FAA) to climb 12 above FL 250. The aircraft are routinely vectored around by Seattle 13 ARTCC causing delays in airborne training time. This occurs once 14 or more per week. When aircrews have difficulty getting higher 15 altitudes, they travel to Fallon to complete the training. 16 17 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 18 Moderate. 19 NTA affected by encroachment: 2.2.3. 20 R2R training impact & current workaround: These restrictions 21 result in reduction of range access. 22 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 23 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Unknown. 24 Source of Encroachment: FAA restrictions on altitudes in 25 Darrington. 26 Recommendation: Locate additional EC emitters throughout the 27 NWTRC, thereby providing alternative locations for VQ and VAQ 28 aircrews to train.
29 5.2.3.2 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) Live Fire 30 The three EA-6B Prowler Squadrons that support the USAF must 31 travel to Point Mugu to launch an AGM-88 High speed Anti- 32 radiation Missile (HARM). These three squadrons are scheduled to 33 be decommissioned by 2012. All EA-6B squadrons are required to 34 fire one HARM missile each year to meet a Training and Readiness 35 requirement. Electronic Attack aircrews are not allowed to fire a live 36 AGM-88/HARM missile in the NWSTF Boardman range or in the 37 Special Use Airspace in the Northwest Training Complex. The SUA 38 is considered insufficient in size for safety to allow a live HARM 39 shot. There is no impact to squadrons that deploy on aircraft carriers 40 as they launch the HARM missile on Point Mugu’s Sea Range, 41 during pre-deployment training at sea. 42 43 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 44 Minimal 45 NTA affected by encroachment: 2.2.3, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.4.
5-14 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 R2R training impact & current workaround: This restriction 2 increases personnel tempo and O&MN costs for the squadron 3 aircrew and maintenance personnel to travel to Point Mugu to 4 conduct these missile firings. 5 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 6 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Unknown. New 7 technology may require a larger safety zone due to extended range 8 (distance) capability. 9 Source of Encroachment: DoD and Navy restrictions on live fire 10 HARM events to avoid accidental damage and casualties to non- 11 participants. 12 Recommendation: None
13 5.2.4 Urban Growth
14 Instruments to monitor seismic activity on the floor of the ocean 15 have been deployed by civilian scientists, in the northwestern portion 16 of the PACNORWEST OPAREA. Because of the measuring 17 instruments, U.S. Navy submarine crews are directed to remain clear 18 of this area. The exact size and location of this area is classified. 19 20 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 21 Moderate 22 NTA affected by encroachment: 2.2.3, 3.2.1.2. 23 R2R training impact & current workaround: This restriction 24 creates an avoidance area and prohibits certain training events. 25 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 26 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? No. 27 Source of Encroachment: Civilian seismic monitoring 28 instrumentation is deployed on the ocean floor in the northwestern 29 corner of the OPAREA. 30 Recommendation: None.
31 5.3 ENCROACHMENT AT NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER (NUWC) RANGES
32 The NUWC Ranges include Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC), 33 the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range (CFMETR, 34 aka Nanoose), Keyport, and Quinalt range sites. DBRC, CFMETR, 35 and Quinalt have fixed instrumentation for manned and unmanned 36 vehicle testing. A portable system called “SWIFT” is deployed at 37 Keyport site when instrumentation is needed. DBRC serves the 38 Submarine force based at Bangor Sub Base and NSW personnel 39 from Group THREE in San Diego. Keyport also hosts NSW crews 40 from Group THREE and mine warfare training with Navy Special 41 Clearance Team ONE. DBRC and Keyport host Autonomous 42 Underwater Vehicle tests, as recently as the AUV FEST in June 43 2005. CFMETR (Nanoose) provides Anti-Submarine Warfare 44 (ASW) and Mine Warfare (MIW) training for US Navy P-3 aircraft 45 at NAS Whidbey Island, and Commander, Destroyer Squadron 46 NINE (CDS-9) ships home-ported in Puget Sound. On these four 47 underwater sites, only moderate and minimal impacts were
5-15 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 identified. The moderate impacts were identified under Maritime 2 Sustainability (Section 5.3.1), Water Quality (Section 5.3.2), and 3 Range Transients (Section 5.3.3) and will be discussed in the 4 paragraphs that follow.
5 5.3.1 Maritime Sustainability
6 Restrictions exist to protect the depleted orca whale community in 7 the northwest; therefore, the occasional orca pods that migrate into 8 Dabob Bay and Hood Canal, cause disruption to the training events 9 at DBRC for submarines. When orcas are present, NUWC monitors 10 the whale with a range boat and stands off by at least 500 yards. The 11 presence of orcas can interfere with SSBN Sea Trial operations. 12 Since SSBNs utilize DBRC in Dabob Bay for Sea Trials on a bi- 13 weekly schedule, these operations are occasionally impacted by 14 orcas. Transient orcas which feed on the seals that evade by moving 15 close to shore. Range personnel monitor whale presence carefully. 16 Orca pods also appear on CFMETR (Nanoose) and interfere with 17 underwater training. 18 19 Pacific Right Grey Whales migrate on Keyport site. Their presence 20 may interfere with ongoing range operations. NUWC Keyport 21 policy is not to conduct tests and/or operations in the presence of 22 whales. 23 24 COMPACFLT issued a policy in June 2003 that requires all Navy 25 vessels in Puget Sound to obtain permission prior to operating active 26 sonar (except fathometers) for routine training and maintenance. 27 28 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 29 Moderate 30 NTA affected by encroachment: 3.2.1.2, 1.5.6 31 R2R training impact & current workaround: Avoiding 32 endangered species results in the creation of avoidance areas, a 33 reduction in training days, prohibits certain training events, and 34 reduces range access. 35 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 36 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? No. 37 Source of Encroachment: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 38 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 39 Recommendation: None.
40 5.3.2 Water Quality
41 Due to environmental pressure by the public in the Puget Sound, and 42 motivated by Environmental law such as the Clean Water Act, 43 NUWC has self-imposed measures to use biodegradable 44 preservatives on shipboard equipment. However, the environmental 45 friendly preservatives do not adequately protect metal from 46 corrosion. Metal cables must be replaced frequently and shipboard 47 machinery must be repaired and replaced more often.
5-16 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 3 Moderate 4 NTA affected by encroachment: 3.2.1.2. 5 R2R training impact & current workaround: These self-imposed 6 measures result in increased OMN costs. 7 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 8 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? No 9 Source of Encroachment: Self-imposed measures can exacerbate 10 this issue, replacing expensive shipboard equipment. 11 Recommendation: Find a suitable product.
12 5.3.3 Range Transients
13 Shrimp season draws commercial and private fishing boats to Dabob 14 Bay for several weeks in late April to mid June. For two to three 15 days per week, 4 hours per day, up to 200 of these boats converge on 16 Hood Canal, occasionally interfering with Sea Trials on Dabob Bay 17 Range. Sometimes submarine events must be rescheduled. The 18 presence of these fishing boats interferes with tightly scheduled 19 Submarine operations, causing events to be rescheduled when only a 20 small window of opportunity exists to meet the operational- 21 deployment requirements of the submarine. 22 23 Additionally, native Indians fishing for clams & shrimp traverse 24 across NUWC ranges without contacting NUWC Operations, 25 thereby interfering with ongoing events. 26 27 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 28 Moderate 29 NTA affected by encroachment: 1.3.1, 1.5.6, 3.2.1.2. 30 R2R training impact & current workaround: Creates avoidance 31 areas, reduces training days, prohibits certain training events, reduces 32 range access, segments training/reduces realism, limits application of 33 new weapons technologies, and increases O&M costs. 34 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 35 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Yes, Autonomous 36 Undersea Vehicles are leading edge technology in ASW, MIW, and 37 reconnaissance. Requirements for operational testing and training in 38 these waters will likely increase the demand for range access, 39 increasing the impact of lost range time due to transients. 40 Source of Encroachment: Fishermen in the range area. 41 Recommendation: Enforce the law: Dabob Bay Military Operating 42 Area is restricted for Navy use to limit vessel traffic during test 43 operations as outlined in 33 CFR § 334.1190.
44 5.4 ENCROACHMENT AT EOD RANGES
45 The underwater range sites for the Explosive Ordnance Disposal 46 (EOD) units are the least in size but have significant encroachment 47 issues. The three underwater sites consist of one in Crescent Harbor,
5-17 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 adjacent to NAS Northwest Training, one in Port Townsend Bay, 2 adjacent to NAVMAG Indian Island, and one in Hood Canal, 3 adjacent to SUBASE Bangor. Use of the NAVMAG Island and 4 Bangor ranges is infrequent, with approximately four training events 5 per year at each. The site in Crescent Harbor serves EOD Mobile 6 Units, EODMU-11. Underwater detonations are essential to the 7 mission of the EOD forces. By unit instruction at EODMU-11, 8 maximum detonation net explosive weight (NEW) is 20 pounds. 9 This size limit allows EOD teams to use their full compliment of 10 EOD tools. In 2004, CNRNW placed a 6-month prohibition on 11 EODMU-11 underwater detonations. Subsequently, CNRNW has 12 directed EODMU-11 to comply with the conservation measures in 13 the EOD BA (page 94). At the request of CNRNW, EODMU-11 has 14 implemented a self-imposed normal use limit of 2.5 lbs NEW to help 15 mitigate impact of underwater demolitions training. The standard 16 charge size of 2.5 lbs NEW is currently being used, but up to 20 lbs 17 NEW is still technically authorized. 18 19 The severe and moderate impacts were identified under Maritime 20 Sustainability (Section 5.4.1), Airborne Noise (Section 5.4.2), Urban 21 Growth (Section 5.4.3), Cultural Resources (Section 5.4.4), and 22 Range Transients (Section 5.4.5) and will be discussed in the 23 paragraphs that follow.
24 5.4.1 Maritime Sustainability
25 MMPA protection of orca pods, salmon migration, and other fish in 26 summer months limit EOD water detonation training. EODMU-11 27 limits the NEW to 2.5 lbs at Crescent Harbor and NAVMAG Indian 28 Island Underwater EOD Range, but charges up to 20 lbs. can be 29 used. Marine mammals are seen at both ranges, and Seals 30 occasionally visit Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range. When 31 marine mammals are present, EOD personnel must postpone under- 32 water detonations. EODMU-11 employs several mitigation 33 measures during training exercises to reduce the potential effects of 34 explosions on marine biota. These include: 35 Surveying via boat within a 500-meter radius of the 36 detonation site to determine whether marine mammals are 37 present. 38 The charge is not detonated if marine mammals or birds are 39 within distances where injury could potentially occur. 40 The charge is raised 10 ft above the seafloor prior to 41 detonation to minimize impact to seafloor habitat. 42 At Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend Bay sites, during the 43 juvenile migration season (15 March – 01 July) for salmon 44 and bull trout, charges larger than 5 lb should not be used. If 45 it is necessary to use charges larger than 5 lb, up to 20 lb, 46 these charges should be detonated at least 1000 m from the 47 nearest shoreline. Charges should always be lifted at least 48 10 feet off the seafloor prior to detonation. This is expected
5-18 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 to greatly reduce the magnitude of occasional impacts to the 2 seafloor and benthic community. 3 At SUBASE site, charges larger than 1 lb should not be used 4 during the juvenile migration season. 5 6 As stated in Chapter Four (4.2.5.2), EOD personnel must visually 7 inspect for the presence of Sea Lions and Seals on “haul out” rocks 8 in Crescent Harbor before conducting under-water detonations. 9 These mammals are protected from harassment. 10 11 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 12 Moderate 13 NTA affected by encroachment: 1.3.1, 1.3.1.3. 14 R2R training impact & current workaround: These restrictions 15 result in a reduction in training days, the prohibition of certain 16 training events, and a reduction in range access, segment 17 training/reduce realism, limit application of new weapons 18 technologies, reduce live fire proficiency, and increase Perstempo 19 and OMN costs. 20 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 21 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Unknown. 22 Advancements in UUV technology may lead to alternative methods 23 to disarm an underwater mine instead of detonating it. 24 Source of Encroachment: Restrictions imposed by environmental 25 regulation and perceptions on underwater detonations have a severe 26 impact on EOD training requirements. 27 Recommendation: Look for new locations in existing restricted 28 areas/ranges within the NWTRC. 29
30 5.4.2 Urban Growth
31 Urban Growth is currently assessed as a moderate impact but is 32 expected to become a severe impact on EOD training in Crescent 33 Harbor and Indian Island areas due to increasing presence of 34 recreational and small commercial fishing boats and SCUBA diving. 35 36 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 37 Moderate. 38 NTA affected by encroachment: 1.3.1.3. 39 R2R training impact & current workaround: Results in reduced 40 range access, reduced live fire proficiency, increased personnel 41 tempo, and increased OMN costs. 42 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 43 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Unknown. 44 Source of Encroachment: Civilian boats in the range area. 45 Recommendation: Establish a Restricted Area in Crescent Harbor 46 for EOD underwater training.
5-19 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5.4.3 Cultural Resources
2 Local Indian tribes apply significant political pressure to CNRNW, 3 to stop EODMU-11 from conducting underwater detonations. 4 CNRNW prohibited EOD training involving underwater detonations 5 for 6 months in 2004. During this period, EOD training was 6 conducted in San Diego. 7 8 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 9 Moderate. 10 NTA affected by encroachment: 1.3.1, 1.3.1.3. 11 R2R training impact & current workaround: Reduces training 12 days, prohibits certain training events, reduces range access, 13 segments training/reduces realism, limits application of new 14 weapons technologies, reduces live fire proficiency, increases 15 personnel tempo, and increases OMN costs. 16 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 17 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? Unknown 18 Source of Encroachment: Fishermen in the range area. 19 Recommendation: Establish a Restricted area in Crescent Harbor 20 for EOD underwater training.
21 5.4.4 Range Transients
22 Indian tribes set many crab traps ("pots") that rest on the sea floor, 23 tethered to a small buoy floating on the surface. A multitude of these 24 tether lines adversely impacts EOD underwater training as Navy 25 swimmers search for training shapes in amongst recently deployed 26 crab traps. Frequently the range has to be cleared of these traps and 27 lines. Sometimes EOD personnel will go elsewhere to do training 28 because of these encroachments. 29 30 Civilian pleasure (fishing) boats occasionally foul the Crescent 31 Harbor Underwater EOD Range (Minimal impact). 32 33 Indian Tribes complain that under-water training detonations disrupt 34 muscle beds and harm Dungenous crab (Minimal impact). 35 36 Operational Impact of lost/restricted/threatened capability: 37 Moderate 38 NTA affected by encroachment: 1.3.1, 1.3.1.3. 39 R2R training impact & current workaround: Results in 40 segmented training and a reduction of realistic training, increased 41 personnel tempo and increased OMN costs. 42 Will introduction of new weapons systems, tactics or missions 43 exacerbate impact of current encroachment? No 44 Source of Encroachment: Native American fishermen on the EOD 45 training area. 46 Recommendation: Establish a Restricted area in Crescent Harbor 47 for EOD underwater training.
5-20 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 5.5 IMPENDING ENCROACHMENT CHALLENGES
2 On Kodiak Island, Alaska where NSW has a facility for conducting 3 cold weather training, private residences are being built adjacent to 4 the fence line of the main facility. This construction led to the fence 5 being added on the boundary of the facility property.
6 5.6 ENCROACHMENT SUMMARY
7 Figure 5-1 is an Encroachment Issue Summary table listing those 8 encroachment factors that have a severe or moderate impact on 9 training in the NWTRC. The encroachment issue is color coded as 10 either red for a severe impact or yellow for a moderate impact. Only 11 severe and moderate impacts are included in the tables that follow. 12 Priorities are assigned based upon the severity of the impacts to 13 training and an evaluation of the requirement for investment or 14 environmental planning to mitigate. A priority 1 investment is a 15 result of a severe impact requiring POM 08 investment and/or 16 immediate environmental planning. Priority 2 is a designation for a 17 moderate impact requiring POM 08 investment and/or immediate 18 environmental planning. Priority 3 is a designation for either a 19 severe or moderate impact that requires neither a POM 08 20 investment nor immediate environmental planning.
5-21 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Encroachment Recommendation Priority (Yes/No) Planning Required: Required: Investment Investment Environmental Required (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Required Endangered Species/ Critical Habitat NA None Cultural Resources Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range Native Indian fishing in the range area apply Establish a Restricted Area in Crescent Yes Yes 3 pressure to stop underwater detonations. Harbor for EOD underwater training. UXO NA None Frequency Encroachment NA None Maritime Sustainability Offshore Ranges OCNMS critical habitat avoidance and None No No N/A marine mammal avoidance. NUWC ranges (DBRC, CFMETR, Keyport) Marine mammal avoidance (Orcas and None No No N/A Pacific Right grey whales). Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range MMPA protection of Marine mammals and Recommend exploration of sites for salmon migration. underwater detonation training in the Yes No 3 NWTRC. (RCC staff increase) Airspace Restrictions Darrington OPAREA Develop EC trainers throughout the Aircraft in Darrington have difficulty getting NWTRC so VQ, VP, and VAQ aircraft cleared above FL250; experience delays by Yes Yes N/A can use alternate areas to conduct Seattle ARTCC. training. Air Quality NA None Clean Water DBRC NUWC self-imposed use of biodegradable preservatives on shipboard equipment does not adequately protect metal from corrosion. Find a suitable product. No No N/A Metal cables must be replaced frequently, machinery repaired and replaced more often. Wetlands NA None 2 Figure 5-1. Encroachment Issue Summary
5-22 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Encroachment Recommendation Priority (Yes/No) Planning Required: Required: Investment Investment Environmental Required Yes/No) Required Airborne Noise NA Urban Growth PACNORWEST OPAREA Seismic monitors placed on ocean floor by civilian organizations impact SSBN training & None No No N/A transit routes. Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range Increasing presence of recreational / Establish a Restricted Area in Crescent Yes Yes 3 commercial fishing boats and SCUBA diving. Harbor for EOD underwater training Range Transients NUWC – DBRC * Native Indians fishing throughout DBRC; interfering with acoustic operations. Enforce the military restricted water area * Significant small-boat traffic during shrimp in DBRC for exclusive US Navy use, 33 No No N/A season creates excessive noise at DBRC CFR Section 334.1190. interfering with testing & Sea Trials Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range Native Indian tribes set numerous crab traps Establish a Restricted area in Crescent Yes Yes 3 (“pots”). Tether lines impede EOD training. Harbor for EOD underwater training. 1 Figure 5-1. Encroachment Issue Summary (Continued) 2 Figure 5-2 depicts the number of moderate and severe training 3 impacts and their severity levels for each training factor. 4
Number of Training Impacts and Severity Training Factors Severe Moderate Total Creates Avoidance Areas 66 Reduces Training Days 99 Prohibits Training Events 10 10 Reduces Range Access 13 13 Segments Training/Reduces Realism 10 10 Limits application of New Technologies 66 Raises Flight Altitudes 11 Inhibits New Tactics Development Complicates Night and All-Weather Training Reduces Live-Fire Proficiency 55 Increases Personnel Tempo 55 Increase O&M Costs 10 10 Totals 0 75 75 Percent 0% 100% 100% 5 6 Figure 5-2. Number of Training Impacts and Severity per Training Factor
5-23 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 3 The column chart in Figure 5-3 is a graphic display of the data in 4 Figure 5-2. 5
Number of Training Impacts and Severity by Training Impact Factors
14
12
10
8
6
4
Number of Training Impacts of Training Number 2
0 Training Raises Flight Altitudes Flight Raises Prohibits Training Events Creates Avoidance Areas Increases Personnel Tempo Personnel Increases Moderate
Complicates Night All-Weather and Severe Segments Training/Reduces Realism
Training Impact Factors
6 7 Figure 5-3. Number of Training Impacts and Severity per Training Factor
5-24 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Figure 5-4 depicts the number of moderate and severe training 2 impacts and their aggregate severity levels for each encroachment 3 issue. The training impact severity levels are recorded on the 4 encroachment matrices. 5 6 Number of Training Impacts and Severity Encroachment Issues Severe Moderate Total Endangered Species/Critical Habitat UXO/Munitions Frequency Encroachment Maritime Sustainability 40 40 Airspace Restrictions 11 Air Quality Airborne Noise 22 Urban Growth 66 Cultural Resources 99 Water Quality 22 Wetlands Range Transients 15 15 Totals 0 75 75 Percent 0% 100% 100% 7 Figure 5-4. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Encroachment Issue
5-25 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The column chart in Figure 5-5 is a graphic display of the data in 2 Figure 5-4. 3 4
Number of Training Impacts and Severity by Encroachment Issue
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
Number of Training Impacts of Training Number 5 0 Wetlands Air Quality Air Urban GrowthUrban Water Quality Airborne Noise Airborne UXO/Munitions Range TransientsRange Cultural Resources Airspace Restrictions Airspace Maritime Sustainability Maritime Frequency Encroachment Moderate Severe Endangered Species/Critical Habitat Training Impact Factors 5 6 Figure 5-5. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Encroachment Issue
5-26 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Figure 5-6, depicts the number of moderate and severe training 2 impacts for each encroachment issue and range area as portioned by 3 the encroachment matrices. The encroachment matrices used to 4 record training impacts are the sources for the number and severity 5 of training impacts. 6 7 Encroachment Issues and Number of Training Impacts
Range Area Total Wetlands Wetlands Air Quality Water Quality Quality Water Urban Growth UXO/Munitions UXO/Munitions Noise Airborne Range Transients Transients Range Cultural Resources Resources Cultural Endangered Species Endangered Airspace Restrictions Airspace Restrictions Maritime Sustainability Frequency Encroachment Frequency Encroachment Operational Range 41 2 7 Sites NUWC Keyport Sites 11 2 12 25 EOD Range Sites 25 2 4 9 3 43 NSW
Totals 40 1 2 6 9 2 15 75 Percent 53% 1% 3% 8% 12% 3% 20% 100% 8 Figure 5-6. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Encroachment 9 Issue and Range Area
5-27 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The column chart in Figure 5-7 is a graphic display of the data in 2 Figure 5-6. 3 4
Encroachment Issues and Number of Training Impacts
15
10
5 Number of Training Impacts Training of Number
0 Range Cultural Wetlands Airspace Species Air Quality Air Transients Maritime Resources Restrictions Endangered Frequency Sustainability Water Quality Water Urban Growth Urban Encroachment UXO/Munitions Airborne Noise Airborne Encroachment Issues
5 6 Figure 5-7. Number of Moderate and Severe impacts per Encroachment Issue, 7 without Range Area
5-28 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The table in Figure 5-8 depicts the number of moderate and severe 2 training impacts for each training impact factor and range area as 3 partitioned by the encroachment matrices. The matrices used to 4 record training impacts are the sources for the number and severity 5 of training impacts.
Encroachment Training Impact Factors and Number of Training Impacts
Range Area Total Areas Areas Tempo Events Proficiency Development Development Reduces Realism Realism Reduces Prohibits Training Reduces Live-Fire Live-Fire Reduces New Technologies New Technologies Creates Avoidance Avoidance Creates Segments Training/ Segments Training/ Inhibits New Tactics Inhibits New Increases Personnel All-Weather Training Limits Application of Increases O&M Costs Costs O&M Increases Raises Flight Altitudes Complicates Night and Complicates Reduces Training Days Training Reduces Reduces Range Access Range Access Reduces Operational 11221 7 Range Sites NUWC Keyport 3535 2 2 5 25 Sites EOD Range 2455 6 4 566 43 Sites NSW Totals 6 9 9 12 10 6 1 5 6 11 75 Percent 8% 12% 12% 16% 13% 8% 1% 7% 8% 15% 100% 6 Figure 5-8. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Factor and 7 Range Area
5-29 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The column chart in Figure 5-9 is a graphic display of the data in 2 Figure 5-8.
Encroachment Training Impact Factors and Number of Training Impacts
15
10
5
Number of Training Impacts Training of Number 0 Realism Realism Technologies Weather Training Costs O&M Increases Raises Flight Altitudes Flight Raises Reduces Training Days Reduces Range Access Prohibits Training Events Creates Avoidance Areas Limits Application of New Complicates Night and All- Increases PersonnelTempo Segments Training/ Reduces Reduces Live-Fire Proficiency Inhibits New Tactics Development Development Tactics New Inhibits
Training Impact Factors
3 4 Figure 5-9. Number of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts per Factor, without 5 the Range Area
5-30 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Figure 5-10 depicts the number of moderate and severe training 2 impacts in individual cells and their aggregate severity levels for 3 each range area. The training impact severity levels are recorded on 4 the detailed encroachment matrices as they are partitioned for range 5 areas.
Number of Training Impacts by Severity Range Area Severe Moderate Total Operational Range Sites 0 77 NUWC Keyport Range Sites 0 25 25 EOD Range sites 0 43 43 NSW 0 00 Totals 0 75 75 Percent 0% 100% 100%
6 Figure 5-10. Summary of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts for the 7 Northwest Training Range Complex
5-31 VOL II, CH 5ENCROACHMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The column chart in Figure 5-11, is a graphic display of the data in 2 Figure 5-10. 3
Number of Training Impacts and Severity by Range Area
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 Number of Training Impacts Number 10
5
0 EOD NSW
NUWC Moderate Severe Op range sites range Op
Range Area 4 5 Figure 5-11. Summary of Moderate and Severe Training Impacts for the 6 Northwest Training Range Complex
5-32 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 6 RANGE COMPLEX STRATEGIC PLANNING
2 6.1 STRATEGIC VISION AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
3 6.1.1 Strategic Vision
4 The Fleet Forces Command (FFC) strategic vision for the Northwest 5 Training Range Complex (NWTRC) is to provide sustainable and 6 modernized ocean operating areas, airspace, ranges, range 7 infrastructure, training facilities, and resources to fully support the 8 Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) (Department of the Navy 9 [DON], 2003a) in accordance with assigned roles and missions 10 (DON 2005a). For purposes of Fleet training, the NWTRC includes 11 training operations that occur at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center 12 (NUWC) Keyport Range Areas including Dabob, Keyport, and 13 Nanoose Ranges. NWTRC is the principal backyard range for 14 surface, submarine, aviation, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 15 (EOD) units located at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, 16 Naval Station (NS) Everett, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton, Naval 17 Base Kitsap – Bangor, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. 18 19 The strategic vision for the NWTRC includes eventual certification 20 of training, exercise, and communications related systems at Naval 21 Base Kitsap – Bremerton to host accredited Joint National Training 22 Capability (JNTC) events. 23 6.1.2 Management Objectives 24 The NWTRC must be managed in a manner that: 1) supports 25 national security objectives and maintains readiness of Naval forces 26 and 2) ensures the long-term viability of the range complex while 27 protecting human health and the environment. The principal 28 management objectives for the NWTRC are: sustain, upgrade, 29 modernize, and transform. 30 6.1.2.1 Sustain 31 The NWTRC must support today’s training today.
32 Unconstrained Range Access 33 Sustainment must assure current and future access to the range 34 complex for pre-deployment and other training requirements, and 35 address the prevention or mitigation of the impacts of encroachment 36 on training operations.
37 Efficient, Effective Range Management Structure 38 In addition, the NWTRC must possess systems and procedures that 39 facilitate efficient range management and realistic training operations 40 through effective, efficient range communications and scheduling. 41 The Navy Required Capabilities Document (RCD) (DON 2005b)
6-1 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 outlines the specific communications and scheduling requirements a 2 range must possess to support individual warfare areas.
3 Comprehensive Information Management Processes 4 Lastly, the NWTRC must collect, analyze, and use pertinent range 5 utilization data for range management, training operations, ordnance 6 expenditures, and environmental planning and compliance. These 7 processes are imperative for future planning of range improvements, 8 investments, and encroachment mitigation. The data management 9 processes should also be compatible with data processes being used 10 on other range complexes for ease in data comparison and sharing. 11 6.1.2.2 Upgrade 12 The NWTRC must support today’s training tomorrow. To do so, the 13 range must be adequately funded to maintain and improve the 14 capabilities that reside in current range hardware and software assets. 15 Funding should support the upgrade of current capabilities to: 16 achieve those capabilities currently required of the complex, avoid 17 obsolescence, replace equipment that has reached the end of useful 18 service life, and promote greater interoperability with other range 19 complexes which includes ensuring that range systems are Test and 20 Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) compliant. 21 6.1.2.3 Modernize 22 The NWTRC must support tomorrow’s training tomorrow. Navy 23 training must continually evolve to keep pace with new technologies, 24 capabilities, and threats. This requires a 10-year, forward-looking 25 plan to be developed and maintained to identify future required range 26 complex capabilities, including range facilities, airspace, sea space, 27 undersea space, and ground space necessary to keep pace with war- 28 fighting developments and support the training concept of 29 operations. This plan must also include those processes to ensure 30 systems meet TENA requirements, ultimately improving existing 31 capabilities. Range complex capabilities are defined in the Navy 32 RCD. 33 6.1.2.4 Transform 34 The NWTRC must transform in accordance with Department of 35 Defense (DoD) and Navy Training Transformation (T2) objectives 36 (DoD 2006a). The DoD objective of T2 is to provide dynamic, 37 capabilities-based training for the Department of Defense in support 38 of national security requirements. Similarly, the Navy’s objective of 39 T2 is to rapidly develop, then sustain readiness in, ships and 40 squadrons so that, in a crisis situation, the Navy can quickly surge 41 significant combat power to a crisis scene. 42 43 Training Transformation 44 In 2002, the DoD began the process of T2 (DoD 2002a and DoD 45 2004a). The FY04 Defense Planning Guidance for the 46 implementation of T2 had ramifications for the Navy’s system of
6-2 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 ranges in that it directed that twenty-five percent of all major training 2 events must be joint. 3 4 The focus of T2 is on using modeling and simulation to complement 5 and enhance constrained live training time with virtual training 6 events conducted in a synthetic battle space. Persistent networking 7 of Service training capabilities will provide a continuous virtual 8 environment for training forces at all levels in the live, virtual, and 9 constructive (LVC) environment in multi-warfare mission areas and 10 meet the Combatant Commanders’ tactical and strategic 11 requirements. 12 13 There are three capabilities that form the foundation for DoD T2. It 14 is through these capabilities that Combatant Commanders receive 15 better trained and prepared forces to meet their mission needs. These 16 capabilities are: 1) Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution 17 Capability (JKDDC), 2) JNTC, and 3) Joint Assessment and 18 Enabling Capability. The most important of these capabilities when 19 determining range objectives for transformation is JNTC. JKDDC 20 will prepare future decision-makers and leaders to employ joint 21 operational art, understand the common relevant operating picture, 22 and respond innovatively to adversaries. It will develop and 23 distribute joint knowledge via a dynamic, global-knowledge network 24 that provides immediate access to joint education and training 25 resources. The Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability will assist 26 leaders in assessing the value of transformational initiatives on 27 individuals, organizations, and processes by evaluating the level of 28 joint force readiness to meet validated combatant commander 29 requirements. It will also provide essential support tools and 30 processes to enable and enhance the JKDDC and the JNTC (DoD 31 2006a). 32 33 The T2 goals for major training centers and ranges are based on four 34 pillars: (1) realistic combat training, (2) opposing forces, (3) ground 35 truth, and (4) feedback. The strategic plan for the range complexes 36 will be developed in the context of these pillars. These pillars map 37 the NWTRC attributes as follows: 38 Realistic combat training: 39 o Live training with simulation-stimulation capability 40 o Provides joint context 41 o Based on joint doctrine-tactics-techniques 42 o Mission rehearsal tied to Standing Joint Force 43 Headquarters 44 Opposing forces: 45 o Representative real world air threat 46 o Advanced, integrated threat systems representative of real 47 world threat 48 o Diverse, high-fidelity targets 49 o Mobile, time-sensitive targets
6-3 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Realistic information operations and Command, Control, 2 Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, 3 and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 4 Ground truth: 5 o Integrated range instrumentation 6 o Increased capacity and coverage 7 o Accredited, evaluated, and certified 8 Feedback: 9 o Fully implements joint training system 10 o Focus on joint performance outcomes 11 o Ability to assess new concepts and doctrine 12 o Feeds joint lessons learned and reporting 13 14 In order to support these pillars, training range complexes must 15 establish investment programs that include investment in JNTC for: 16 17 Mission rehearsal and joint training integrated with 18 Command, Control, Communications, Computer, 19 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 20 Interoperable live, virtual, and constructive training systems 21 Modernizing and instrumenting ranges, areas, airspace, and 22 range systems 23 24 The emphasis on joint training reflects the fact that all U.S. military 25 operations will be joint and forces must train accordingly. While the 26 Navy has not yet designated all range sites to be JNTC certified, 27 strategic planning for the NWTRC should proceed in anticipation of 28 its role as a part of the JNTC system of ranges. To achieve 29 affordability and efficiency, service requirements should be 30 synchronized with joint requirements wherever possible.
31 Joint National Training Capability 32 JNTC supports T2 in that it will prepare forces by providing 33 command staffs and units with integrated LVC training environment 34 that includes appropriate joint context, and allows global training and 35 mission rehearsal in support of specific operational needs. 36 37 The vision is for the LVC simulation environment to be available 38 globally on a 24-hour basis and linked to real-world command and 39 control systems. JNTC can be used to train forces against a general 40 threat, to conduct mission rehearsal against a specific threat, or to 41 experiment with new doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures, Joint 42 Operational Concepts, and equipment. 43 44 JNTC reached a major milestone in October of 2004 with the 45 achievement of initial operational capability (IOC) through the 46 integration of a network of live ranges, simulations, and simulators 47 in support of a joint exercise. DoD has set fiscal year 2009 (FY 09) 48 as its goal for full operational capability (FOC) for all JNTC events 49 (DON 2004b).
6-4 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 The JNTC process includes review and certification of sites and 3 systems to host JNTC events and review and accreditation of service 4 training programs and exercises as JNTC events. 5 6 As Part of JNTC, TENA developed by the Central Test and 7 Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) as a common architecture 8 with the requisite software to integrate testing, training, simulation, 9 and high-performance computing technologies distributed across 10 many facilities. Through the establishment of a common 11 architecture, reuse and interoperability of test and training range 12 assets are tremendously improved, thus reducing range development, 13 operation, and maintenance costs. 14 15 The Navy has been involved in JNTC development from its 16 inception. As a historically joint Service with the Marine Corps, the 17 Navy realizes the force multiplying results through leveraging 18 capabilities across Service lines. The ongoing transformation of 19 naval forces seeks to dramatically expand the advantage that 20 America’s global maritime dominance offers our joint force 21 commanders, by assuring them theater access and a secure and 22 sovereign base from which to mount devastatingly effective 23 offensive and defensive operations. The emerging transformational 24 capabilities reflect the creation of innovative operational and training 25 concepts that will harness advanced technologies as well as changes 26 across doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leader development, 27 personnel, and facilities to perform critical missions and tasks.
28 Navy Continuous Training Environment 29 The Navy’s Continuous Training Environment (NCTE), in 30 conjunction with JNTC, will provide the capabilities to conduct 31 training on demand, saving time, manpower, and additional costs by 32 providing a persistent network that connects geographically 33 dispersed training simulators and systems with geographically 34 dispersed forces. NCTE will: 35 Consist of Modeling and Simulation (M&S), federations, 36 software, tactical training ranges, infrastructure, and forces 37 joined in a common network for training events, with a 38 management and scheduling office providing central control 39 of the units on the network. 40 Meet required capabilities through the use of TENA 41 standards that set data definition and transmission 42 requirements for diverse, Service and joint-specific training, 43 and operational systems and ranges as well as to joint 44 systems. 45 Serve as the Navy’s common portal for connecting to 46 individual Services’ training networks, M&S systems, and 47 forces. 48 Ensure new training systems adhere to defined standards. 49 Update legacy systems to meet the new standards.
6-5 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Provide independent communications to support simulation 2 and control functions, with consideration for disadvantaged 3 communication users where this impacts them (i.e., ships at 4 sea). 5 Ensure integration of tactical communications and the 6 supporting standards. 7 Control infrastructure standards among Services and 8 common C4I interface standards (DON 2004a). 9 10 To this effect, NTCE will: 11 Support the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) by providing 12 qualified and certified surge forces, capable of sustaining 13 readiness levels in support of Combatant Commanders’ 14 requirements. The synthetic battle space provides the 15 capability for rapid refresher training and re-qualification of 16 joint task forces. 17 Support the Fleet Training Continuum as a single model for 18 training, whether on the east coast, west coast, or for forward 19 deployed forces that use virtual training capabilities to 20 implement the training and surge force requirements. 21 Provide training validation of joint and Fleet requirements 22 found in Joint and Navy Mission Essential Task Lists 23 (JMETLs and NMETLs respectively). 24 Assist in the development of simulation systems to support 25 Fleet training, qualifications, and mission rehearsal 26 requirements that are fundamental to sustaining legitimate 27 operational readiness (DON 2004a). 28 29 Strategic planning for the NWTRC through 2016 will include 30 support for these future training operations.
31 6.2 STRATEGIC MISSION
32 The strategic mission of the NWTRC is to support naval operational 33 readiness by providing a realistic, live-training environment for 34 forces assigned to the Pacific Fleet and other users. As its highest 35 priority, the range complex will support the FRTP readiness process 36 in support of the FRP (DON 2003a). The FRP: 1) builds upon the 37 inherent capability to deliver major combat operations (MCO) ready 38 forces, 2) enables Navy defense in depth in the Global War on 39 Terrorism (GWOT) and homeland defense, 3) maintains strong 40 forward deployed forces with inherent capacity to support surge 41 operations upon Combatant Commander demand signals, and 4) uses 42 cost effective approach to enhance readiness (GWOT surge) and 43 better align forces to meet emergent/transforming threats. 44 45 Under FRP, the Navy must be able to provide the nation “six-plus- 46 two” ready Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) (i.e., six CSGs deployed or 47 ready to deploy within 30 days and two others ready to go within 48 approximately 90 days). Navy leadership will review this six-plus-
6-6 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 two CSG goal periodically, with adjustments made in response to the 2 geopolitical situation. 3 4 Maintaining a robust surge capability requires a new methodology to 5 handle manning, maintenance, training and readiness. The FRTP, a 6 27-month cycle that includes four phases prior to deployment 7 (maintenance, unit level training, integrated training and 8 sustainment), supersedes the Interdeployment Training Cycle (IDTC) 9 previously used by the Navy to train forces in order to meet 10 rotational deployment and presence requirements. 11 12 The FRTP is mission essential task specified training in support of 13 FRP certification and has the capability to adapt to changing global 14 demand signals. 15 16 This strategic mission implements the strategic vision in paragraph 17 6.1.1 above.
18 6.2.1 Attributes
19 The Draft Ranges to Readiness (R2R) study was completed in 2001 20 for the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets (DON 2001a). This study 21 developed a quantitative method to analyze the contribution of each 22 range complex to Fleet training readiness. The strategic planning 23 process starts with an examination of the R2R analysis to gain initial 24 insight and Fleet perspective into the importance and value of the 25 range complex. An additional study, the Fleet Forces Command 26 Integrated Training and Test Range Strategic Study (FFC Strategic 27 Study), was completed in July of 2005 (DON 2005a). This study 28 expanded upon the R2R analysis, comparing each range’s 29 capabilities with those capabilities required in the RCD. It also 30 outlined a strategic vision for each of the range complexes based on 31 range attributes, capabilities, and Fleet unit density. 32 33 It is important to note that these studies provided only a starting 34 point for the analysis contained within this RCMP. The authors were 35 diligent in forming original conclusions based only on the analysis 36 conducted herein.
37 Northwest Training Range Complex Attributes 38 The R2R analysis and FFC Strategic Study identified the NWTRC as 39 having specific attributes, or factors, which make it an important 40 complex for naval readiness training. The following paragraphs 41 describe these, as well as other attributes of the range complex. 42 43 Sea and Undersea Space. The NWTRC includes the Pacific 44 Northwest Ocean Surface/Subsurface OPAREA, totaling over 45 126,000 square nautical miles (nm2) of sea and undersea space. 46 Included in this area is 34,000 nm2 of Warning Area special use 47 airspace. Also, the Puget Sound is home to surface training areas,
6-7 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 shallow water submarine and small unit amphibious operating areas 2 suitable for EOD and Naval Special Warfare (NSW) training 3 missions. It contains instrumented undersea tracking ranges at the 4 Dabob Bay and Quinault Range Sites that provide some of the most 5 accurate underwater tracking in the world. 6 7 Airspace. In addition to the Warning Area airspace, the NWTRC 8 schedules and controls nearly 12,000 nm2 of Military Operating 9 Areas (MOAs) and restricted airspace. This airspace, covering 10 portions of the Puget Sound, Washington, and Oregon, is ideally 11 suited for a variety of training activities including electronic combat, 12 mine warfare, air-to-ground strike training, and air combat maneuver 13 training. The complex also contains twelve military training routes 14 (MTRs). The six visual routes and six instrument routes add up to 15 over 3,651 nautical miles (nm) of low-level training capability. 16 17 Land Area. One of the complex’s greatest assets is Naval Weapons 18 Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman, located in 19 Boardman, Oregon. NWSTF Boardman consists of 47,982 acres of 20 valuable training range land. Second in size only to Fallon’s range 21 area, Boardman is larger than any other Navy-owned parcel of 22 training land. The Boardman range is suitable for air-to-ground (A- 23 G) operations or for a variety of Army, Marine Corps, or NSW 24 ground training missions. In addition to the land area, Boardman is 25 completely covered by special use airspace extending from the 26 surface to 20,000 feet. This airspace adequately supports all ground 27 missions, plus several air missions including electronic combat and 28 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flight training and testing. 29 30 Proximity. The NWTRC serves as a backyard range for those units 31 homeported in the Pacific Northwest area including those aircraft, 32 surface ships, and submarines homeported at NAS Whidbey Island, 33 NS Everett, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton, Naval Base Kitsap – 34 Bangor, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. NWSTF Boardman is 35 located within range of both NAS Whidbey Island and the Fallon 36 Range Complex (and is connected to Fallon by an MTR). Air wings 37 training in Fallon have previously requested to conduct strike 38 training missions at Boardman. The Boardman target range is also 39 within striking distance of aircraft carriers operating in the Offshore 40 Area. In addition to U.S. Forces, the complex serves the units of the 41 Canadian Pacific Fleet based in Esquimalt, BC. 42 43 Uniqueness. The NWTRC is unique in that it offers training across 44 the spectrum of Naval missions. It also has relatively unencumbered 45 RF spectrum for Electronic Combat (EC) training including the 46 ability to expend chaff in several areas of the complex. Future 47 potential training operations could include aircraft launching at sea 48 within one of the Navy’s largest ocean ranges and flying a low-level 49 route to Boardman where a target is being laser designated by Naval 50 Special Warfare personnel. Additional range attributes include: 51 precise fixed and portable undersea instrumentation at NUWC
6-8 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Keyport and Nanoose, EC capabilities with the 15E34B signal threat 2 simulator at outlying landing field (OLF) Coupeville and the 3 currently inactive 15E34A simulator at NAS Whidbey Seaplane 4 Base, minimal environmental encroachment on operations, littoral 5 training capabilities, and ability to support joint special operations 6 forces (SOF) training. 7 8 Ordnance. The complex is capable of supporting air-to-air (A-A), 9 air-to-surface (A-S), air-to-ground (A-G), surface-to-air (S-A) and 10 surface-to-surface (S-S) bombing, missile and gunnery exercises. 11 Although air-to-ground operations have been reduced, the Boardman 12 range is capable of continuing this mission area. 13 14 Warfare Areas Supported. The range complex currently supports 15 training in seven Primary Mission Areas (PRMARs) to include Anti- 16 Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW), Anti- 17 Submarine Warfare (ASW), Mine Warfare (MIW), Strike Warfare 18 (STW), EC, and NSW/EOD. 19 20 Training Levels Supported. The NWTRC supports FRTP training 21 at all levels. It is primarily focused on support at the unit and 22 intermediate level, although the possibility exists to support some 23 advanced level training events. 24 25 Utilization. Based on number of operations, the NWTRC is the 26 third most heavily used of the Pacific Range Complexes, the bulk of 27 the use being by aircraft conducting ASW (P-3) and EC (EA-6B). 28 29 Instrumentation. Range instrumentation capabilities include the 30 Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility (SESEF) Range, 31 the NUWC Keyport fixed underwater instrumented areas of Dabob 32 Bay and Nanoose, the Keyport portable underwater test and tracking 33 systems, and the EC capabilities at OLF Coupeville. Boardman can 34 support laser targeting but the laser targeting system instrumentation 35 has been removed. 36 37 Targets. The Boardman Range has a number of targets including a 38 vehicle convoy, tanks, surface-to-air missile mock-ups, a laser bull’s- 39 eye, and a ringed center bull target. Scoring instrumentation for 40 these targets has been removed, but the towers still remain. NUWC 41 Keyport has the capability to provide MK 30 ASW targets and 42 Expendable Mobile ASW Training Targets (EMATT). 43 44 Area of Training Space. The NWTRC has a large amount of land, 45 air, and surface/subsurface range area within the complex 46 boundaries. In fact, of the three main training space attributes (land, 47 air, and sea area), only the Southern California (SOCAL) and the 48 NWTRC range complexes exceed requirements in all three areas. 49 When compared to the SOCAL Range Complex, the NWTRC has 50 both more land and a larger sea area.
6-9 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 6.2.2 Mission Needs
2 Mission needs for the NWTRC flow from the strategic vision and 3 mission in support of the FRTP. The FRTP events are described in 4 Commander Third Fleet (COMTHIRDFLT) Operations Order 201 5 (OPORD 201) (DON, date unknown), the Fleet Training Strategy 6 (COMFLTFORCOMINST 3501.3A, December 2003) (DON 2003a), 7 and the “Standard Carrier Strike Group/Staff Inter-Deployment 8 Training Cycle” (CFFC message Date-Time Group (DTG) 012113Z 9 Jul 03) (DON 2003c). The mission needs for the complex are: 10 Support AAW, ASUW, ASW, EC, MIW, NSW/EOD and 11 STW in the basic (maintenance/unit phase) and intermediate 12 (Unit Level Training) phases of the FRTP. 13 Support Unit Phase training of the FRTP as a remote range 14 for naval forces based in the Pacific. By training at a remote 15 range compared to a backyard range, personnel see and train 16 in a variety of training venues, thus training in an unfamiliar 17 environment which adds to realism. 18 Support Unit Phase training for new units that will become 19 operational in the future, including the EA-18G Growler and 20 various Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), if basing plans 21 include the Pacific Northwest area as a training or basing 22 location for the programs. 23 Continue to support research, development, testing, and 24 evaluation (RDT&E) activities to the extent practicable 25 within existing range capabilities. Resource requirements 26 for RDT&E that go beyond existing capabilities will be the 27 responsibility of the sponsoring command or agency. 28 Support, to the extent practicable within existing range 29 capabilities, training by foreign naval and military forces that 30 are periodic users of the range complex.
31 6.2.3 Roles and Missions of the Northwest Training Range Complex
32 The required roles and missions to support the strategic vision for the 33 NWTRC are defined as warfare areas and levels of training, and 34 listed in Figure 6-1. The complex is required to support training in 35 seven Navy Primary Mission Areas: AAW, ASUW, ASW, EC, 36 MIW, NSW/EOD and STW. These roles and missions are based on 37 requirements as determined by CFFC and do not reflect a range 38 complex’s capabilities. 39 40 The levels of training complexity are identified as basic, 41 intermediate, and advanced and refer to the relative scope and 42 complexity of the training. While the levels of training do not 43 correlate exactly with the FRTP phases of training 44 (maintenance/unit, integrated, and sustainment), in general: 45 Basic-level training equates to unit-level training with a 46 focus on the development of basic skills.
6-10 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Intermediate-level equates to the initial integrated training of 2 a Strike Group. A Composite Training Unit Exercise 3 (COMPTUEX) is a typical intermediate event. 4 Advanced-level equates to large scenario-driven exercises, 5 usually in a joint and/or combined environment, which focus 6 on Strike Group crisis action planning, and command and 7 control. A Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEXs) is a typical 8 advanced event. 9 Training Level Warfare Area Basic Intermediate Advanced AAW 2 3 ASUW 2 2 ASW 1 2 EC 1 3 MIW 1 2 NSW/EOD 1 2 STW 2 3 10 Source: FFC Training and Testing Range Strategic Study, 2005 (DON 11 2005a) as modified by CPF decision of February 2007 12 Figure 6-1. Navy Prioritized Roles and Missions for the 13 Northwest Training Range Complex by Warfare Area 14 The relative importance of required capabilities for each warfare area 15 and training level, consistent with the strategic vision, are indicated 16 as a numbered priority. Priorities are assigned to mission areas 17 based on urgency of need, available alternatives, and for the 18 development of investment priorities for the range complex. Priority 19 1 equates to high priority mission areas that must be maintained 20 through investment and encroachment mitigation. Priority 2 equates 21 to medium priority mission areas that should be maintained through 22 investment and encroachment mitigation. Priority 3 equates to low 23 priority mission areas that could be maintained through investment 24 and encroachment mitigation should the mission area become 25 essential to support. Blank in a role and mission block indicates the 26 range has not been assigned a role and mission for that mission area. 27 28 For example, basic level training in the ASW area is priority 1 for 29 the complex because of the requirement of individual P-3 units from 30 NAS Whidbey Island to access this backyard range complex quickly 31 from the air station. 32 33 The required capabilities are not intended to limit training that may 34 be conducted within the complex. Rather, they are identified to 35 provide guidance for the development of prioritized range complex 36 capabilities and investments. The capabilities of the NWTRC will 37 evolve and modernize as new weapons systems achieve IOC, new 38 threat capabilities emerge, and new technologies offer improved 39 training opportunities. 40
6-11 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 In addition to the primary mission areas (PRMARs) that the complex 2 supports, it also should be capable of supporting intelligence, 3 surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) flight training for the P-3, 4 EP-3, EA-6B, UAVs and follow on aircraft to the P-3 and EA-6B 5 (the EA-18G and the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) 6 respectively) and surface, submarine and ground ISR assets of the 7 DoD and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies within 8 the region. The ISR mission overlaps with many PRMARS and is a 9 primary mission for the P-3 and follow on MMA aircraft. The range 10 must be capable of meeting certain requirements in order to train for 11 the ISR mission. These unique range requirements and the 12 complex’s ability to fulfill them will be discussed in depth in chapter 13 7 of this RCMP.
14 6.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATIONS
15 6.3.1 Modernization
16 The NWTRC will continue to play a crucial role in supporting pre- 17 deployment training for Pacific Fleet naval operational forces to 18 2016 and beyond in accordance with assigned roles and missions. 19 Factors influencing future requirements and training operations in 20 the complex that must be incorporated into strategic planning 21 include, but are not limited to, new mission areas, new weapon 22 platforms, new weapon systems, and new instrumentation 23 technology.
24 6.3.1.1 New Mission Areas 25 Littoral warfare is an emerging Navy mission area. Current plans do 26 not call for the homeporting of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) in the 27 Pacific Northwest, although they could eventually be homeported at 28 NS Everett. The introduction of LCS by the Fleet may require the 29 NWTRC to support choke point training and littoral warfare at the 30 basic, intermediate, and advanced levels because of its unique straits 31 and island topography. This may require investment in targets and 32 instrumentation beyond current capabilities. 33 34 The modification of four Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarines 35 (SSBN) to Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN), two of which will be 36 homeported at Naval Base Kitsap - Bangor, could add the 37 requirement to conduct NSW and STW training events in the 38 NWTRC. These requirements may require investment in 39 instrumentation, targets, and environmental studies beyond current 40 coverage and capabilities. 41 42 The replacement to the EA-6B Prowler, the EA-18G Growler, will 43 be based at NAS Whidbey Island. The EA-18G Fleet Introduction 44 Team has stated the following training requirements that will impact 45 the NWTRC:
6-12 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Later versions of the Growler will include an air-to-ground 2 weapons capability. 3 The planned EA-18G training syllabus calls for low altitude 4 training at altitudes as low as 200 ft above ground level. 5 The Growler will have a greater airspeed capability than the 6 EA-6B and will require low altitude training at higher 7 speeds.
8 6.3.1.2 New Weapon Platforms 9 The range complex will be required to support training for platforms 10 as they reach IOC. These platforms include, but are not limited to, 11 the SSGN, EA-18G Growler, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and 12 Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUV).
13 Guided Missile Submarine (SSGN) 14 Four Ohio-class Trident submarines that were previously scheduled 15 for inactivation during Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 are being 16 converted to guided missile submarines over a five-year period 17 ending in 2008. The primary missions of the SSGN will be land 18 attack (STW) and SOF insertion and support. Secondary missions 19 will be the traditional attack submarine missions of ISR, battle space 20 preparation, and sea control. 21 22 These ships will be armed with up to 154 Tomahawk or Tactical 23 Tomahawk land attack missiles. They will have the ability to carry 24 and support a team of 66 SOF personnel for up to 90 days as 25 compared to 15 days for a SOF outfitted fast attack submarine 26 (SSN). Clandestine insertion and retrieval of these Special 27 Operations Forces will be enhanced by the ability to host dual dry 28 deck shelters and/or Advanced Seal Delivery System. Each SSGN 29 will be able to conduct a variety of peace-time, conventional 30 deterrent, and combat operations all within the same deployment. 31 The USS OHIO returned to service February 07, 2006. IOC for the 32 remaining three SSGNs is expected in FY 2007.
33 EA-18G Growler 34 The EA-18G is an Electronic Attack (EA) aircraft designed to 35 replace the aging EA-6B Prowler in the Suppression of Enemy Air 36 Defense (SEAD) mission. The EA-18G is expected to perform full- 37 spectrum electronic surveillance, stand-off and escort jamming, and 38 missile attack against enemy threat radars and communications nets. 39 It is fitted with the same AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System 40 (TJS) pods as the EA-6B. It will also carry the ALQ-218 Airborne 41 Electronic Attack (AEA) system, scheduled for IOC on the EA-6B in 42 FY05, which will provide state-of-the-art selective-reactive and pre- 43 emptive jamming capability. Additionally, the AEA 44 communications receiver and jamming electronics will provide 45 electronic suppression and attack against communication threats. 46 The Growler will have an improved version of the air/ground attack
6-13 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 radar currently installed in the F/A-18 Hornet, the AN/APG-79 2 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA). A tactical radar for 3 air-to-air and air-to-ground operations, it can search, track, and scan 4 moving targets on the sea surface and on the ground. The EA-18G is 5 more than 90 percent common with the standard Super Hornet. 6 7 The EA-18G provides a supersonic capability that did not reside in 8 the EA-6B. It also adds the inherent strike capability to attack 9 enemy targets as well as conduct the Electronic Attack role. The 10 EA-18G lethal attack capability slated for 2014 and beyond may 11 include air-to-surface missiles. The Growler will be permanently 12 based at NAS WI. IOC is expected in FY09.
13 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) 14 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV. The BAMS 15 UAV is being designed to support persistent, worldwide access 16 through multi-sensor, maritime ISR providing unmatched awareness 17 of the battlespace. It will support a spectrum of Fleet missions 18 serving as a distributed ISR node in the overall naval environment. 19 These missions include maritime surveillance, Battle-Damage 20 Assessment (BDA), port surveillance and homeland security support, 21 MIW, maritime interdiction, ASUW, counter drug operations, and 22 battlespace management. The BAMS will operate at altitudes above 23 40,000 feet, above the weather and most air traffic to conduct 24 continuous open-ocean and littoral surveillance of targets as small as 25 exposed submarine periscopes. Operation of these systems could 26 produce new requirements for range complexes in terms of airspace 27 and frequency management. IOC is anticipated for FY09. 28 29 Fire Scout (RQ8A/MQ-8B) UAV. The Fire Scout UAV is a 30 Vertical Takeoff and Landing UAV (VTUAV) designed to operate 31 from air capable ships, carry modular mission payloads, and operate 32 using the Tactical Control System and Tactical Common Data Link. 33 It will provide day/night real time ISR and targeting, 34 communication-relay, and battlefield management capabilities to 35 support LCS mission areas of ASW, MIW, and ASUW. It is also 36 being tested as a weapons delivery platform to include 2.75 inch 37 rockets and Hellfire missiles. Operation of these systems could 38 produce new requirements for the NWTRC in terms of airspace and 39 frequency management. Fire Scout will be fielded with LCS flight 0 40 in FY07 but may be employed from other platforms. 41 42 Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (JUCAS). The JUCAS 43 program is a joint Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency 44 (DARPA)/Air Force/Navy effort to demonstrate the technical 45 feasibility, military utility, and operational value for a networked 46 system of high performance, weaponized UAVs to effectively and 47 affordably execute 21st century combat missions, including SEAD, 48 surveillance, and precision strike within the emerging global 49 command, and control architecture. Operation of these systems
6-14 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 could produce new requirements for range complexes in terms of 2 airspace, frequency management, and target sets. Northrop 3 Grumman and Boeing are developing concept JUCAS airframes 4 simultaneously. IOC of these systems has not yet been established.
5 Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) 6 Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS). The LMRS 7 AN/BLQ-11 is a clandestine mine reconnaissance system that 8 employs UUVs capable of launch and recovery from attack 9 submarines. The LMRS will provide an early, rapid, accurate means 10 of surveying potential mine fields. The LMRS was scheduled to be 11 deployed in Los Angeles and Virginia class submarines beginning in 12 FY05. However, the program was cancelled in favor of the Mission 13 Reconfigurable Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (MRUUV) after 14 delivery of several LMRS. 15 16 Mission Reconfigurable Unmanned Undersea Vehicle 17 (MRUUV). The MRUUV, a follow-on program to the LMRS, is a 18 larger diameter UUV that will conduct clandestine minefield 19 reconnaissance, deliver a clandestine intelligence preparation of the 20 battlespace capability, and will be reconfigurable to conduct visual 21 and electromagnetic ISR missions. MCM capabilities will include 22 bottom mapping for change in bottom contour detection and mine 23 localization and classification. The MRUUV will also be compatible 24 with the LCS and SSGN platforms and provide more than 40 hours 25 of autonomous endurance. IOC is scheduled for FY11.
26 6.3.1.3 New Weapons and Sensor Systems 27 The NWTRC will be required to support new weapons, sensors, and 28 communications systems as they reach IOC. Evaluation of the 29 requirements and impacts these new systems will have on the range 30 should be a priority.
31 5-Inch Gun Ordnance 32 The High Explosive Projectile (HE-ET) is a high explosive projectile 33 that has improved performance characteristics of the Electronically 34 Timed (ET) fuse. The HE-ET round is produced by converting 35 existing high explosive variable timed projectiles (HE-CVT). The 36 Kinetic Energy Projectile (KE-ET), commonly called the “BB” 37 round, is designed to be fired at incoming boats. The round contains 38 9000 tungsten pellets, which improves lethality against troops and 39 small boats. IOC for both the HE-ET and KE-ET rounds was FY05.
40 Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) Sonobuoy 41 The IEER system is an improved multi-static active acoustic sensor, 42 which employs a new sonobuoy coupled with improved processing 43 algorithms to extend the EER deep-water search capability into the 44 shallow waters of the littoral. 45
6-15 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The IEER system was developed in response to the fleet need for a 2 large-area search capability against diesel submarines operating in 3 littoral waters. The system combines a new sensor, the AN/SSQ-101 4 Air Deployed Active Receiver (ADAR) sonobuoy with improved 5 software in the P-3C Update III aircraft. 6 7 The ADAR sonobuoy employs a multi-element planar hydrophone 8 acoustic array to improve detection in shallow littoral waters. This 9 improved sensor, when coupled with the ASW improvement 10 program’s (AIP’s) powerful acoustic post-processor, the USQ-78A, 11 will provide Maritime ASW aircrews with the tools necessary to 12 effectively prosecute the difficult task of ASW search in littoral 13 waters. 14 15 The AN/SSQ-110/A Extended Echo Ranging (EER) sonobuoy is an 16 expendable, non-repairable sonobuoy that is a commandable, air 17 dropped, high source level acoustic source. It operates on one of 31 18 selectable RF channels and has two sections. The upper section is 19 called the control buoy and is similar to the upper electronics 20 package of the AN/SSQ-62 DICASS sonobuoy. The lower section 21 consists of two Signal, Underwater Sound (SUS) explosive payloads 22 of Class A explosive weighing 4.2 pounds each. The IEER System 23 has already reached full operational capability (FOC).
24 Advanced Extended Echo Ranging (AEER) 25 The AEER program examines improvements in both long-range 26 shallow and deep water ASW search using active sources (Air 27 Deployable Low Frequency Projector [ADLFP], Advance Ranging 28 Source [ARS], and passive sonobuoy receivers [ADAR]). The signal 29 processing is provided by research conducted under Advanced 30 Multi-static Processing Program (AMSP). 31 32 The AEER system is similar to the IEER system in that it uses the 33 AN/SSQ-101 ADAR sonobuoy. But instead of the SSQ-110A EE R 34 Sonobuoy it is coupled with the SSQ-125 Air Deployable Coherent 35 Source Sonobuoy. The SSQ-125 system is in the R&D stage with 36 two types of sensor technology being considered (the ADLFP and 37 ARS). The buoy is intended to provide the user with a sonobuoy 38 with an improved bi-static acoustic source and better signal 39 processing for harsh water environments. IOC for the AEER system 40 is unknown.
41 6.3.1.4 New Instrumentation Technology 42 The NWTRC will acquire improved technology and capabilities to 43 score, track, and provide feedback. Technology is also permitting 44 the fielding of non-fixed site, mobile tracking ranges.
6-16 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Portable Undersea Training Range (PUTR) 2 The Portable Undersea Training Range (PUTR) is a self-contained, 3 portable, undersea tracking capability that employs modern 4 technologies to support coordinated USW training for Forward 5 Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF). Similar to the portable system 6 available at NUWC Keyport, the PUTR will be available in two 7 variants to support both shallow and deep water remote operations in 8 keeping with Navy requirements to exercise and evaluate weapons 9 systems and crews in the environments that replicate the potential 10 combat area. The system will be capable of tracking submarines, 11 surface ships, weapons, targets, and unmanned undersea vehicles and 12 distribute the data to a data processing and display system, either 13 aboard ship, or at a shore site.
14 Portable Undersea Tracking System (PUTS) 15 The Portable Undersea Tracking System (PUTS) is a self-contained, 16 portable, undersea tracking capability that was developed 17 specifically for the Virginia Class Submarine MIW Operational 18 Evaluation. This system is comprised of 99 bottom mounted 19 acoustic modems with an acoustic release mechanism giving it a 20 100nm^2 area of coverage. The modems are deployed and surveyed 21 in place. The Submarine transits through the range field and 22 triangulates position from the know modem posits to obtain precision 23 independent and ground truth track. While this system has been 24 developed specifically for VA Class MIW OPEVAL, it should be 25 able to also support training objectives.
26 6.3.1.5 Improved Target Replication 27 The NWTRC will keep pace with real-world threats by continuously 28 improving the physical and electronic targets presented to operating 29 forces. NWSTF Boardman offers a great target range where realistic 30 targets could be used.
31 6.3.1.6 Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) Training 32 The DoD T2 initiative envisions future training to be a combination 33 of live field training integrated with virtual (three-dimensional, 34 stand-alone simulation for specific training tasks) and constructive 35 (e.g., two-dimensional war-gaming) training for aspects that cannot 36 be conducted live.
37 6.3.2 Evolving Concept of Operations
38 6.3.2.1 Doctrine 39 Changes to Service warfighting doctrine may change the required 40 range capabilities. The range requirements process will be 41 connected to doctrine and concept development to ensure that 42 capabilities keep pace with warfighting tactics, techniques, and 43 procedures. The vision for how the Navy will organize, integrate, 44 and transform for the future is entitled “Sea Power 21.” Sea Power
6-17 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 21 will align Navy efforts, accelerate its progress, and realize the 2 potential of its people. 3 4 Three fundamental concepts lie at the heart of the Navy’s continued 5 operational effectiveness under Sea Power 21: Sea Strike, Sea 6 Shield, and Sea Basing. Sea Strike is the ability to project precise 7 and persistent offensive power from the sea, Sea Shield extends 8 defensive assurance throughout the world, and Sea Basing enhances 9 operational independence and support for the joint force. These 10 concepts build upon the solid foundation of the Navy-Marine Corps 11 team, leverage U.S. asymmetric advantages, and strengthen joint 12 combat effectiveness. 13 14 Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing will be enabled by ForceNet, 15 an overarching effort to integrate warriors, sensors, networks, 16 command and control, platforms, and weapons into a fully netted, 17 combat force. 18 19 The Navy is developing Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing 20 through a supporting triad of organizational processes: Sea Trial, Sea 21 Warrior, and Sea Enterprise—initiatives that will align and 22 accelerate the development of enhanced warfighting capabilities for 23 the fleet. 24 25 Of these three processes, Sea Trial is the most important for range 26 infrastructure and training in that it will aid in the development of 27 enhanced warfighting capabilities for the fleet by more effectively 28 integrating the thousands of talented and energetic experts, military 29 and civilian, who serve throughout the Navy. 30 31 The transition of the Navy’s strategic focus from an open-ocean 32 warfighting Navy built to counter a communist cold war threat to one 33 focused on littoral warfare, third world threats, and counter-terrorist 34 operations requires the development of entirely new ships, systems, 35 and processes that can deliver enhanced capability, flexibility, and 36 mobility. The NWTRC must evolve as the requirements to support 37 these missions are better known.
38 6.3.2.2 Force Structure 39 The NWTRC must accommodate changing Navy force structure, 40 particularly with respect to range capacity. In addition to individual 41 units, this includes changes to the number and composition of Carrier 42 Air Wings (CVWs) or Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) which may 43 train in the complex. Current projections show force structure 44 remaining approximately constant for the Navy as a whole. 45 However, new systems capabilities, force composition may require 46 ranges to support increased operations, especially within 47 intermediate and advanced level exercises. Such an example was the 48 recent establishment of an expeditionary strike group which included 49 strike capable surface ship combatants.
6-18 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Recent base realignment and closure (BRAC) decisions are not 3 expected to have a significant impact upon the number of training 4 operations within the complex. However, careful attention to 5 changes in force end strength is imperative to predict future 6 operations within the complex.
7 6.3.2.3 Homebasing 8 The NWTRC must also accommodate changes to the number and 9 location of operational forces based, both permanently and 10 temporarily, in the Pacific Northwest. The arrival of the USS OHIO 11 and the plan to homeport an additional SSGN submarine at Bangor 12 brings the potential for increased NSW operations and training for 13 the SSGN’s strike warfare mission. 14 15 Additional force homebasing issues and final BRAC implementation 16 decisions are not expected to significantly reduce or increase the 17 number of operational forces within the NWTRC. In turn, 18 operations within the NWTRC should not be affected. However, 19 homebasing decisions change and could increase the level of 20 operations in particular warfare areas within the complex.
21 6.3.2.4 Training Strategy 22 Changes to or the evolution of Navy training strategies may result in 23 new, modified, or deleted requirements. In particular, changes to the 24 FRTP may significantly affect the type and number of operations 25 because of the contribution of the NWTRC to FRTP training at the 26 basic level. In addition, NCTE training procedures and policies 27 could have a significant effect on the number of live training events 28 within the NWTRC. 29 30 Strategic planning for the NWTRC must take into consideration each 31 of these predictable factors. It also must be responsive to 32 unpredictable developments so the complex evolves in a manner that 33 fully supports its mission by providing a realistic training 34 environment for operational training.
6-19 VOL II, CH 6 STRATEGIC PLANNING FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
This page intentionally left blank
6-20 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 7 RANGE COMPLEX CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
2 7.1 RANGE REQUIRED CAPABILITIES DOCUMENT
3 The Range Required Capabilities Document (RCD) describes the 4 unconstrained required critical capabilities against which the Navy 5 can develop investment strategies over the 10-year RCMP planning 6 horizon. 7 8 Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF) will assess the existing 9 capabilities of component elements of the Northwest Training Range 10 Complex (NWTRC) against the required critical capabilities for the 11 applicable range class (classes) described in the RCD. Shortfalls 12 between existing and required capabilities and the resulting training 13 impacts will form the basis for NWTRC investment strategies. 14 15 The Navy RCD describes the required capabilities for each of the 16 three (3) levels of training complexity (Basic, Intermediate, and 17 Advanced) for eight (8) range functions. The range functions are 18 aligned with Navy Primary Mission Areas (PRMARs): 19 20 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW); 21 Amphibious Warfare (AMW); 22 Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW); 23 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW); 24 Mine Warfare (MIW); 25 Strike Warfare (STW); 26 Electronic Combat (EC); and 27 Naval Special Warfare (NSW)/Explosive Ordnance Disposal 28 (EOD). 29 30 In most cases, the range capabilities described in the RCD would 31 allow a unit to achieve a C-1 rating, associated with full combat 32 readiness. For some range attributes, a slightly reduced capability 33 would allow for achievement of a C-2 rating. This reduced 34 capability is the minimum requirement and is called the “threshold.” 35 Where separate capability levels exist, the higher, desired 36 requirement is the “objective.” For example, at the Basic level of 37 ASW training, an opposition force (OPFOR) system should provide 38 one live surface threat to meet the threshold (or C-2), or two live 39 surface threats to meet the objective (or C-1). 40 41 In the future, the Navy RCD will contain a description of the 42 required capabilities associated with Research Development Test and 43 Evaluation (RDT&E) range functions within two separate annexes 44 (Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and Naval Sea Systems 45 Command (NAVSEA). These annexes had not been developed and 46 approved for use as of the publication of this Range Complex 47 Management Plan (RCMP). Accordingly, RDT&E range functions 48 were not assessed in this RCMP.
7-1 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 7.2 CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT PROCESS
2 During the range capabilities assessment process, each PRMAR 3 assigned to the range complex in Chapter 6 is examined. Under each 4 PRMAR, numerous requirements are examined. These range 5 requirements are grouped into the following 10 range attributes, 6 taken directly from the RCD: 7 Airspace 8 Sea Space 9 Undersea Space 10 Land area 11 Scheduling System 12 Communications System 13 Weather Observing and Reporting (MET) System 14 Target System 15 Instrumentation System 16 Opposition Force (OPFOR) System 17 Based on how well the range meets the requirements of the attribute, 18 each attribute is determined to meet the capability fully, partially, or 19 minimally. 20 21 As an example, requirements for AAW Basic level training (which is 22 required at NWTRC) includes a given volume of airspace (area and 23 height) in which supersonic flight operations are allowed. Airspace 24 within the range complex exceeds that required, but since supersonic 25 flight is not allowed, airspace requirements are only partially met. 26 27 The next step in the range capabilities assessment is to determine the 28 operational impact of any attributes shown to have less than full 29 capability. The impacts are categorized as minimal, moderate, or 30 severe. In the example above, since there are no supersonic-capable 31 aircraft based in the range complex, the impact of this shortfall is 32 considered to be minimal. 33 34 For those shortfalls that cause greater than minimal impacts, further 35 analysis is conducted to determine which Navy Tactical Tasks 36 (NTAs) are affected and to consider possible recommendations 37 and/or investments to remedy the shortfall. 38 39 The following terminology and associated color scheme will be used 40 in discussing range capabilities and shortfalls and the associated 41 training impact. The use of a percentage of RCD required 42 capabilities available at the range provides an initial quantitative 43 measure to assess the range capability. Range capability shortfalls 44 are assessed for their impact on the ability to accomplish required 45 training. The training impact assessment is qualitative in nature and 46 is based on range manager and range user input.
7-2 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Range Capability 2 o Full Capability (GREEN). Meets all (100 percent) RCD 3 requirements for the range's assigned roles and missions 4 (level of training) specified. 5 o Partial Capability (YELLOW). Meets most (50 percent 6 to 99%) RCD requirements for the range's assigned roles 7 and missions (level of training) specified. 8 o Minimal Capability (RED). Meets few, if any (less than 9 50 percent), RCD requirements for the range's assigned 10 roles and missions (level of training) specified. 11 Training Impact 12 o Severe Impact (RED). A severe impact is one that 13 prohibits a training event or activity or makes the training 14 event or activity ineffectual when measured against 15 training standards. 16 o Moderate Impact (YELLOW). A moderate impact 17 marginalizes training to the extent that the training can be 18 accomplished but must use alternative standards and 19 methods that detract from otherwise optimum training. 20 o Minimal or No Impact (GREEN). A minimal impact 21 does not effectively detract from training content, 22 procedure, or outcome. 23 24 The final step in the assessment is to establish an action priority that 25 can be used to guide the investment or environmental action(s) that 26 should be taken to remove or reduce the severity of the impact. The 27 action priority is based on the severity of the operational impact of 28 the shortfall and the range priority of the affected PRMAR. 29 Action priority: 30 Priority 1: Investment or environmental action 31 recommendations that address current or potential severe 32 operational impacts that can/should be addressed 33 immediately and affect high (1) priority mission areas. This 34 includes investments for the current Program Objectives 35 Memorandum (POM) or those that are currently planned or 36 programmed. 37 38 Priority 2: Investment or environmental action 39 recommendations that address: 1) current or potential severe 40 operational impacts that can/should be addresses 41 immediately and affect medium (2) priority mission areas; or 42 2) current or potential moderate operational impacts that 43 affect high (1) and/or medium (2) priority mission areas. 44 This includes investments for the current POM or those that 45 are currently planned or programmed. 46 47 Priority 3: Investment or environmental action 48 recommendations that address current or potential 49 operational impacts not requiring immediate action or 50 investment in the current POM because:
7-3 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Operational impact is minimal, or 2 o Operational impact is severe and mission area priority is 3 low (3), or 4 o Operational impact is moderate and mission area priority 5 is medium (2) or low (3). 6 7 Figure 7-1 summarizes the above explanation. 8 Action Priority Mission Priority Operational Impact (From Chapter 6) (From Chapter 7) Severe Moderate Minimal High (1) 123 Medium (2) 2 2/3 3 Low (3) 333 Sample: If Mission Priority is 1 & Operational Impact is Moderate, Action Priority = 2. 9 Figure 7-1. Action Priority Development
10 7.3 RCD GAP ANALYSIS
11 Range complex capabilities, shortfalls, and impacts for the NWTRC 12 are described in the following paragraphs. Figure 7-2 provides a 13 short summary of the analysis for the NWTRC. For more detailed 14 information, see Appendix D, RCD Gap Analysis Matrices. 15 16 The required capabilities for the NWTRC Operating Areas 17 (OPAREAs), associated Warning Areas and Complex Special Use 18 Airspace are focused on the range operations that directly support the 19 single and multi-unit Fleet training in the unit, integration, and 20 sustainment phases of the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP). 21 Specific range required capabilities for Navy ranges are outlined in 22 the Navy RCD.
23 7.3.1 Capabilities Common to All Range Functions
24 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 25 Basic (1); Intermediate (3) 26 27 The following two range attributes—Scheduling System and 28 Meteorological System—share the same requirements across all 29 PRMARs and will be assessed only once, in this section. Where 30 shortfalls are determined, the impacts will be analyzed and discussed 31 by each warfare area impacted. 32 7.3.1.1 Scheduling System 33 Requirement: The scheduling system should allow range users 34 access to a web-enabled database of descriptive information 35 (including individual range resources) for the entire Navy range 36 infrastructure and the ability to schedule required range periods
7-4 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 remotely at least two weeks in advance. The pre-event module 2 should support unit-level queries on platform name and training 3 event; it should also identify and notify of competing requests; it 4 should support late cancellations flexibly and responsively. The 5 real-time event module should allow range controllers to enter 6 all event related data (prior, during, and after the event). The 7 post-event module should generate automatic post-event 8 messages/emails to users. 9 Current Capability: Minimal. 10 Discussion: Most areas of the NWTRC are currently scheduled 11 by NAS Whidbey Island via naval message or phone call. The 12 schedule is not web based and does not allow for real-time and 13 post-event module requirements. 14 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 15 Moderate. The lack of capabilities of the scheduling system to 16 meet RCD requirements has moderate impact on the 17 accomplishment of training events within the complex. Current 18 range limitations within the NWTRC require that units rely on 19 the use of other ranges to attain C-2 readiness ratings. However, 20 without a more capable scheduling system, including one that 21 allows for intra range scheduling, NWTRC-based units have 22 lower priority on other ranges and often have trouble scheduling 23 their training needs. The current manual scheduling system also 24 causes over-scheduling of airspace by aircrews in order to make 25 up for the deficiencies of a weekday only “by-hand” process. 26 Recommendation: Recommend investment in, and further 27 development of, the NAVAIR developed NAVSKED software 28 to meet RCD requirements. 29 7.3.1.2 Meteorological (MET) System 30 Requirement: The MET system should be capable of collecting 31 meteorological data; report meteorological information 32 (Objective – report current sea state and sound velocity profile 33 where applicable). 34 Current Capability: Partial. 35 Discussion: The MET system meets all the RCD requirements 36 with the exception of reporting sea state and sound velocity 37 profile information. 38 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 39 Minimal. The lack of reporting sea state and sound velocity 40 profiles affects only ASW events within the complex, and has 41 little impact on the accomplishment of these events.
42 7.3.2 Capabilities in Support of Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)
43 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 44 Basic (2); Intermediate (3) 45 46 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) is a number two range priority for 47 NWTRC (see Chapter 6) at the basic level of training and a number
7-5 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 three range priority at the intermediate level. The NWTRC has no 2 range requirements to conduct AAW at the advanced level.
3 AAW Airspace 4 Requirement (aircraft events): All AAW training events 5 require sufficient airspace to allow separation between friendly 6 and Opposition Force (OPFOR) aircraft and to permit horizontal 7 maneuvering and tactics execution. This airspace shall be 8 cleared for supersonic flight. Specific requirements by training 9 level are outlined below: 10 Basic 11 o A 45-minute scheduled period. 12 o A 50 nm x 80 nm area from surface to 60,000 feet Above 13 Ground Level (AGL). 14 Intermediate 15 o A 2-hour scheduled period. 16 o A 50 nm x 80 nm area from surface to 60,000 feet AGL. 17 o Allow supersonic operations. 18 Requirement (surface combatant events): All AAW training 19 events require sufficient airspace to allow separation between 20 friendly and OPFOR elements and to permit horizontal 21 maneuvering and tactics execution. Surface combatants should 22 be able to conduct overland detection and tracking exercises, 23 which require that some portion of SUA overlies a land mass 24 with a littoral component. Specific requirements by training 25 level are outlined below: 26 Basic 27 o A 3-hour scheduled period. 28 o A 75 nm x 75 nm area from surface to 60,000 feet AGL. 29 o Some portion of the SUA should overlay a littoral land mass 30 for detection and tracking. 31 Intermediate 32 o A 5-hour scheduled period. 33 o A 75 nm x 75 nm area from surface to 60,000 feet AGL. 34 o Some portion of the SUA should overlay a littoral land mass 35 for detection and tracking. 36 Current Capability: Partial. 37 Discussion: The airspace associated with the offshore areas of 38 the NWTRC is not entirely cleared for supersonic operations nor 39 is all of the airspace cleared from the surface to 60,000 feet 40 AGL. The area of the offshore areas overlying the Olympic 41 Coast National Marine Sanctuary also has a recommended 42 minimum altitude for aircraft operations. Most of the overland 43 airspace (including MOAs and ATCAAs) is available up to 44 50,000 feet or higher. The Olympic MOA is the most capable 45 for conducting surface combatant overland detection and 46 tracking, being located along the Pacific coast. It is limited in 47 altitude (6,000 ft. to 17,999 ft.), but with the addition of the
7-6 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Olympic ATCAA, meets all requirements. All dedicated 2 airspace in the NWTRC is available 24/7. 3 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 4 Minimal. The limited amount of AAW conducted in the 5 offshore areas and in the overland areas is not impacted 6 significantly by these shortfalls. EA-6B aircraft are the primary 7 participants in these exercises in the NWTRC and conduct AAW 8 as a secondary role. These aircraft are incapable of supersonic 9 flight. EA-18G aircraft are supersonic capable and fly at higher 10 altitudes. The altitude and supersonic limitations of the NWTRC 11 may have a more significant impact when the EA-18G Growler 12 replaces the EA-6B. However, there is an abundant amount of 13 offshore SUA in which these operations may take place.
14 AAW Sea Space 15 Requirement: 16 Basic 17 o A 3 hour scheduled period. 18 o A 75 nm x 75 nm area OPAREA. 19 o Sea Space is required for surface combatant training. 20 o Preferred directly beneath airspace. 21 Intermediate 22 o A 5-hour scheduled period. 23 o A 75 nm x 75 nm OPAREA. 24 o Sea Space is required for surface combatant training. 25 o Preferred directly beneath airspace. 26 Current Capability: Full. 27 Discussion: The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets 28 the requirement for sea space for the NWTRC.
29 AAW Land Area 30 Requirement (aircraft events): 31 Basic 32 o N/A 33 Intermediate 34 o A 2 hour scheduled period. 35 o A 20 nm x 20 nm land area. 36 o Some land area with significant topographical features is 37 desired to allow aircrews to prepare for opposed STW 38 scenarios. 39 Requirement (surface combatant events): 40 Basic 41 o A 2-hour scheduled period. 42 o A 20 nm x 20 nm land area with a littoral component.
7-7 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Surface combatants should be able to conduct overland 2 detection and tracking exercises. These exercises require the 3 Land Area underlie Airspace authorized for use by manned 4 and unmanned aircraft or drones. 5 Intermediate 6 o A 2-hour scheduled period. 7 o A 20 nm x 20 nm land area with a littoral component. 8 Surface combatants should be able to conduct overland detection 9 and tracking exercises. These exercises require that the land area 10 underlies airspace authorized for use by manned and unmanned 11 aircraft or drones. 12 Current Capability: Full. 13 Discussion: The land beneath the Olympic MOA includes 14 significant topographical features, contains a littoral component, 15 and meets the size requirements. However, the Federal Aviation 16 Administration (FAA) does not currently permit UAVs or drones 17 in MOAs without a Certificate of Authorization (COA). At 18 present, no COA is in place for UAV operations in the Olympic 19 MOA. The 6 nm x 12 nm land area associated with the Naval 20 Weapons System Training Facility (NWSTF) at Boardman, 21 Oregon is Navy owned, but falls short of the size requirements. 22 Boardman is also completely landlocked and is too far inland for 23 surface ship training. This land area is available 24/7.
24 AAW Communications System 25 Requirement: The communications system shall be comprised 26 of the following: 27 Basic 28 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits. One must support secure 29 communication, including ship-to-shore. 30 o At least three dedicated Operational Communications (OC) 31 circuits, one of which must support secure communication, 32 including communications with airborne and surface 33 combatant participants. 34 Intermediate 35 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits. One must support secure 36 communications, including ship-to-shore. 37 o At least four dedicated OC circuits (objective, 3 OC circuits 38 threshold), two of which must support secure A-G and ship- 39 to-shore communications. 40 o There must be at least two data link circuits (objective, 1 41 D/L circuit threshold), at least one of which must support 42 theater-level D/L connectivity and relay requirements. 43 Current Capability: Minimal. 44 Discussion: Except for FAA radio frequencies, there are no 45 communications systems in the NWTRC which reach the 46 offshore areas of the complex to support AAW.
7-8 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 2 Minimal. The limited amount of AAW conducted in the 3 NWTRC is not impacted significantly by this communications 4 shortfall.
5 AAW Target System 6 Requirement: 7 Basic 8 o Towed targets (e.g. banners and darts that support A-A and 9 S-A gunnery training). 10 o Unmanned subsonic and supersonic drones that can operate 11 from surface to 50,000 feet AGL. 12 o Drones should be capable of being augmented and controlled 13 to replicate the size, spectral signature (including jamming), 14 and in-flight performance of anticipated threat aircraft and 15 anti-ship cruise missiles. 16 Intermediate 17 o Unmanned subsonic and supersonic drones that can operate 18 from surface to 50,000 feet AGL. 19 o Drones should be capable of being augmented and controlled 20 to replicate the size, spectral signature (including jamming), 21 and in-flight performance of anticipated threat aircraft and 22 anti-ship cruise missiles. 23 Current Capability: Minimal. 24 Discussion: There are no inherent drone capabilities residing 25 within the complex. 26 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 27 Moderate. The lack of towed targets within the complex limits 28 the ability of surface combatants to conduct Surface-to-Air 29 training in target detection, tracking, and engagement. However, 30 because locally based surface ships conduct this training outside 31 of the NWTRC, this shortfall has only a moderate impact. This 32 shortfall has no effect on the accomplishment of AAW training 33 for EA-6B aircraft. 34 NTAs Affected: 3.2.3 35 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Surface 36 Combatants conduct the bulk of their AAW training in out- 37 of-area complexes, predominantly in the SOCAL complex. 38 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 39 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: Unknown impact 40 to EA-18G once it is introduced into the complex. The 41 EA-18G is equipped with a gun and an Air-to-air (A-A) 42 missile capability, so it will need to train in A-A Gunnery 43 and MISSILEX within the complex. 44 Recommendation: Recommend acquiring a S-A towed target 45 capability (commercial air services).
7-9 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 AAW Instrumentation System 2 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 3 necessary components and elements associated with event 4 tracking, Exercise Command & Control (EC&C), Modeling and 5 Simulation (M&S), scoring, and debriefing. EC&C: All levels 6 require the ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D; 7 Intermediate level requires JNTC capability. M&S: All levels 8 require ability to conduct M&S for A-A, A-S, S-S, and S-A. 9 Scoring: All levels require manual or auto scoring. Basic 10 requires feedback in real-time. Intermediate level requires 11 feedback in both real-time and post-mission. Real Time Kill 12 Notification (RTKN) at the Basic level is voice; Intermediate is 13 voice or auto. Debrief: Local and remote debrief capability at all 14 levels. Specific time, speed, and position information (TSPI) 15 requirements: 16 Basic 17 o Tracking TSPI 18 High Fidelity: 10; reflects the requirements for at least 4 19 Blue and 5 OPFOR aircraft/drones. 20 Low Fidelity Tracks: 2; could be a single AEW aircraft 21 and/or a single surface AAW-capable ship. 22 Intermediate 23 o Tracking TSPI 24 High Fidelity Tracks: 24; includes up to 10 Blue, 12 25 OPFOR aircraft, and two drones replicating antiship 26 missiles. 27 Low Fidelity Tracks: 10; Includes Blue air support 28 aircraft and surface platforms. 29 Current Capability: Minimal. 30 Discussion: 31 o TSPI: The range complex lacks TSPI coverage for the off 32 shore operating areas. nor does it have any EC&C, M&S or 33 scoring capability 34 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training 35 Capability (JNTC) context: The Range Complex has no 36 inherent radar tracking system (no 2-D or 3-D) for all 37 overland and offshore areas. 38 o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S 39 capability for AAW. 40 o Scoring: No scoring system available for AAW events. 41 o Debrief: The complex lacks any debrief capabilities for 42 AAW events. 43 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 44 Moderate. The lack of instrumentation within the complex 45 limits the effectiveness of surface-to-air and air-to-air training. 46 No real-time or debrief capability exists that could greatly 47 enhance current and future training requirements. 48 NTAs Affected: 3.2.3
7-10 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Surface 2 Combatants conduct the bulk of their AAW training in out- 3 of-area complexes, predominantly in the SOCAL complex. 4 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 5 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: Unknown impact 6 to EA-18G once it is introduced into the complex. The 7 EA-18G is equipped with a gun and an Air-to-air (A-A) 8 missile capability, so it will need to train in A-A Gunnery 9 and MISSILEX within the complex. 10 Recommendation: Recommend acquiring instrumentation 11 systems that meet the RCD requirements.
12 AAW OPFOR System 13 Requirement: The OPFOR system should include all necessary 14 components and elements associated with presenting friendly 15 event participants with an operating environment that replicates, 16 to the greatest extent practical, the expected enemy order of 17 battle in the area of planned operations. Specific requirements: 18 Basic 19 o Up to two rotary-wing aircraft with A-A missile capability. 20 o Up to four live fixed-wing, supersonic aircraft with A-A gun 21 and active A-A missile capability. 22 o Fixed wing aircraft must be able to operate from surface to 23 the upper limit of the airspace. 24 o EC Threat Level 1. 25 Intermediate (Basic capabilities plus the following): 26 o Live or virtual aircraft equal to 1.5 times number of friendly 27 aircraft, up to total of 16. 28 o Number of live aircraft must be equal to or greater than 29 number of friendly aircraft. 30 o EC Threat Level 2. 31 Current Capability: Minimal. 32 Discussion: The NWTRC does not have any dedicated rotary 33 wing OPFOR aircraft; fixed wing through contract air services 34 (CAS) only. 35 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 36 Moderate. The lack of AAW OPFOR will cause a future impact 37 to EA-18G training, which requires a greater OPFOR capability 38 than currently exists in the NWTRC. 39 NTAs Affected: 3.2.3 40 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Locally 41 based aircraft have a less significant AAW mission, and 42 have historically obtained OPFOR support from other local 43 squadrons. 44 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 45 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: Expected 46 moderate impact to EA-18G once it is introduced into the
7-11 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 complex. The EA-18G will have a greater AAW mission 2 requirement than current locally based aircraft. 3 Recommendation: Recommend acquiring commercial air 4 services for OPFOR support.
5 7.3.3 Capabilities in support of Navy Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
6 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 7 Basic (2); Intermediate (2) 8 9 Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) is a number two range priority for 10 the NWTRC at the basic and intermediate levels of training. The 11 NWTRC has no range requirements to conduct ASUW at the 12 advanced level.
13 ASUW Airspace 14 Requirement: The airspace to support ASUW training events 15 must be sufficient to allow maneuvering of friendly air assets 16 during the search, detection, targeting, and engagement phases of 17 the exercise and the safe employment of air-, surface-, and 18 subsurface-launched ASUW weapons. Specific requirements 19 are: 20 Basic 21 o An 8-hour scheduled period. 22 o A 30 nm x 75 nm area from surface to 35,000 feet AGL 23 (supports two separate and concurrent S-S gunnery events). 24 Intermediate 25 o A 24-hour scheduled period. 26 o A 100 nm x 100 nm area from surface to 60,000 feet AGL 27 (supports the requirements associated with an OTH targeting 28 exercise). 29 Current Capability: Full. 30 Discussion: The at-sea warning areas associated with the 31 Pacific Northwest OPAREA meets the full requirements of the 32 RCD for airspace.
33 ASUW Sea Space 34 Requirement: Available sea space must be sufficient to allow 35 maneuvering of friendly and hostile surface assets during the 36 search, detection, targeting, and engagement phases of the 37 exercise and the safe employment of air-, surface-, and 38 subsurface-launched ASUW weapons. Specific requirements 39 are: 40 Basic 41 o An 8-hour scheduled period. 42 o A 50 nm x 75 nm area. 43 Intermediate 44 o A 24-hour scheduled period.
7-12 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o A 75 nm x 75 nm area. 2 Current Capability: Full. 3 Discussion: The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets 4 the requirements of the RCD for sea space.
5 ASUW Undersea Space 6 Requirement: Available undersea space must be sufficient to 7 allow maneuvering of friendly subsurface units during the 8 search, detection, tracking, and engagement phases of the 9 exercise, including the safe employment of submarine-launched 10 anti-ship weapons. An underwater training range (UTR) is 11 preferred, but not required, for all ASUW events involving 12 submarines. Specific requirements are: 13 Basic 14 o An 8-hour scheduled period. 15 o A 50 nm x 75 nm OPAREA, with sufficient depth to allow 16 the use of submarine-launched anti-ship weapons. 17 Intermediate 18 o A 24-hour scheduled period. 19 o A 50 nm x 150 nm OPAREA with sufficient depth to allow 20 the use of submarine-launched anti-ship weapons. 21 Current Capability: Full. 22 Discussion: The undersea space of the Pacific Northwest 23 OPAREA exceeds the size and temporal requirements of the 24 RCD for undersea space. Nanoose Range is a UTR, but is not 25 contiguous to the Pacific Northwest OPAREA.
26 ASUW Communications System 27 Requirement: The communications system shall be comprised 28 of the following: 29 Basic 30 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits, at least one of which must 31 support secure communication, including ship-to-shore. 32 o At least three dedicated OC circuits, at least one of which 33 must support secure communications. OC circuits must 34 support communications with airborne, surface combatant, 35 and submarine participants. 36 Intermediate 37 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits, at least one of which must 38 support secure communication, including ship-to-shore. 39 o At least four dedicated OC circuits (objective, two OC 40 circuits threshold), at least two of which must support secure 41 A-G and ship-to-shore communications. The OC circuits 42 must support communications with airborne, surface 43 combatant, and submarine participants. 44 o Two data link circuits (objective, one D/L circuit threshold). 45 Current Capability: Minimal.
7-13 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Discussion: There are no communications systems in the 2 NWTRC which serve the offshore areas of the complex to 3 support ASUW. 4 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 5 Minimal. The limited amount of ASUW conducted in the 6 NWTRC is not impacted significantly by this communications 7 shortfall.
8 ASUW Target System 9 Requirement: The target system should include all necessary 10 components and elements associated with presenting and 11 controlling fixed and mobile surface targets. 12 Basic 13 o At least one stationary and one towed or self-propelled 14 target. 15 o Target, which can be remotely controlled or programmable 16 must be capable of replicating threat platform spectral 17 signatures. 18 o Target must be cleared for engagement with live anti-ship 19 ordnance. 20 Intermediate 21 o Same requirements as Basic. 22 Current Capability: Partial. 23 Discussion: The NWTRC does not have any inherent ASUW 24 targets in the complex. Surface ships have the ability to launch a 25 floating at-sea target which meets the stationary requirement but 26 these do not replicate the spectral signature of threat platforms. 27 The NWTRC also lacks towed or self propelled targets. 28 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 29 Moderate. The lack of targets prevents some basic and 30 intermediate training events from occurring in the complex. 31 Surface ships conduct basic and intermediate ASUW against the 32 floating at sea targets, while aircraft and submarines conducting 33 ASUW do so against targets of opportunity without conducting 34 live fire training. 35 NTAs Affected: 3.2.1.1 36 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Ships and 37 aircraft conduct this training at other ranges, typically in the 38 SOCAL range complex. 39 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 40 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: None. 41 Recommendation: Acquire towed and self-propelled targets, 42 either programmable or remote controlled.
43 ASUW Instrumentation System 44 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 45 necessary components and elements associated with event 46 tracking, EC&C, M&S, scoring, and debriefing. EC&C: Both
7-14 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 levels require the ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D; 2 M&S: Both levels require ability to conduct M&S for A-A 3 (except Basic), A-S, A-G, S-S, S-A (except Basic), and Sub-S. 4 Scoring: Both levels require manual or auto scoring. Both levels 5 require feedback in both real-time and post-mission. RTKN at 6 the both levels is voice. Debrief: Local and remote debrief 7 capability at both levels. Specific TSPI requirements: 8 Basic 9 o Tracking TSPI 10 High Fidelity Tracks: 4; assumes up to 2 Blue and 2 11 OPFOR air assets. 12 Low Fidelity Tracks: 5; Includes up to 2 Blue and 1 13 OPFOR surface tracks and 2 submarines. 14 Intermediate 15 o Tracking TSPI 16 High Fidelity Tracks: 12; Includes 8 Blue and 4 17 OPFOR aircraft. 18 Low Fidelity Tracks: 14; Includes up to a combined 19 total of 12 Blue and OPFOR surface platforms and 2 20 submarines. 21 Current Capability: Minimal. 22 Discussion: 23 o TSPI: The range complex lacks the ability for TSPI in the 24 offshore areas. 25 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training 26 Capability (JNTC) context. The Range complex has no 27 inherent radar tracking system to cover all overland and 28 offshore areas. There is no instrumentation in the OPAREAs 29 other than the inactive systems of the Quinalt Range which 30 would not support ASUW operations in the complex. 31 o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S to 32 support ASUW operations. 33 o Scoring: The complex lacks any scoring for ASUW events. 34 o Debrief: The complex lacks a debrief capability for ASUW 35 events. 36 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 37 Minimal. The lack of instrumentation has very little impact on 38 the limited ASUW operations that occur in the NWTRC.
39 ASUW OPFOR System 40 Requirement: The ASUW OPFOR assets will be used to 41 support/augment the ASUW target(s). 42 Basic 43 o At least one live surface combatant and one live fixed or 44 rotary-wing aircraft. 45 o EC Threat Level 1.
7-15 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Intermediate 2 o At least two live, virtual, or constructive surface combatants 3 and at least two live, virtual, or constructive fixed- or rotary- 4 wing aircraft. 5 o At least one half of the OPFOR must be live. 6 o EC Threat Level 2. 7 Current Capability: Minimal. 8 Discussion: The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated 9 OPFOR surface combatants; fixed wing aircraft through CAS 10 only. 11 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 12 Minimal. The OPFOR for ASUW events in the NWTRC is 13 usually provided by other Fleet or foreign (Canadian Forces) 14 assets or through CAS for OPFOR aircraft.
15 7.3.4 Capabilities in support of Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
16 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 17 Basic (1); Intermediate (2) 18 19 ASW is currently supported as a number one priority at the basic 20 level of training and a number two priority at the intermediate level 21 of training. The NWTRC has no priority at the advanced level of 22 training in ASW.
23 ASW Airspace 24 Requirement: 25 Basic 26 o A 6-hour time window. 27 o A 50 nm2 area. 28 o From surface to 10,000 ft AGL. 29 o Should overlie a UTR. 30 Intermediate 31 o A 12-hour time window. 32 o A 500 nm2 area. 33 o From surface to 10,000 ft AGL. 34 o Preferred, but not required, that some portion overlie a UTR. 35 Current Capability: Full. 36 Discussion: The at-sea warning areas associated with the 37 Pacific Northwest OPAREA meets the requirements of the RCD 38 except that there is no UTR beneath the airspace. A UTR exists 39 at Nanoose Range and is capable of supporting basic level 40 training.
41 ASW Sea Space 42 Requirement: The sea space to support ASW training must be 43 sufficient to allow maneuvering of friendly and hostile surface
7-16 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 assets during the search, detection, localization, and attack 2 phases of the exercise and the safe employment of surface- 3 launched ASW weapons. A UTR is preferred but not required. 4 Basic 5 o A 6-hour scheduled period. 6 o A 50 nm2 ocean OPAREA. 7 o A UTR is preferred but not required. 8 o The area must be cleared for expenditure of sonobuoys 9 and/or EXTORPs. 10 Intermediate 11 o A 12-hour scheduled period. 12 o A 500 nm2 ocean OPAREA. 13 o A UTR is preferred but not required. 14 o The area must be cleared for expenditure of sonobuoys 15 and/or EXTORPs. 16 Current Capability: Full. 17 Discussion: The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets 18 the requirements of the RCD for sea space although it does not 19 have a fully functional UTR (a desired but not required 20 capability). A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of 21 supporting basic level training.
22 ASW Undersea Space 23 Requirement: The undersea space should be an area capable of 24 supporting tactical maneuvering of two submarines as well as 25 ASW weapon firings, all while being tracked on an UTR. The 26 UTR must include water depths less than 600 feet and should 27 preferably include water as shallow as 300 feet to replicate 28 littoral operating environments. 29 Basic 30 o A 6-hour scheduled period. 31 o A 50 nm2 range. 32 Intermediate 33 o A 12-hour scheduled period. 34 o A 500 nm2 range. 35 o Depths shallower than 600 feet. 36 o A UTR is preferred but not required. 37 o Preferably, the UTR should encompass water as shallow as 38 300 feet to replicate littoral operating environments. 39 o The area must be cleared for LFA high dB active sensors and 40 expenditure of at least EXTORP and EER. 41 Current Capability: Partial. 42 Discussion: The undersea space associated with the Pacific 43 Northwest OPAREA meets all the requirements of the RCD 44 except the requirement for a UTR. The instrumentation 45 associated with the Quinault Range is portable in nature and 46 requires placement in the area in which the exercises will be
7-17 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 conducted. A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of 2 supporting basic level training. 3 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 4 Minimal. The lack of a UTR has little impact on the 5 submarines, surface ships, and aircraft which conduct ASW 6 events in the complex, including operations at Nanoose. 7 Training is also conducted in the Southern California (SOCAL) 8 OPAREAs on the Southern California Offshore Anti-Submarine 9 Warfare Range (SOAR).
10 ASW Communications System 11 Requirement: The communications system shall be comprised 12 of the following: 13 Basic 14 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits. EC&C circuits must support 15 secure communications, including ship-to-shore. 16 o At least three dedicated OC circuits (objective, two OC 17 circuits threshold), at least one of which must support secure 18 communications. OC circuit must support voice 19 communications with airborne, surface, and submarine 20 participants. 21 o One acoustic data transfer network to facilitate transmission 22 of real or near-real time TSPI and weapons performance 23 information to submarine participants not connected to RF 24 data link (objective, no requirement for acoustic data transfer 25 network at threshold level). 26 Intermediate 27 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits. EC&C circuits must support 28 secure communications, including ship-to-shore. 29 o At least four dedicated OC circuits, at least one of which 30 must support secure communications. OC circuit must 31 support voice communications with airborne, surface, and 32 submarine participants. 33 o One acoustic data transfer network to facilitate transmission 34 of real or near-real time TSPI and weapons performance 35 information to submarine participants not connected to RF 36 data link (objective, no requirement for acoustic data transfer 37 network at threshold level). 38 Current Capability: Minimal. 39 Discussion: There is no communications system in the NWTRC 40 that serves the offshore areas of the complex in support of ASW 41 operations. 42 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 43 Minimal. The lack of ASW communications coverage for the 44 OPAREAs has little effect on basic and intermediate level events 45 which occur within the NWTRC.
7-18 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 ASW Target System 2 Requirement: The target system should include all necessary 3 components and elements associated with presenting and 4 controlling fixed and mobile underwater maneuvering targets. 5 ASW training requires one to two live, virtual, or constructive 6 targets capable of generating or replicating the magnetic 7 signature and the acoustic signals of current and anticipated 8 threats in both narrow and broad bands. Live targets must be 9 full-scale manned submarines or augmented autonomous targets 10 that are capable of various speed, course, and depth profiles. 11 Basic 12 o One live recoverable or expendable target. 13 Intermediate 14 o At least two live, virtual, or constructive targets, at least one 15 of which must be live (objective, only one live, virtual, or 16 constructive target required for threshold). 17 Current Capability: Full. 18 Discussion: Mk-39 Expendable Mobile ASW Training Targets 19 (EMATTs), MK 30 targets and live submarines are readily 20 available to support this requirement. All have the capability to 21 reproduce the acoustic signature of current and anticipated threat 22 submarines.
23 ASW Instrumentation System 24 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 25 necessary components and elements associated with event 26 Tracking, EC&C, M&S, scoring, and debriefing. EC&C: Both 27 levels require the ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D; 28 M&S: Both levels require ability to conduct M&S for A-S, A-G, 29 S-Sub, Sub-S, and Sub-Sub. Scoring: Both levels require auto 30 scoring. Both levels require feedback in both real-time and post- 31 mission. Real Time Kill Notification (RTKN) at the Basic level 32 is voice, Intermediate is voice or auto. Debrief: Local and remote 33 debrief capability at all levels. Specific TSPI requirements: 34 Basic 35 o Tracking TSPI 36 High Fidelity Tracks: 11; includes the potential to 37 track up to 2 fixed or rotary wing aircraft, 4 38 subsurface tracks (1 Blue submarine + tail and 1 39 OPFOR submarine + tail), and 1 instrumented 40 exercise torpedo. 41 Low Fidelity Tracks: 2; Includes up to 2 surface 42 tracks. 43 Intermediate 44 o Tracking TSPI 45 High Fidelity Tracks: 34; includes up to 6 aircraft ( 4 46 Blue and 2 OPFOR), 6 subsurface tracks (2 Blue
7-19 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 submarines + 2 tails and 2 OPFOR submarines), 20 2 surface tracks (8 Blue surface combatants + 8 tails 3 and 2 OPFOR surface combatants + 2 tails) and 2 4 EXTORPS. Applies only to operations on a UTR. 5 Low Fidelity Tracks: 5; Includes at least 4 surface 6 tracks and 1 UUV. Applies only to operations on a 7 UTR. 8 Current Capability: Minimal. 9 Discussion: 10 o TSPI: The range complex lacks any TSPI in the offshore 11 operating areas other than the inactive Quinalt Range, which 12 only covers a portion of the OPAREA. With the exception of 13 the instrumentation capabilities associated with the Dabob, 14 and Nanoose RDT&E ranges, there is no other TSPI 15 available. 16 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training 17 Capability (JNTC) context. The complex has no inherent 18 radar tracking system for full overland and offshore area 19 coverage. 20 o M&S not available for: There is no M&S available for the 21 offshore areas in support of ASW. 22 o Scoring: No scoring system exists to support ASW in the 23 offshore areas. 24 o Debrief: The complex lacks a debrief capability for ASW 25 events offshore. 26 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 27 Minimal. The lack of instrumentation has little impact on the 28 submarines, surface ships, and aircraft which conduct ASW 29 events in the complex.
30 ASW OPFOR System 31 Requirement: The OPFOR System should include all necessary 32 components and elements associated with presenting friendly 33 event participants with an operating environment that replicates, 34 to the greatest extent practical, the expected enemy order of 35 battle in the area of planned operations. OPFOR for training 36 events in ASW should include threat ASW aircraft, surface 37 ships, and submarines. The OPFOR system should also be 38 capable of EC Threat Levels 1 or 2 for both surface and air 39 OPFOR. 40 Basic 41 o One live threat submarine. 42 o One (threshold) or two (objective) live surface threats. 43 o One live threat aircraft. 44 o EC Threat Level 1.
7-20 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Intermediate 2 o At least four live or virtual threat submarines, at least two of 3 which must be live (objective, only one live submarine 4 threshold). 5 o Up to four live or virtual surface threats, at least two of 6 which must be live (objective, only two live or virtual 7 surface combatant threats required, one of which must be 8 live, threshold). 9 o At least three live or virtual ASW threat aircraft, at least two 10 of which must be live (objective, only two live or virtual 11 threat aircraft required, one of which must be live, 12 threshold). 13 o EC Threat Level 2. 14 Current Capability: Minimal. 15 Discussion: The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated 16 OPFOR surface combatants or submarines; a diesel OPFOR 17 submarine is available in San Diego for deployment to the 18 complex for OPFOR role; fixed wing aircraft available through 19 CAS only. 20 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 21 Minimal. The OPFOR for ASW events in the NWTRC is 22 usually provided by other Fleet or foreign (Canadian Forces) 23 assets or through CAS for OPFOR aircraft.
24 7.3.5 Capabilities in support of Navy Mine Warfare
25 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 26 Basic (1); Intermediate (2) 27 28 Mine Warfare (MIW) in the NWTRC is a number one range priority 29 at the basic level of training and a number 2 at the intermediate level 30 of training. While the NWTRC is not required to support MIW at 31 the advanced level, Mine Countermeasures (MCM) has been 32 supported several times in the past using MH-53 helicopters pulling 33 MCM sleds in Crescent Harbor. When stationed in San Francisco, 34 the HMM units would send detachments to NAS Whidbey Island 35 bringing their own mine shapes with them. MCM could also be 36 potentially supported in the Admiralty Bay Mining Range, and 37 perhaps Nanoose should the need arise.
38 MIW Airspace 39 Requirement: 40 Basic 41 o A 6-hour time window. 42 o A 50 nm2 area. 43 o From surface to 5,000 feet AGL. 44 Intermediate 45 o A 12-hour time window.
7-21 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o A 100 nm2 area. 2 o From surface to 5,000 feet AGL. 3 Current Capability: Full. 4 Discussion: The Admiralty Bay restricted area (R-6701) of the 5 NWTRC which supports aerial mining, does not meet the RCD 6 requirement for area. R-6701 has 21nm² of area vice the 50nm² 7 and 100nm2 requirements. Other airspace over water in the 8 complex meets the RCD requirement. However, should the 9 requirement emerge, the Admiralty Bay Mining Range should be 10 considered for development of a mine target system.
11 MIW Sea Space 12 Requirement: The sea space required to support MIW training 13 events should allow for offensive mine laying operations and 14 defensive MCM. The mine laying range should be adjacent to or 15 in close proximity to one or more prominent land formations that 16 can be used by aircrews for geo-reference point for mine-laying 17 operations. 18 Basic 19 o A 6-hour time window. 20 o A 50 nm2 OPAREA. 21 Intermediate 22 o A 12-hour time window. 23 o A 100 nm2 OPAREA. 24 Current Capability: Partial. 25 Discussion: The Admiralty Bay area of the NWTRC which 26 supports aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for 27 area (21nm² of area vice the 50nm² and 100nm2 requirements). 28 Open ocean sea space in the complex meets the RCD 29 requirement but will not allow for scored mining. MCM training 30 is conducted in various smaller areas throughout Puget Sound, to 31 include Navy 3 and Crescent Harbor. In addition, MIW 32 operations have been conducted at the Canadian Forces Maritime 33 Experimental and Test Ranges (CFMETR) at Nanoose, Canada. 34 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 35 Minimal. The complex currently supports only aerial mining 36 and mine neutralization operations and the sea space capabilities 37 inherent in the range are more than adequate to meet training 38 requirements.
39 MIW Undersea Space 40 Requirement: MCM training operations are conducted 41 primarily against bottom mines and moored mines. MCM 42 training requires both shallow water (up to 600 feet) and deep 43 water (up to 1,200 feet) range areas. Areas must allow mine 44 laying.
7-22 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Basic 2 o A 6-hour time window. 3 o A 50 nm2 area. 4 o Surf zone to 600 feet deep. 5 o A UTR is desired but not required. 6 o Allow live firing of existing and projected MCM systems, 7 EOD ordnance, and mechanical cutters. 8 Intermediate 9 o A 12-hour time window. 10 o A 100 nm2 area. 11 o Surf zone to 1,200 feet deep. 12 o A UTR is desired but not required. 13 o Dedicated 1 nm x 2 nm area for Shock Wave Action 14 Generator (SWAG) operations and mine avoidance training. 15 Current Capability: Partial. 16 Discussion: The Admiralty Bay area of the NWTRC which 17 supports aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for 18 area (21nm² of area vice the 50nm² and 100nm2 requirements). 19 Open ocean sea space in the complex meets the RCD 20 requirement but will not allow for scored mining. MCM training 21 is conducted in various smaller areas throughout Puget Sound. 22 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 23 Minimal. The complex currently supports only aerial mining 24 and mine neutralization operations. The undersea space 25 capabilities inherent in the range are more than adequate to meet 26 training requirements.
27 MIW Communications System 28 Requirement: The communications system shall be comprised 29 of the following: 30 Basic 31 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits. One must support secure 32 communication, including ship-to-shore. 33 o At least three dedicated OC circuits (objective, only two OC 34 circuits required for threshold), at least one of which must 35 support secure communication. OC communications must 36 support communications with airborne, surface, submarine, 37 and NSW participants. 38 Intermediate 39 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits. One must support secure 40 communication, including ship-to-shore. 41 o At least three dedicated OC circuits (objective, only two OC 42 circuits required for threshold), at least one of which must 43 support secure communication. OC communications must 44 support communications with airborne, surface, submarine, 45 and NSW participants.
7-23 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o At least one data link circuit. 2 Current Capability: Partial. 3 Discussion: NAS Whidbey Island has communications systems 4 which allow NAS Whidbey Operations personnel to 5 communicate constantly with airborne aircraft operating in the 6 vicinity of Admiralty Bay for aerial mining operations. The 7 complex lacks the number (five in total) of circuits required for 8 MIW operations. 9 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 10 Minimal. Due to the limited nature of aerial mining, the lack of 11 communications has little effect on operations within the 12 complex.
13 MIW Target System 14 Requirement: The range should include a mixture of 15 instrumented and non-instrumented targets. Targets should 16 include threat representative mines and realistic false targets to 17 support threat discrimination training. Instrumented targets 18 should provide near real-time feedback on mission performance, 19 mine identification, boat vulnerability, and signature 20 characteristics. The range should support the use of MCM 21 weapons packages, EOD ordnance, and mechanical cutters. 22 Basic 23 o A minimum of 30 non-instrumented (objective, 15 24 threshold) and 20 instrumented (objective, 10 threshold) 25 target shapes to include a combination of bottom mines, 26 moored mines, and false targets. 27 o Must include non-mine shapes that require MCM operators 28 to classify shapes as mines or non-mines. 29 o Must include mine shapes on a dedicated mine avoidance 30 range. 31 o Must include targets for SWAG operations. 32 Intermediate 33 o A minimum of 30 non-instrumented (objective, 15 34 threshold) and 20 instrumented (objective 10 threshold) 35 target shapes to include a combination of bottom mines, 36 moored mines, and false targets. 37 o Must include non-mine shapes that require MCM operators 38 to classify shapes as mines or non-mines. 39 o Must include mine shapes on a dedicated mine avoidance 40 range. 41 o Must include targets for SWAG operations. 42 o Mine shapes and false targets must be mobile and 43 relocatable. 44 Current Capability: Minimal. 45 Discussion: The NWTRC has very few mine target shapes and 46 it does not have a mine avoidance range. Mine Target shapes are
7-24 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 used in mine neutralization operations. The NWTRC lacks the 2 instrumented mine shapes required to support MCM operations 3 by Aviation or Surface Based platforms, which is not an area 4 required for the complex to support. 5 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 6 Minimal. The complex currently supports only aerial mining 7 and mine neutralization operations and the targets inherent in the 8 range are more than adequate to meet training requirements.
9 MIW Instrumentation System 10 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 11 necessary components and elements associated with event 12 tracking, EC&C, M&S, scoring, and debriefing. EC&C: Both 13 levels require the ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D; 14 M&S: Both levels require ability to conduct M&S for A-G, S- 15 Sub, and Sub-Sub. Scoring: Basic level requires manual or auto 16 scoring; Intermediate level requires auto scoring. Both levels 17 require feedback in both real-time and post-mission. RTKN at 18 the both levels is voice or auto. Debrief: Local and remote 19 debrief capability at both levels. Specific TSPI requirements: 20 Basic 21 o Tracking TSPI 22 High Fidelity Tracks: 10; represents the fixed- or 23 rotary-wing aircraft requirement. 24 Low Fidelity Tracks: 22; Represents 20 25 instrumented mines and up to two surface/subsurface 26 participants. 27 Intermediate 28 o Tracking TSPI 29 High Fidelity Tracks: 20; represents the typical 30 requirements associated with an aviation mine 31 readiness certification inspection (MRCI); 32 requirements for MCM could be as low as 10. 33 Low Fidelity Tracks: 30; will accommodate a typical 34 MIW scenario of one or more submarines, two or 35 more surface ships, up to two UUVs, and up to 20 36 instrumented mines. 37 Current Capability: Partial. 38 Discussion: 39 o TSPI: The NWTRC lacks the instrumented mine shapes or 40 TSPI instrumentation required to support MCM operations 41 by Aviation or Surface Based platforms, which is not an area 42 required for the complex to support. 43 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training 44 Capability (JNTC) context: The range complex has no 45 inherent radar tracking system for the offshore areas. 46 o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S 47 capabilities to support MIW operations.
7-25 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Scoring: Scoring for aerial mining is limited to visual 2 sighting by operating personnel. 3 o Debrief: The complex lacks the capability for debrief of 4 aerial mining events. 5 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 6 Minimal. The complex currently supports only aerial mining 7 and mine neutralization operations at the basic and intermediate 8 levels; however, the lack of capabilities in the instrumentation 9 system has little effect on the accomplishment of these 10 operations.
11 MIW OPFOR System 12 Requirement: The OPFOR System should include all necessary 13 components and elements associated with presenting friendly 14 event participants with an operating environment that replicates, 15 to the greatest extent practical, the expected enemy order of 16 battle in the area of planned operations. 17 Basic 18 o N/A 19 Intermediate 20 o At least 2 Live fixed- or rotary-wing threat aircraft 21 (objective, only 1 live aircraft required for threshold). 22 o At least 1 Live submarine threat (objective, no submarine 23 required for threshold). 24 o EC Threat Level 2. 25 Current Capability: Minimal 26 Discussion: The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated 27 OPFOR submarines; a diesel OPFOR submarine is available in 28 San Diego for deployment to the complex for OPFOR role; fixed 29 wing aircraft available through CAS only. 30 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 31 Minimal. Opposed MIW events are not a requirement of the 32 complex.
33 7.3.6 Capabilities in support of Navy Strike Warfare
34 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 35 Basic (2); Intermediate (3) 36 37 Strike Warfare (STW) in the NWTRC is a number two range priority 38 at the basic level of training and a number 3 range priority at the 39 intermediate level of training.
40 STW Airspace 41 Requirement: The airspace required for STW training events 42 and exercises must support: A-G gunnery, free-fall weapons, and
7-26 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 guided A-G munitions; naval gunnery (NSFS); stand-off A-G 2 tactics; land attack cruise missiles; and laser designating devices. 3 Basic 4 o A 1-hour time window. 5 o A 20 nm x 100 nm area from surface to 23,000 feet AGL 6 that would allow multiple separate and concurrent aviation 7 range events using “closed” racetrack ordnance delivery 8 patterns at geographically separated targets or target 9 complexes (objective, 20nm x 50 nm threshold). 10 Intermediate 11 o A 4-hour time window. 12 o A 50 nm x 100 nm area from surface to 50,000 feet AGL 13 that would provide sufficient airspace to allow the use of 14 stand-off A-G tactics, NSFS, and land attack cruise missiles, 15 and would allow two separate and concurrent large-scale 16 tactical strikes against geographically-separated targets 17 complexes. 18 o Area should be cleared for supersonic operations and the use 19 of A-G gunnery, free-fall and guided A-G munitions, naval 20 gunnery, and sea-launched cruise missiles. 21 o Must allow the use of laser designating devices and the 22 expenditure of chaff and flares. 23 Current Capability: Partial. 24 Discussion: Ranges do not meet RCD requirements for area or 25 altitude at basic or intermediate levels. Boardman is the only 26 A-G target in the NWTRC. Its airspace is approximately 30 nm 27 x 20 nm and has a ceiling of 20,000 feet. The range lacks 28 multiple geographically separated targets. Supersonic operations 29 are not allowed. 30 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 31 Moderate. Due to the limited nature of strike warfare, the lack 32 of sufficient range dimensions and quantity of ranges has little 33 effect on current operations within the complex. However, the 34 EA-18G will be based at Whidbey Island, and when the aircraft 35 gains an A-G capability (expected in later models), aircrews will 36 require a fully capable backyard STW range.
37 STW Sea Space 38 Requirement: Sea space is not required for Basic aviation STW 39 training, although it is required for Basic surface and subsurface 40 STW training. The available sea space should accommodate 41 typical training scenarios associated with employment of sea- 42 launched cruise missiles and NSFS. Specific requirements are: 43 Basic 44 o A 1-hour time window. 45 o A 75 nm x 75 nm OPAREA.
7-27 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Accommodate two simultaneous and concurrent surface 2 and/or subsurface events. 3 Intermediate 4 o A 4-hour time window. 5 o A 75 nm x 75 nm OPAREA. 6 o Accommodate two simultaneous and concurrent surface 7 and/or subsurface events. 8 Current Capability: Full 9 Discussion: The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets 10 the requirements of the RCD for sea space.
11 STW Undersea Space 12 Requirement: The undersea space should be an area of similar 13 size (75 nm x 75 nm) and capabilities of the sea space area, with 14 an added dimension of depth to 300 feet. Specific requirements 15 are: 16 Basic 17 o A 1-hour time window. 18 o A 75 nm x 75 nm range. 19 o Surface to 300 feet. 20 Intermediate 21 o A 4-hour time window. 22 o A 75 nm x 75 nm range. 23 o Surface to 300 feet. 24 Current Capability: Full 25 Discussion: The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets 26 the requirements of the RCD for sea space.
27 STW Land Area 28 Requirement: Land area is required for all levels of STW 29 training. It should be of sufficient size or area to allow the 30 installation of at least two scored targets. The land should be 31 cleared for use of live or inert A-G gunnery, and live or inert 32 precision or non-precision A-G munitions, and land attack cruise 33 missile munitions. Specific requirements are: 34 Basic 35 o A 1-hour time window. 36 o One 20 nm x 20 nm range (objective, 10 nm x 10 nm 37 threshold). 38 o Inert munitions up to 2,000 pounds. 39 o Live munitions up to 1,000 pounds. 40 o Supports two separate, simultaneous, and concurrent events 41 (objective, not required for threshold). 42 o Cleared for use of laser targeting and designating devices.
7-28 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Intermediate 2 o A 4-hour time window on two geographically-separated 20 3 nm x 20 nm ranges. 4 o Live and inert precision and non-precision A-G munitions up 5 to 2,000 pounds. 6 o Land-attack cruise missiles munitions up to 2,000 pounds. 7 o Allows simultaneous engagement of disparate targets by 8 separate strikes. 9 Current Capability: Partial. 10 Discussion: The only A-G range in the complex is NWSTF 11 Boardman. Boardman is a 48,000 acre range, with approximate 12 dimensions of 6 nm x 12 nm. Although its size falls short of the 13 RCD requirement, simultaneous events have taken place at 14 Boardman in the past. The range is cleared for inert ordnance 15 only. The range can support laser targeting systems. 16 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 17 Moderate. 18 o NTAs affected: 3.2.6 (Interdict Enemy Operational 19 Forces/Targets). 20 o R2R Training Impact and Current Workaround: 21 Prohibits certain training events, reduces realism, limits 22 application of new technologies;, inhibits new tactics 23 development, reduces live fire proficiency, increases 24 personnel tempo, and increases O&M costs. Whidbey Island 25 units with an A-G capability must rely on out-of-area 26 training to fulfill unit level requirements. 27 o Impact of Current Shortfall on Introducing New Weapon 28 Systems, Tactics, or Missions: The EA-18G is expected to 29 have an A-G capability in future models. Lack of a suitable 30 backyard training range for STW training will result in the 31 above mentioned impacts. 32 Recommendation: Redesign target areas at NWSTF Boardman 33 to accommodate geographically separated targets or target 34 complexes that would allow multiple separate and concurrent 35 aviation range events using “closed” racetrack ordnance delivery 36 patterns.
37 STW Communications System 38 Requirement: The communications system shall be comprised 39 of the following: 40 Basic 41 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits, one of which must support 42 secure communication, including ship-to-shore. 43 o At least three dedicated OC circuits (objective, only 2 for 44 threshold), one of which must support secure 45 communication, including communications with airborne, 46 surface, submarine, and NSW participants.
7-29 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Intermediate 2 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits, one of which must support 3 secure communication, including ship-to-shore. 4 o At least four dedicated OC circuits, at least two of which 5 must support secure communication, including 6 communications with airborne, surface, submarine, and 7 NSW participants. 8 o At least two D/L circuits. 9 Current Capability: Partial. 10 Discussion: Range communications at Boardman consists of 1 11 UHF and 1 VHF radio for aircraft communication and 1 FM 12 radio for ground communications on the range. There are no 13 secure communications at NWSTF Boardman. 14 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 15 Minimal. Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G 16 begins A-G training from Whidbey Island. 17 Recommendation: Jointly use ORNG communications 18 capabilities and ensure those capabilities are compatible with 19 future requirements. Additionally, increase the communications 20 capability at Boardman in conjunction with the planning for 21 EA-18G strike operations.
22 STW Target System 23 Requirement: The target system should include all necessary 24 components and elements associated with presenting and 25 controlling structural, revetted, and moving targets. STW 26 training requires a minimum of two geographically separate 27 targets. The target systems must allow the use of live and inert 28 weapons. Specific requirements are: 29 Basic 30 o At least two separate live/inert weapons target sites 31 (objective, only one site for threshold). 32 o A minimum of 4 Desired Mean Points of Impact (DMPIs) at 33 each site (not including raked and strafe ranges). 34 o Includes raked and strafe ranges. 35 o Inert weapons up to 2000 pounds. 36 o Live weapons up to 1000 pounds. 37 o Some of the targets should allow the use of laser designators. 38 Intermediate 39 o At least four separate live/inert weapons target sites (targets 40 sites may be L or V, but at least 2 of the targets must be L). 41 o At least one target site must allow the use of live and inert 42 weapons up to 2,000 pounds. 43 o Target sites should be distributed throughout the range/range 44 complex, with a minimum of 4 DMPIs at each site.
7-30 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o All targets should possess both visual and infrared signatures 2 (building structure, revetted, and moving targets must 3 replicate to the greatest degree practical the physical 4 characteristics and spectral signatures of the type of targets 5 expected to be encountered in the project are of operations). 6 o At least some of the structural targets should replicate 7 congested urban terrain, requiring discrimination between 8 valid and invalid targets. 9 o Some of the targets should allow the use of laser designators. 10 Current Capability: Partial. 11 Discussion: The bombing range has several targets and run-in 12 lines. Throughout the target area are radar reflectors and tactical 13 targets of wood and metal construction (simulated AAA sites). 14 An Army tank is located at the center of the main bull. There is 15 a strafe pit and a current SOP is under revision to include strafe 16 operations for FA-18, A-10, F-15, F-16 and AV-8 aircraft. 17 There are no structural targets. 18 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 19 Minimal. Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G 20 begins A-G training from Whidbey Island. 21 Recommendation: Initiate comprehensive range planning and 22 environmental planning (EA/EIS) to re-develop the bombing 23 range target areas and target suites in coordination with Navy 24 RCD requirements, other NWTRC training needs (NSW MOUT, 25 etc), and joint use needs of the ORNG.
26 STW Instrumentation System 27 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 28 necessary components and elements associated with event 29 tracking, EC&C, M&S, scoring, and debriefing. EC&C: Basic 30 level requires the ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D; 31 M&S: Basic level requires ability to conduct M&S for A-S, A-G, 32 S-S, S-A, and Sub-S. Scoring: Basic level requires manual or 33 auto scoring. Basic requires feedback in real-time. RTKN at the 34 Basic level is voice or auto. Debrief: Local and remote debrief 35 capability. Specific TSPI requirements: 36 Basic 37 o Tracking TSPI 38 High Fidelity Tracks: 10; includes at least 4 Blue 39 aircraft and 4 land-attack missiles. 40 Low Fidelity Tracks: 4; includes the surface and 41 subsurface land-attack or NSFS platforms and AEW 42 aircraft. 43 Intermediate 44 o Tracking TSPI 45 High Fidelity Tracks: 26; includes up to 12 Blue and 46 12 OPFOR tactical aircraft and 2 UAVs.
7-31 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Low Fidelity Tracks: 12; includes at least three 2 surface/subsurface NSF and land-attack missile 3 platforms and at least 8 support aircraft. 4 Current Capability: Minimal. 5 Discussion: 6 o TSPI: The range complex lacks TSPI coverage for the 7 ranges, nor does it have any EC&C or M&S capability. 8 o Scoring: Scoring systems once present at NWSTF 9 Boardman are no longer usable. Scoring towers remain, but 10 all scoring equipment has been removed. 11 o Debrief: The complex lacks any debrief capabilities for 12 STW events. 13 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 14 Moderate. Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G 15 begins A-G training from Whidbey Island. 16 Recommendation: Initiate comprehensive range planning and 17 environmental planning (EA/EIS) to re-develop the bombing 18 range target areas and target suites in coordination with Navy 19 RCD requirements and other NWTRC training needs (NSW 20 MOUT, etc.). Investigate potential to jointly broaden the 21 computerized instrumentation and target system the ORNG will 22 be installing for their own ranges.
23 STW OPFOR System 24 Requirement: The OPFOR System should include all necessary 25 components and elements associated with presenting friendly 26 event participants with an operating environment that replicates, 27 to the greatest extent practical, the expected enemy order of 28 battle in the area of planned operations. OPFOR for training 29 events in STW should consist of realistic EC threat levels, and 30 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft with A-A missile capability. 31 Specific requirements are: 32 Basic 33 o EC Threat Level 1. 34 Intermediate 35 o At least two live or virtual rotary-wing threat aircraft with A- 36 A missile capability, one of which must be live. 37 o Live or virtual fixed-wing threat aircraft equal in number to 38 1.5 times the number of friendly aircraft, up to a total of 12 39 threat aircraft per event. (The total number of rotary-and 40 fixed-wing threat aircraft may include a combination of live, 41 virtual, and constructive threats, so long as the number of 42 live threats is equal to or great than the number of live 43 friendly aircraft). 44 o EC Threat Level 3. 45 Current Capability: Minimal.
7-32 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Discussion: The NWTRC has no dedicated rotary wing OPFOR 2 aircraft; or fixed wing through contract air services. There is no 3 EC capability at Boardman. 4 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 5 Minimal. If needed for STW training operations in the complex, 6 other aircraft from Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island can 7 perform as OPFOR for the basic and intermediate training 8 requirements. Impact could become Moderate when the 9 EA-18G begins A-G training from Whidbey Island. 10 Recommendation: Develop mobile ECM emitters and “Smart 11 Targets” for OPFOR EC as well as coordinate with Portland Air 12 Guard, Klamath Falls Air Guard, and 366th FW (Mountain 13 Home) for OPFOR air with CAS as necessary to supplement 14 military units. Coordinate with Portland USAFR H-60’s and 15 Pendleton Guard CH-47’s as rotary wing OPFOR as available. 16 Coordinate with ORNG for ground based OPFOR (simulated 17 gunnery/SAM) as required and available.
18 7.3.7 Capabilities in support of Navy Electronic Combat
19 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 20 Basic (1); Intermediate (3) 21 22 Electronic Combat (EC) is supported at NWTRC for both the basic 23 and intermediate levels. Intermediate and Advanced level EC 24 training is conducted in conjunction with other PRMAR range 25 functions.
26 EC Airspace 27 Requirement: 28 Basic 29 o 45 minute period. 30 o 30 nm by 60 nm area. 31 o Surface to 30,000 feet AGL. 32 o Allows the use of chaff and flares. 33 o Should support two concurrent events. 34 Intermediate 35 o Intermediate Level EC training is conducted in conjunction 36 with Intermediate Levels of training as part of the other 37 PRMAR range functions. 38 Current Capability: Partial.. 39 Discussion: The offshore airspace associated with W-237 meets 40 the RCD dimensional Requirement. The Okanogan and 41 Roosevelt MOAs, when combined with their associated high 42 altitude Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) meet 43 the airspace requirement. The area which predominately 44 supports EC operations in the NWTRC is the Darrington 45 OPAREA. Altitude limits are not clearly specified, but can be
7-33 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 expected from 10,000 feet MSL to FL230. Chaff and flare 2 expenditure is allowed in all offshore areas. Flare expenditure is 3 allowed overland but only in designated SUA and above 500 feet 4 (700 for helicopters). 5 Recommendation: Acquire EW emitters to be located 6 throughout the range complex and along the coast so that aircraft 7 and ships can receive simulated electronic signals.
8 EC Sea Space 9 Requirement: 10 Basic 11 o 1 hour period. 12 o 20 nm by 30 nm area. 13 o Allow land-based and airborne EC emitters to stimulate the 14 surface or subsurface combatants’ onboard equipment. 15 o Allow for multiple concurrent events. 16 Intermediate 17 o Intermediate Level EC training is conducted in conjunction 18 with Intermediate Levels of training I the other PRMAR 19 range functions. 20 Current Capability: Partial. 21 Discussion: The sea space associated with the NWTRC meets 22 the RCD requirement in terms of dimension and availability. 23 However, the sea space is not situated such that existing land- 24 based EW emitters can stimulate surface and subsurface 25 combatants’ onboard equipment. 26 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 27 Moderate. 28 NTAs Affected: 3.2.5 29 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Ships must 30 conduct EW training in other ranges. 31 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 32 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: None. 33 Recommendation: Acquire an EW emitter to be located along 34 the coast so that ships underway can receive simulated electronic 35 signals.
36 EC Undersea Space 37 Requirement: 38 Basic 39 o 1 hour period. 40 o 20 nm by 30 nm OPAREA. 41 Intermediate 42 o Intermediate Level EC training is conducted in conjunction 43 with Intermediate Levels of training I the other PRMAR 44 range functions.
7-34 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Current Capability: Full. 2 Discussion: The undersea space associated with the NWTRC 3 meets the full RCD requirement; however, no EC emitter is 4 located so that it could provide EC training to underway 5 submarines. 6 Recommendation: Acquire an EW emitter on the coast to 7 provide EC training to subs.
8 EC Land Area 9 Requirement: 10 Basic 11 o 45 minutes period. 12 o 20 nm by 20 nm range (capability objective). 13 o Allow for two concurrent events. 14 Intermediate 15 o Intermediate Level EC training is conducted in conjunction 16 with Intermediate Levels of training I the other PRMAR 17 range functions. 18 Current Capability: Partial. 19 Discussion: The NWTRC does not have any dedicated land area 20 within the complex with the exception of the Naval Weapons 21 Training Facility at Boardman, which, while smaller than 22 required, could be configured to conduct two concurrent events 23 as the emitters have to be on Navy land, but the aircraft only 24 have to be inside the restricted airspace. The Boardman area 25 does routinely support EC operations, but they are all tactics 26 based on pre-planned or made-up on-the-spot “simulated 27 threats”, not actual RF threat transmissions from an emitter. 28 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 29 Minimal. The lack of dedicated land area has little effect on the 30 EC operations conducted by EA-6B and P-3 aircraft in the 31 NWTRC. 32 Recommendation: Initiate comprehensive range planning and 33 environmental planning (EA/EIS) to redevelop the bombing 34 range target areas, target suites and EC capabilities in 35 coordination with Navy STW and EC RCD requirements, other 36 NWTRC training needs (NSW MOUT, etc) and joint use needs 37 of the ORNG.
38 EC Communications System 39 Requirement: 40 Basic 41 o Two dedicated EC&C circuits, at least one of which must 42 support secure communication, including ship-to-shore. 43 o Two dedicated OC circuits, one of which must support 44 secure communication, including communications with 45 airborne, surface, and subsurface participants.
7-35 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Intermediate 2 o Intermediate Level EC training is conducted in conjunction 3 with Intermediate Levels of training I the other PRMAR 4 range functions. 5 Current Capability: Partial. 6 Discussion: NAS Whidbey Island lacks a secure 7 communications circuit capable of communications with 8 airborne, surface and subsurface participants. 9 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 10 Minimal. The EC Operations which occur in the NWTRC are 11 predominantly by EA-6B aircraft and are affected little by the 12 communications shortfall in the completing of required training. 13 Recommendation: None.
14 EC Target System 15 Requirement: 16 Basic 17 o Multiple, geographically separated sites with equipment 18 arrayed consistent with OPFOR tactical employment. 19 o Visually significant targets that replicate the expected threat 20 Enemy Order of Battle (EOB) equipment. 21 o At least one site should allow for the use of live weapons, 22 including anti-radiation missiles. 23 Intermediate 24 o Intermediate Level EC training is conducted in conjunction 25 with Intermediate Levels of training I the other PRMAR 26 range functions. 27 Current Capability: Minimal. 28 Discussion: There is one AN/FSQ-T22 Remote Emitter Signal 29 Simulator located at Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville. VAQ, 30 VP and VQ aircrew conduct electronic surveillance measure 31 (ESM) and Electronic Attack (EA) training in the Darrington 32 OPAREA, using this FSQ emitter. 33 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 34 Moderate. 35 NTAs Affected: 3.2.5. 36 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Aircrews are 37 unable to see threats from multiple axes and conduct much 38 of their training at remote locations, including Fallon and 39 SOCAL. 40 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 41 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: Impact 42 unchanged with introduction of EA-18G. 43 Recommendation: Acquire Smart targets and mobile emitters 44 for use at NWSTF Boardman. Also, acquire a fixed emitter, to 45 be located along the Pacific coastline.
7-36 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 EC Instrumentation System 2 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 3 necessary components and elements associated with event 4 tracking, EC&C, M&S, scoring, and debriefing. EC&C: Basic 5 level requires the ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D; 6 M&S: Basic level requires ability to conduct M&S for A-A, A-S, 7 A-G, S-S, S-A, S-Sub, and Sub-Sub. Scoring: Basic level 8 requires auto scoring. Basic requires feedback in real-time. 9 RTKN at the Basic level is voice. Debrief: Local and remote 10 debrief capability. Specific TSPI requirements: 11 Basic 12 o TSPI: five high fidelity and one low fidelity. 13 o The ability to conduct EC&C in 2-D and 3-D. 14 o The ability to conduct M&S for A-S, A-G, S-S, S-A, and S- 15 Sub. 16 o An automatic scoring system. 17 o The ability to provide feedback both real-time and post 18 mission; have voice RTKN. 19 o The ability to provide an event debrief at both the host range 20 facility and some other remote location. 21 Intermediate 22 o All Intermediate level EC training requirements are reflected 23 in the Intermediate Level Instrumentation requirements for 24 all other range functions. 25 Current Capability: Partial. 26 Discussion: 27 o TSPI: The NWTRC lacks TSPI for portions of overland 28 SUA in the complex. M&S or scoring capability. 29 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training 30 Capability (JNTC) context: The range complex has no 31 inherent radar tracking system for all overland and offshore 32 areas. 33 o M&S not available for: Simulation for EC is only 34 available for aircraft operations via the AN/FSQ-T22 35 Electronic Combat Trainer. No other M&S is available for 36 EC operations. 37 o Scoring: The AN/FSQ-T22 trainer automatically scores EC 38 events. 39 o Debrief: The AN/FSQ-T22 has a debrief capability for EC 40 operations. 41 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 42 Moderate. The lack of instrumentation within the complex 43 limits the effectiveness of aircrew training in EC. No real-time 44 or debrief capability exists that could greatly enhance current 45 and future training requirements. 46 Recommendation: Recommend acquiring instrumentation 47 systems that meet the RCD requirements.
7-37 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 EC OPFOR System 2 Requirement: To meet the full requirement for the basic level 3 in EC training events, the OPFOR system must be capable of EC 4 Threat Level 1. EC threat level 1 represents a limited number 5 (1-2) of threat weapon system emitters, used primarily for threat 6 signal recognition. EC threat level 1 systems generate signals 7 with sufficient realism and fidelity to stimulate friendly 8 platforms’ signal recognition, processing, and display systems. 9 Specific requirements are: 10 Basic 11 o EC Threat Level 1. 12 Intermediate 13 o All Intermediate level EC training requirements are reflected 14 in the Intermediate Level Instrumentation requirements for 15 all other range functions. 16 Current Capability: Full. 17 Discussion: There is one AN/FSQ-T22 Remote Emitter Signal 18 Simulator located at Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville. No 19 OPFOR EC at Boardman. VAQ, VP and VQ aircrew conduct 20 electronic surveillance measure (ESM) and Electronic Attack 21 (EA) training in the Darrington OPAREA, using this FSQ 22 emitter. This EC system meets the OPFOR requirements for EC 23 threat level 1. 24 Recommendation: Provide EC OPFOR at Boardman via Smart 25 Target and/or mobile emitters and install an EC emitter along the 26 coast that can be used in W-237.
27 7.3.8 Capabilities in support of Naval Special Warfare (NSW) and Explosive Ordnance 28 Disposal (EOD)
29 Training Level (Range’s Role & Mission Priority): 30 Basic (1); Intermediate (2) 31 32 NSW is supported in the NWTRC at the basic (Professional 33 Development [PRODEV]) and intermediate (Unit Level Training 34 [ULT]) level of training.
35 NSW and EOD Airspace 36 Requirement: Airspace is required for qualification level 37 training associated with both rotary- and fixed-wing units and for 38 S-A indirect fire weapons. Specific requirements are: 39 PRODEV 40 o Normally not required. 41 ULT 42 o A day-night period. 43 o Area from surface to 6,000 feet AGL. (Surface to 25,000 feet 44 AGL required for High Altitude, Low Opening (HALO) and 45 High Altitude, High Opening (HAHO) jump training). 46 o Area extends 8 nm on either side of the land area.
7-38 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Current Capability: Full. 2 Discussion: W-237 starts 3 nm from the shoreline, extending 3 seaward. The Olympic MOA covers a portion of the Olympic 4 Peninsula and extends to the border of W-237 A/B, 3 nm beyond 5 the shoreline. When combined, W-237 A/B and the Olympic 6 MOA meet most of the airspace requirements. (The Olympic 7 MOA does not extend below 6,000 feet and, although over land, 8 the MOA is not over a land range. Airspace at NWSTF 9 Boardman is restricted up to 20,000 feet and it is possible to 10 NOTAM the extra 5,000 feet to meet the 25,000 foot 11 requirement. High Altitude Low Opening (HALO) and High 12 Altitude High Opening (HAHO) parachute operations are 13 currently conducted at the OLF Drop Zone at OLF Coupeville, 14 however due to airspace limitations maximum altitude is 15 restricted to 13,000 feet. 16 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 17 Minimal. The positioning of the airspace to the land area has 18 little effect on those NSW operations which occur in the 19 NWTRC. Raising the altitude of the restricted area associated 20 with NWSTF Boardman to FL250 should be considered. 21 Recommendation: Certify a DZ to conduct HALO/HAHO at 22 NWSTF Boardman when altitudes in excess of 13,000 feet are 23 required.
24 NSW and EOD Sea Space 25 Requirement: 26 PRODEV 27 o Normally not required. 28 ULT 29 o A 50 nm2 area that is at least 5 nm wide, centered on and 30 contiguous to the beachfront, and extending seaward to the 31 staging platform(s). 32 Current Capability: Partial. 33 Discussion: The at sea areas meet the dimension and area 34 requirements of the RCD but do not start until 3nm from the 35 beachfront. Crescent Harbor has over 4 square miles of sea 36 space backed by the 782 acre survival area at NAS Whidbey 37 Island Seaplane Base with 2.5 nm of beach front and has been 38 used for Joint and Army Special Operations exercises in the past. 39 Ault Field has 4.2nm of beach front and Navy 3 surface 40 restricted area is approximately 5 miles offshore. Both Ault 41 Field and the Seaplane Base survival area have been used for 42 small unit Special Forces over the beach operations. 43 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 44 Minimal. The sea space positioning with respect to the 45 beachfront has little effect on those NSW operations which occur 46 in the NWTRC.
7-39 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 NSW and EOD Undersea Space 2 Requirement: 3 PRODEV 4 o Normally not required. 5 ULT 6 o A 30 nm2 area that is at least 5 nm wide, centered on and 7 contiguous to the beachfront, and extending seaward to the 8 staging platform(s). 9 o At least some portion of the undersea space must be cleared 10 for the use of MCM weapons, explosive, and clearing 11 devices used by NSW/EOD. 12 Current Capability: Partial. 13 Discussion: The undersea space meets the area requirements of 14 the RCD but does not start until 3nm from the beachfront. The 15 water area of Crescent Harbor near the Whidbey Island Seaplane 16 Base is up to 15 fathoms (90 feet) deep in places and is cleared 17 for use of MCM weapons, explosive, and clearing devices. 18 Explosive charges are authorized with a net explosive weight 19 (NEW) up to 20 pounds (lbs) in off shore areas deeper than 40 20 feet, but a recommended normal NEW usage of 2.5lbs has been 21 requested by Commander, Navy Region Northwest (CNRNW). 22 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 23 Moderate. The undersea space positioning with respect to the 24 beachfront has little effect on those NSW operations which occur 25 in the NWTRC. The lack of ability to use higher NEW in 26 EOD/MCM operations has an impact on the realism of these 27 operations. 28 NTAs Affected: 1.1.2.4, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.4, 1.5.6 29 Training Impact and Current Workaround: Self- 30 imposed restrictions in place at Crescent Harbor prohibit 31 certain training events, segments training reduces realism, 32 limits application of new weapons technologies, inhibits 33 tactics development, and reduces live fire proficiency. 34 Currently EOD personnel are using lower a NEW, but are 35 not getting the required training in all aspects of mine 36 neutralization. 37 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 38 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: Lack capability 39 to train with new technologies due to NEW restrictions has 40 an impact on any future weapons development. 41 Recommendation: Incorporate Biological Assessment (BA) 42 and Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for EOD operations 43 in Crescent Harbor into future NWTRC NEPA studies. 44 Periodically review self-imposed restrictions to ensure they are 45 valid and do not overly inhibit EOD unit readiness.
7-40 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 NSW and EOD Land Area 2 Requirement: 3 PRODEV 4 o Small arms ranges capable of accommodating MK-46 and 5 MK-48 machine guns. 6 ULT 7 o Small arms ranges capable of accommodating MK-46 and 8 MK-48 machine guns. 9 o A 24 hour day-night period on a land area that includes 10 dedicated Maneuver, Live-Fire and Maneuver, and Military 11 Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) areas. 12 o Maneuver: A dedicated area of at least 20 nm2 that 13 includes 5,000 yards of beachfront that would allow at 14 least five optional venues (with varying terrain) of 15 1,000 yards each. 16 o Live-Fire and Maneuver: 20 nm2 area with 1,000-yard 17 beachfront. At least some portion should be cleared for 18 live-fire weapons. 19 o MOUT Facility: Must include a central urban area (at 20 least .5 sq miles) and a smaller outlying area that 21 support live-fire training for direct- and indirect-fire 22 weapons, breaching, and rotary-wing Combat Air 23 Support (CAS). 24 o Live-Fire Training Area: At least 6 sq miles, including 25 a Surface Danger Zone (SDZ) for direct and indirect 26 weapon systems. At least some portion should be 27 cleared for the use of live Naval Sea Fire Support 28 (NSFS), A-G, and NSW weapons and laser target 29 designation. 30 o SUA: Must include SUA for approach. 31 Current Capability: Minimal. 32 Discussion: Ault Field has a live fire outdoor pistol and rifle 33 range; the MK-46 and MK-48 machine guns fire standard caliber 34 rifle rounds. However, the NWTRC lacks any large dedicated 35 land area associated with a beachfront and does not have a 36 MOUT. Additionally, there are no live fire maneuver ranges in 37 the Puget Sound area or at Kodiak Island. 38 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 39 Moderate. The lack of land area, maneuver area, firing range, 40 and a MOUT has a moderate impact on NSW training events 41 that occur in the NWTRC. 42 NTAs Affected: 1.1.2.4, 1.5.6, 4.9 43 Training Impact and Current Workaround: SEALs 44 currently segment their training they conduct in the 45 NWTRC. They conduct the underwater transit portion of 46 their training here, but the lack of live fire ranges forces 47 them to conduct live fire training elsewhere. They have a 48 need for the ability to run an end-to-end operation; one that 49 entails covert underwater transit and over-the-beach
7-41 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 transition to an actual live fire event. SEALs conducting 2 cold weather training at Kodiak have a similar need. SEALs 3 have a requirement to maneuver in a cold weather 4 environment, then transition to a live fire solution. No live 5 fire range exists in Kodiak for this training. 6 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 7 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: None. 8 Recommendation: Discuss with ORNG any need for a MOUT 9 facility they have that could be jointly developed at NWSTF 10 Boardman. Pursue a live fire capability that would allow the 11 SEALs to conduct live fire training as the culmination of an 12 over-the-beach exercise. Also, aggressively pursue a live fire 13 range on Kodiak that would allow firing 7.62mm and 5.56mm 14 weapons.
15 NSW and EOD Communications System 16 Requirement: The communications system shall be comprised 17 of the following: 18 PRODEV 19 o One EC&C circuit. 20 o At least 3 OC circuits to support communications with 21 ground, airborne, and surface participants. 22 ULT 23 o Two EC&C circuits, one of which must support A-G and 24 ship-to-shore (where applicable). 25 o Three OC circuits, one of which must support A-G and ship- 26 to-shore (where applicable). 27 o One data link circuit. 28 Current Capability: Minimal. 29 Discussion: The preponderance of NSW training is either 30 underwater or at the Kodiak Cold Weather Training facility. 31 Lack of these communications systems has little impact on NSW 32 training. 33 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 34 Minimal.
35 NSW and EOD Target System 36 Requirement: 37 PRODEV 38 o N/A 39 ULT 40 o Exposed beach obstacles and fortified beach or near-shore 41 defenses, at least some of which must be cleared for 42 engagement with inert A-G weapons, and live NSW 43 weapons and explosives. 44 o Dedicated targets cleared for engagement with live NSFS 45 ordnance. 46 Current Capability: Minimal.
7-42 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Discussion: Ault Field has a live fire outdoor pistol and rifle 2 range. However, the NWTRC lacks any beach obstacles or 3 fortified beach or near-shore defenses. Additionally, there are no 4 live fire manuever ranges in the Puget Sound area or at Kodiak 5 Island. 6 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 7 Moderate. The lack of a firing range has a moderate impact on 8 NSW training events that occur in the NWTRC. 9 NTAs Affected: 1.1.2.4, 1.5.6, 4.9 10 Training Impact and Current Workaround: SEALs 11 currently segment their training they conduct in the 12 NWTRC. They conduct the underwater transit portion of 13 their training here, but the lack of live fire ranges forces 14 them to conduct live fire training elsewhere. They have a 15 need for the ability to run an end-to-end operation; one that 16 entails covert underwater transit, and over-the-beach 17 transition to an actual live fire event. SEALs conducting 18 cold weather training at Kodiak have a similar need. SEALs 19 have a requirement to maneuver in a cold weather 20 environment, then transition to a live fire solution. No live 21 fire range exists in Kodiak for this training. 22 Impact on Current Shortfall of Introducing New 23 Weapons Systems, Tactics, or Missions: None. 24 Recommendation: Pursue a live fire capability that would 25 allow the SEALs to conduct live fire training as the culmination 26 of an over-the-beach exercise. Also, aggressively pursue a live 27 fire maneuver range on Kodiak that would allow firing 7.62mm 28 and 5.56mm weapons.
29 NSW Instrumentation System 30 Requirement: The instrumentation system should include all 31 necessary components and elements associated with event 32 tracking, EC&C, M&S, scoring, and debriefing. To meet 33 requirements of NSW training events the range should have the 34 following: ability to track five low fidelity targets; the ability to 35 conduct EC&C in 2-D; the ability to conduct M&S for A-S, A- 36 G, G-G, S-S, S-A, and Sub-S; an automatic scoring system; the 37 ability to provide real-time feedback; have auto RTKN; and the 38 ability to provide an event debrief locally. 39 Current Capability: Minimal. 40 Discussion: 41 o TSPI: The NUWC ranges meet the underwater TSPI 42 instrumentation required by the RCD to support NSW 43 operations. There is no air or surface TSPI system 44 throughout the range complex. 45 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training 46 Capability (JNTC) context: The range complex has no 47 inherent radar tracking system.
7-43 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S 2 capabilities to support NSW operations. 3 o Scoring: There is no scoring capability in the range 4 complex. 5 o Debrief: The complex lacks the capability for debrief of 6 NSW events. 7 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 8 Minimal. The preponderance of NSW training is either 9 underwater or at the Kodiak Cold Weather Training facility. 10 Instrumentation capabilities in the Puget Sound area exceed the 11 needs of the NSW forces that train there. No instrumentation is 12 required for NSW training at Kodiak.
13 NSW OPFOR System 14 Requirement: 15 PRODEV 16 o Individual Free Option Simulator (rules of engagement 17 simulator). 18 ULT 19 o A live, virtual, or constructive company-sized ground force, 20 at least a company of which must be live. 21 o A live, virtual, or constructive platoon-sized armored or 22 mechanized vehicle force, at least a platoon of which must 23 be live. 24 o Live, virtual, or constructive personnel or single vehicles. 25 o EC Threat Level 2. 26 Current Capability: Minimal. 27 Discussion: The NWTRC lacks any dedicated NSW opposition 28 forces and lacks the ability to create these forces virtually. 29 Current Operational Impact of Capability Shortfall: 30 Minimal. The lack of an OPFOR has little impact on the types 31 of NSW training operations which occur in the complex; 32 however, contacts should be developed and maintained with 33 local active duty, reserve and national guard units to allow 34 coordination for the use of their personnel as OPFOR on an as 35 needed, as available basis.
36 7.4 RCD GAP ANALYSIS SHORTFALL SUMMARY
37 The RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary (Figures 7-2 through 38 7-5) is the summary of the range capability shortfalls for the 39 NWTRC. Capabilities that fully meet the defined requirement are 40 not included within the summary.
7-44 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Range Capability Operational Recommendation Attribute Shortfall Impact Priority Planning Required Required Required Required Investment Investment Environmental
Common Range Attributes Upgrade scheduling system to Lacks web-based meet RCD web-based and data Scheduling interface and data Yes Minimal collection requirements by No 3 System collection (now) installing NAVSKED and making capabilities. follow-on improvements Lacks sea state reporting and sound velocity MET System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A profile reporting (ASW events only) capability Anti-Air Warfare Does not meet vertical or Coordinate higher altitudes for overland area Airspace Minimal MOAs and other airspace as N/A N/A N/A requirement. Not required. all areas support supersonic flight Complex lacks Commuications to Comms System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A cover offshore areas No Drone Acquire a S-A towed target Yes Target System capabilities in Moderate capability (Commercial Air No 3 (now) complex Services) No inherent Recommend acquiring Instrumentation tracking system, Moderate instrumentation systems that Yes Yes 3 System EC&C, M&S or meet RCD requirements scoring system. Lack dedicated Acquire a A-A OPFOR capability Yes OPFOR System Moderate No 3 OPFOR aircraft (Commercial Air Services) (now) Anti-Surface Warfare Complex lacks Commuications to Comms System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A cover offshore areas No inherent ASUW towed or Acquire towed and self-propelled Yes Target System self propelled Moderate No 3 targets (now) targets present in complex. The OPAREAS Instrumentation lack any Minimal None N/A N/A N/A System instrumentation No live OPFOR OPFOR System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A Combatants 2 Figure 7-2. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – Common Range Attributes, AAW, ASUW
7-45 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Range Capability Operational Recommendation Attribute Shortfall Impact Priority Planning Required Required Required Required Investment Investment Environmental
Anti-Submarine Warfare Lack of UTR in Undersea Use NUWC Keyport portable submarine Minimal N/A N/A N/A Space tracking systems as necessary. operating areas Complex lacks Commuications to Comms System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A cover offshore areas No instrumentation, Instrumentation EC&C, M&S for Minimal None N/A N/A N/A System at-sea areas of range complex No live dedicated surface, OPFOR System Minimal Use CAS as necessary Yes No N/A subsurface or aircraft OPFOR Mine Warfare Does not meet Sea Space Minimal None N/A N/A N/A area requirements Undersea Does not meet Minimal None N/A N/A N/A Space area requirements Complex lacks the total number Comms System of circuits Minimal None N/A N/A N/A required for EC&C and OC Complex lacks mine target Target System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A shapes and mine avoidance range Lacks the Instrumentation instrumentation Minimal None N/A N/A N/A System required for MCM operations No live dedicated OPFOR System subsurface or Minimal None N/A N/A N/A aircraft OPFOR 2 Figure 7-3. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – ASW, MIW
7-46 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Range Capability Operational Recommendation Attribute Shortfall Impact Priority Planning Required Required Required Required Investment Investment Environmental
Strike Warfare Initiate comprehensive range Does not meet planning and environmental area or vertical planning (EA/EIS) to re-develop area requirement. the bombing range target areas, Lacks multiple target suites and EC capabilities Airspace geographically Moderate Yes Yes 2 in accordance with Navy STW separated targets. and EC RCD requirements, other supersonic NWTRC training needs (NSW operations are not MOUT, etc) and joint use needs allowed of the ORNG Current target configuration does not allow for Land Area Moderate Same as above Yes Yes 2 simultaneous events. Inert ordnance only No secure comms Comms System at NWSTF Minimal None N/A N/A N/A Boardman Initiate comprehensive range planning and environmental planning (RC-EIS) to re-develop the bombing range target areas, No structural target suites and EC capabilities Target System Minimal yes yes 2 targets in accordance with Navy STW and EC RCD requirements, other NWTRC training needs (NSW MOUT, etc) and joint use needs of the ORNG. Develop instrumentation in No conjunction with ORNG instrumentation capabilities and equipment to EC& C, M&S, Instrumentation ensure compatibility between Socring and Moderate Yes Yes 2 System ORNG installed instrumentation debrief and potential future Navy or joint capabilities for add-ons for air-to-ground STW operations scoring. Develop and maintain contacts with the Portland USAFR H-60 Lack dedicated squadron, ORNG CH-47 units at rotary wing threat Pendleton, ORNG H-60 units OPFOR System aircraft. Fixed Minimal and other rotary wing units at No No N/A wing aircraft Fort Lewis/Gray Army Airfield to throught CAS coordinate for use as rotary wing OPFOR as needed and as available 1 Figure 7-4. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – STW
7-47 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Range Capability Operational Recommendation Attribute Shortfall Impact Priority Planning Required Required Required Required Investment Investment Environmental
Electronic Combat Sea space not situated near Acquire emitter and locate along Sea Space Moderate Yes Yes 2 land-based EW Pacific coast emitters Boardman does Land Area not meet area Minimal None N/A N/A N/A requirements Lack secure communications Comms System Minimal None N/A N/A N/A to all event participants No multi-axis EW Acquire Smart targets and Target System Moderate Yes Yes 2 threat mobile EW emitter Lack TSPI and Recommend acquiring Instrumentation EC&C for portions Moderate instrumentation systems that Yes Yes 2 System of the complex meet RCD requirements SUA 2 Figure 7-5. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – EC
7-48 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
Range Capability Operational Recommendation Attribute Shortfall Impact Priority Planning Required Required Required Required Investment Investment Environmental
Naval Special Warfare and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Airspace at sea does not start until 3nm from Air Space Minimal None N/A N/A N/A land; overland does not meet altitude reqments Sea Space is not Sea Space contiguous to Minimal None N/A N/A N/A beachfront Undersea space is not contiguous to beachfront; Invest in Environmental studies Undersea Yes Yes explosive area Moderate to determine impact of explosive 3 Space (now) (now) does not meet operations in Crescent Harbor EOD needs for N.E.W Lacks dedicated land area Pursue development of live fire associated with a Land Area Moderate capabilities near Puget Sound Yes Yes 3 beachfront. No and at Kodiak, AK MOUT, no live fire capability Complex lacks sufficient circuits Comms System required for Minimal None N/A N/A N/A EC&C and OC for NSW operations Lack beach obstacles and Pursue development of live fire Target System fortified beach Moderate capabilities near Puget Sound Yes Yes 3 areas. No live fire and at Kodiak, AK capability. Lacks TSPI for air and surface. No Instrumentation radar, M&S, Minimal None N/A N/A N/A System scoring, or debrief capability. Lack dedicated OPFOR System land OPFOR Minimal None N/A N/A N/A forces 2 Figure 7-6. RCD Gap Analysis Shortfall Summary – NSW and EOD 3 Notes: 4 Only attribute shortfalls judged severe or moderate are included. 5 Investment Required: (Yes-Now; Yes-Later; No) 6 Environmental Planning Required: (Yes-Now; Yes-Later; No) 7 Priority 1 - Severe impact requiring current investment and/or immediate environmental planning. Priority 2 - Moderate 8 impact requiring current investment and/or immediate environmental planning. Priority 3 - Severe or moderate impact not 9 requiring either current investment or immediate environmental planning.
7-49 VOL II, CH 7 RANGE CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
This page intentionally left blank
7-50 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
2 Range assessments should contain recommendations for 3 improvement. This chapter is a compilation of recommendations 4 from analysis of Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) 5 encroachments (Chapter 5), the strategic plan (Chapter 6), 6 capabilities (Chapter 7), organization and processes (Chapter 9), and 7 outreach (Chapter 10). Recommendations are presented in two 8 broad categories, those requiring investment (8.1) and those that will 9 not likely require investment (8.2). Investment recommendations are 10 prioritized as follows: 11 Priority 1: Recommendations that address current or 12 potential severe operational impacts that can/should be 13 addressed immediately and affect high (1) priority mission 14 areas. This includes investments for the current POM or 15 those that are currently planned/programmed. 16 Priority 2: Recommendations that address current or 17 potential moderate operational impacts that can/should be 18 addressed immediately or affect medium (2) priority mission 19 areas. This includes investments for the current POM or 20 those that are currently planned/programmed. 21 Priority 3: Recommendations that address current or 22 potential operational impacts not requiring immediate action 23 or investment in the current POM because: 24 o Operational impact is minimal, or 25 o Operational impact is severe and mission area priority is 26 low (3), or 27 o Operational impact is moderate and mission area priority 28 is medium (2) or low (3). 29 The matrix developed for use during investment prioritization is 30 provided in Figure 8-1. 31 Mission SHORTFALL IMPACT Priority Severe Moderate Minimal High (1) 123 Medium (2) 233 Low (3) 333 32 Figure 8-1. Northwest Training Range Complex Investment 33 Category Conversion Matrix 34 The remaining, non-investment recommendations (sections 8.3-8.7) 35 are classified as strongly recommended, highly recommended, and 36 recommended, using the following definitions: 37 Strongly Recommended: Those actions that should begin 38 immediately. 39 Highly Recommended: Those actions that should begin as 40 soon as practicable.
8-1 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Recommended: Those actions that should begin when 2 convenient.
3 8.1 INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Pro ect Summary for the Northwest Training Range Complex
Env. Funding NTA Investment Priority Funding Status Planning Chapter Comments Type supported Status Environmental Include current and Coverage for NWTRC 1 Recommended TAP Underway All 4 potential Navy operations operations Increase in staff to support RCC Staff increase 1 Recommended CIVPERS N/A All 9 RCC responsibilities Smart targets, fixed sites, EC targets, fixed and Procurement, mobile emitters, and 2 Recommended Not Started 3.2.5 5, 7 mobile EC targets SRAM associated scoring systems Provide high-fidelity TSPI Procurement, Range Instrumentation 2 Recommended Not Started 3.2.5, 3.2.6 7 capability throughout SRAM range complex Live fire capability near 1.1.2.4, For NSW weapons Puget Sound and 3 Recommended O&M Not Started 7 1.5.6 (5.56mm and 7.62mm) Kodiak, AK Boardman RAICUZ 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Include EA-18G and UAV 3 Recommended TAP Not Started 4 update 3.2.5, 3.2.6 operations A-G scoring system at Potential STW missions 3 Recommended O&M N/A 3.2.6 6 Boardman from Fallon and/or EA-18G Boardman targets Allow for multiple 3 Recommended O&M Not Started 3.2.6 7 reconfigured simultaneous events For SEAL and EOD Large NEW underwater 3 Recommended O&M Not Started 1.3.1, 1.5.6 3 training with larger demo site detonations Environmental study to 1.3.1.3, For EOD training at 3 Recommended O&M Not Started 7 increase NEW limits 1.4.4, 1.5.6 existing ranges Web-enabled operations reporting and 3 Recommended Procurement N/A All 7, 9 Consider NAVSKED scheduling system Air services, air target Provide ship and aircraft 3 Recommended O&M N/A 3.2.3 7 capability services for AAW training Provide ship services for Surface target capability 3 Recommended O&M Not Started 3.2.1.1 7 ASUW training Offshore Not Provide AAW debrief 3 Recommended O&M 3.2.3 7 instrumentation Required capability Surface demolition Addresses encroachment 3 Recommended O&M Not Started 1.3.1 5 range at Boardman issues at current ranges 4 Notes: 5 Funded: In progress, funding identified. 6 Unfunded: In progress, funding to be identified. 7 Recommended: Investment identified during the RCMP process. 8 Figure 8-2. Northwest Training Range Complex Investment Summary
8-2 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 8.1.1 Environmental Coverage for Navy Operations at Northwest Training Range 2 Complex
3 It is strongly recommended that upon completion of this Range 4 Complex Management Plan (RCMP), the Navy complete a combined 5 Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 6 Statement (EIS/OEIS) covering all operations and investments 7 required to meet Fleet Response Plan requirements. This level of 8 analysis should at least be initially sufficient to adequately evaluate 9 the impacts of current and planned range complex training, providing 10 the minimum necessary legal coverage.
11 8.1.2 Range Complex Coordinator Staff Increase
12 Recommend hiring necessary and appropriate personnel to meet 13 increased demands of the Range Complex Coordinator (RCC) staff. 14 The Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island 15 (WI) is recommended to be the NWTRC RCC. The RCC will have 16 increased responsibilities over a broader area as the individual 17 components of the range complex become more consolidated. The 18 responsibilities center around implementing the vision for the range 19 complex; conducting outreach duties that include organizing, 20 improving dialogue, and attending meetings; and sustaining and 21 improving the existing capabilities to meet potential requirements. 22 The existing NRNW staff is inadequately sized to accomplish the 23 new tasks of the RCC. A staff increase is strongly recommended to 24 meet the growing requirements.
25 8.1.3 New Electronic Combat Targets
26 Electronic Combat is the primary mission of the EP-3 and EA-6B, 27 and a secondary mission of the P-3, all based at Naval Air Station 28 Whidbey Island. Additionally, the ALQ-218, a new component of 29 both the EA-18G and EA-6B weapons systems, is currently being 30 fielded which brings a battle space mapping capability and thus new 31 training requirements. These aircrews require multi-axis threat 32 training that is currently unattainable at the NWTRC. Furthermore, 33 increasing the number of emitters, and spreading them out in as 34 many locations as possible, will greatly enhance training. 35 Acquisition of EW emitters is recommended, to include smart targets 36 (EW emitters that visually simulate threat systems) and movable EW 37 emitters. In addition to the targets themselves, scoring systems 38 should be developed to support EC training. Potential locations for 39 the targets and scoring systems include all NWTRC Military 40 Operations Areas (MOAs), Naval Weapons Systems Training 41 Facility (NWSTF) Boardman, Pacific Beach, WA as well as NAS 42 Whidbey Island and/or OLF Coupeville, WA.
8-3 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 8.1.4 New Range Instrumentation System
2 A range instrumentation system is required to provide tracking 3 information to exercise participants. Range tracking includes the 4 detection of friendly (Blue force) and Opposition Force (OPFOR) 5 event participants, along with a position history of their movements 6 on the range. These real-time location and movement history data 7 are referred to as Time, Space, and Position Information (TSPI), the 8 fidelity of which will depend upon the source(s) and methods used to 9 collect it. 10 11 High fidelity TSPI is provided by cooperative systems that are often 12 carried by and/or integrated with a participant platform’s on-board 13 systems. High fidelity TSPI systems, with inherently high update 14 rates and degrees of accuracy, would be able to provide not only a 15 participant’s position, but also detailed information about the 16 participant’s dynamic maneuvers and geospatial relationship to other 17 high fidelity TSPI participants. A high fidelity TSPI system is an 18 essential component for detailed real-time displays and post-mission 19 event reconstruction of events such as air combat maneuver and EC 20 training. Currently, no such system exists in the NWTRC. 21 22 Recommend development of a high fidelity TSPI system in the 23 NWTRC to support current and future aircrew training requirements.
24 8.1.5 NSW Live Fire Capability Near Puget Sound and at Kodiak Island, AK
25 Recommend pursuit of a live fire capability that would allow SEALs 26 to conduct live fire training as the culmination of an over-the-beach 27 exercise. SEALs currently segment their training in the NWTRC. 28 They conduct the underwater transit portion of their training on the 29 range complex, but conduct live fire training elsewhere due to lack 30 of live fire ranges. They have a need to run an end-to-end operation 31 that begins with covert underwater transit, culminates with an over- 32 the-beach transition to an actual live fire event, and ends with a 33 return underwater transit. SEALs conducting cold weather training 34 at Kodiak have a similar need as they have a requirement to 35 maneuver in a cold weather environment, then transition to a live fire 36 solution. No live fire range exists in Kodiak for this training.
37 8.1.6 Update RAICUZ for NWSTF Boardman
38 The existing Range Air Installations Compatible Use Zones 39 (RAICUZ) study for NWSTF Boardman was completed in 1987. 40 Updating the 1987 RAICUZ plan for NWSTF Boardman is 41 recommended. This plan is outdated and needs to be updated for use 42 of the range by current and future aircraft including the EA-18G and 43 UAVs.
8-4 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 8.1.7 New Air-to-Ground Bomb Scoring System at NWSTF Boardman
2 NWSTF Boardman remains capable of hosting air-to-ground (A-G) 3 strike missions. Several targets are still maintained within the range, 4 and have provided A-G services as late as 2007. The EA-18G’s 5 capabilities will include an A-G mission and, if so, will require a 6 backyard or local target range. Air wings training at Fallon have in 7 the past requested Boardman as a long-range strike target. However, 8 the lack of a bomb scoring system (removed in 1996) has eliminated 9 Boardman as a viable A-G training range. Acquisition of a scoring 10 system for the targets at Boardman, though not immediately required 11 for locally based platforms, will greatly increase the capability of 12 NWSTF Boardman as an A-G target range.
13 8.1.8 Redesigned Target Configuration at NWSTF Boardman
14 Recommend that the targets at NWSTF Boardman be redesigned and 15 placed at greater distances from each other. The only A-G range in 16 the complex is NWSTF Boardman. In order for the range to 17 accommodate multiple separate and concurrent air-to-ground range 18 events (an RCD requirement), Boardman’s targets must be 19 reconfigured into geographically separated targets.
20 8.1.9 Large NEW Underwater Demolition Site
21 SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE (SDVT-1) routinely trains in the 22 NWTRC, as it meets their requirements for much of their cold water 23 training. One capability that is lacking in the range is a location for 24 conducting underwater demolitions with explosives as large as 300 25 to 500 lbs. net explosive weight (NEW). Also, the Explosive 26 Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units that train in the complex are limited 27 by the size of explosive charge they can use. EOD needs would be 28 met by an area capable of 20 lb. NEW demolitions. Conducting 29 initial investigations and environmental planning is recommended to 30 determine a suitable area within the NWTRC boundaries in which 31 EOD and SDVT-1 can conduct underwater demolition training with 32 charges as large as 500 lbs. NEW.
33 8.1.10 Increased NEW Limits at Existing EOD Ranges
34 The ability to conduct underwater demolition training, with the 35 appropriately sized explosive charges, is essential to maintaining 36 readiness of the Whidbey Island-based EOD units. By unit 37 instruction at EOD Mobile Unit 11 (EODMU-11), maximum 38 detonation net explosive weight (NEW) is 20 pounds. This size limit 39 allows EOD teams to use their full compliment of EOD tools. 40 EODMU-11 is currently operating under limits of 5 lb. in the 41 summer and 10 lb in the winter to reduce fish kill and noise. In 2004 42 CNRNW placed a 6-month prohibition on EODMU-11 underwater 43 detonations. Subsequently, at the request of CNRNW, EODMU-11 44 has implemented a normal use limit of 2.5 lbs NEW to help mitigate
8-5 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 impact of underwater demolitions training. Though the standard 2 charge size currently being used is 2.5 lbs. NEW, up to 20 lbs NEW 3 is still technically authorized, though not recommended. Restricted 4 to a 2.5 lb. NEW, EOD units cannot achieve all of their training 5 requirements. Conducting environmental planning to increase 6 maximum NEW limits at Crescent Harbor Underwater EOD Range 7 is recommended.
8 8.1.11 Web-Enabled Operations Reporting and Scheduling System
9 A capable operations reporting and scheduling system should allow 10 range users access to a web-enabled database of descriptive 11 information (including individual range resources) for the entire 12 Navy range infrastructure and the ability to schedule required range 13 periods remotely at least two weeks in advance. The pre-event 14 module should support unit-level queries on platform name and 15 training event, identify and notify of competing requests, and support 16 late cancellations flexibly and responsively. The real-time event 17 module should allow range controllers to enter all event related data 18 (prior, during, and after the event). The post-event module should 19 generate automatic post-event messages/emails to users. In addition, 20 operational data within the NWTRC must be captured to document 21 current utilization of the ranges. These data will contribute to 22 developing a historical record to track patterns of utilization, monitor 23 encroachments to operations, and assist in the formulation of range 24 investment planning. No such system exists at the NWTRC. 25 Investment in, or development of, a capable range operations 26 reporting and scheduling system is recommended.
27 8.1.12 Air Target Services
28 Surface combatants and aircraft require air targets to complete anti- 29 air warfare (AAW) gunnery training at the basic level. When it 30 arrives to replace the EA-6B Prowler, the EA-18G will have an 31 AAW capability and require air targets. Currently, no air target 32 services exist for the NWTRC. All surface combatant ships must 33 complete this training in SOCAL. Acquisition of air services for 34 locally based surface combatant ships and the EA-18G is 35 recommended. The target system should have the capability to 36 support both air-to-air (A-A) and surface-to-air (S-A) missile 37 exercises, and include subsonic and supersonic drones that can 38 operate from surface to 50,000 feet. The drones in the target system 39 should also be capable of active jamming and simulated cruise 40 missile launch capabilities. For basic training, towed targets are 41 required.
42 8.1.13 Surface Targets
43 Surface combatants require surface targets to complete anti-surface 44 warfare (ASUW) training at the basic level. The NWTRC does not 45 have any inherent ASUW targets in the complex. Surface ships have
8-6 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 the ability to launch a floating at-sea target which meets the 2 stationary requirement but these do not replicate the spectral 3 signature of threat platforms. All surface combatant ships must 4 complete their ASUW training in SOCAL. Acquisition of surface 5 targets for locally based surface combatant ships is recommended.
6 8.1.14 Offshore Range Instrumentation
7 Recommend acquiring an offshore radar capability that meets the 8 RCD requirements for time, speed, and position information. This 9 system should allow for real-time and post-mission debrief 10 capability.
11 8.1.15 EOD Surface Demolition Range at NWSTF Boardman
12 Recommend establishing a site at NWSTF Boardman for EOD 13 forces to conduct land demolition training. Current encroachment 14 limitations discussed in Chapter 5 highlight the restrictions placed on 15 realistic EOD training at NWTRC.
16 8.2 POTENTIAL FUTURE RANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS,INVESTMENTS,& 17 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
18 8.2.1 Strongly Recommended Actions
19 Issue: Airspeed limits for Military Training Routes (MTRs) in the 20 NWTRC 21 Recommendation: Increase maximum airspeeds along 22 NWTRC MTRs to 480 knots. All MTRs in the range 23 complex have maximum speed limits of 420 knots. These 24 lower speeds were adequate for the EA-6B Prowler, but will 25 restrict low altitude training for the faster EA-18G, the 26 Prowler replacement aircraft. The recommended maximum 27 speed limit should allow for timing corrections that permit 28 occasional speeds of 500 knots. 29 Action Command: NASWI 30 Supporting Commands: Department of the Navy 31 Representative, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – 32 Western Pacific Region (310-725-3910) 33 34 Issue: MTR altitude limits for low altitude training of the EA-18G 35 Recommendation: Reduce the minimum altitudes of MTR 36 legs to 200 ft above ground level where allowed. The 37 EA-18G Fleet Introduction Team has indicated a 38 requirement for EA-18G crews to conduct low altitude 39 training along MTRs as low as 200 ft. As an example, 40 IR-342, 344, and 346 all share common legs entering 41 Boardman airspace at the end of the route. While IR-346 42 has a 200 ft minimum altitude, IR-342 and 344 have a 43 published minimum of 500 ft along the same legs. These 44 and other routes should be reviewed with the regional Navy
8-7 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Representative of the FAA for opportunities to reduce 2 minimum altitudes and maximize EA-18G training. 3 Action Command: NASWI 4 Supporting Commands: Department of the Navy 5 Representative, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – 6 Western Pacific Region (310-725-3910)
7 8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL,NATURAL RESOURCES AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT 8 RECOMMENDATIONS
9 8.3.1 Strongly Recommended Actions
10 Issue: Monitor management actions in OCNMS 11 Recommendation: The Navy should continue to participate 12 in the OCNMS Advisory Committee meetings and stay 13 involved in the Management Plan review process to either 14 ensure no further encroachment develops or to push for a 15 reduction in current encroachment. 16 Action Command: CNRNW 17 Supporting Commands: EFANW 18 19 Issue: Oregon Army National Guard EA for New Ranges at NWSTF 20 Boardman 21 Recommendation: The Navy should continue to closely 22 review the Oregon Army National Guard’s plans for new 23 ranges at NWSTF Boardman to ensure that the proposed 24 plans do not conflict with the Navy’s plans for the future use 25 of NWSTF Boardman. 26 Action Command: CNRNW 27 Supporting Commands: NASWI, EFANW 28 29 Issue: EIS/OEIS for NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex Extension 30 Recommendation: NUWC Keyport should drive this effort 31 forward to completion so that these important test ranges can 32 be extended to accommodate advancing technology and to 33 provide enhanced opportunity for testing. It is a critical time 34 to address this especially as it relates to the Quinault range as 35 this area will be undergoing OCNMS management plan 36 review. 37 Action Command: NUWC Keyport 38 Supporting Commands: CNRNW, EFANW 39 40 Issue: Environmental Coverage for the Navy operations occurring in 41 the NWTRC. 42 Recommendation: The Navy should continue to conduct a 43 combined EIS/OEIS or EA/OEA covering all operations and 44 investments required to meet Fleet Response Plan 45 requirements. This level of NEPA analysis should at least be 46 initially sufficient to adequately evaluate the impacts of 47 current and planned range complex training. This document 48 will provide the minimum necessary legal coverage.
8-8 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Action Command: CNRNW 2 Supporting Commands: EFANW, NASWI 3 4 Issue: AICUZ Implementation 5 Recommendation: The 2005 AICUZ recommendations 6 should continue to be fully implemented, including the 7 active involvement of the community planning liaison role. 8 Action Command: NASWI 9 Supporting Commands: EFANW, CNRNW 10 11 Issue: NWSTF Boardman RAICUZ Update 12 Recommendation: The 1987 RAICUZ plan for NWSTF 13 Boardman should be updated. This plan is outdated and 14 needs to be updated for use of the range by current and 15 future aircraft, including the EA-18G and UAVs. 16 Action Command: CNRNW 17 Supporting Commands: EFANW, NASWI 18 19 Issue: Local Land Use Decision Involvement 20 Recommendation: Continue to encourage Navy community 21 planning liaison participation in local land use decisions 22 which may have an impact on operations and range usage. 23 Among other important issues requiring the liaison’s 24 attention is awareness of the Morrow County land use plans 25 in relation to NWSTF Boardman. Should there be a desire 26 to expand range use for ordnance delivery, it would be very 27 important to ensure that range encroachment via 28 development or recreational use was minimized. 29 Action Command: CNRNW 30 Supporting Commands: NASWI, EFANW
31 8.3.2 Highly Recommended Actions
32 None.
33 8.3.3 Recommended Actions
34 Issue: Nature Conservancy Agreement Amendment 35 Recommendation: The Cooperative Management 36 Agreement between the Navy and the Nature Conservancy 37 (re: NWSTF Boardman) should be revisited in light of the 38 new EA-18G use of the range and the Oregon Army 39 National Guard use of the range. 40 Action Command: CNRNW 41 Supporting Commands: EFANW, NASWI 42 43 Issue: Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 44 (INRMP)/Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) 45 Implementation 46 Recommendation: Fully implement all INRMP and 47 ICRMPs as they apply to ranges.
8-9 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Action Command: CNRNW 2 Supporting Commands: NASWI, EFANW 3 4 Issue: Implement BASH plan 5 Recommendation: The existing BASH plan guidelines 6 should be fully implemented. BASH plan constraints are 7 designed for the safety and protection of the pilot and 8 aircraft. 9 Action Command: NASWI 10 Supporting Commands: None. 11 12 Issue: EOD Mitigation Measure Training 13 Recommendation: Complete thorough training in order that 14 the EOD Biological Assessment mitigation measures can be 15 implemented successfully by EOD units. The CNRNW 16 INST 8027.2 constraints implement the Biological 17 Assessment mitigation measures for EOD operations in the 18 Puget Sound training ranges. These mitigation measures are 19 very detailed and potentially complicated. 20 Action Command: EODMU-11 21 Supporting Commands: CNRNW, EFANW
22 8.4 ENCROACHMENT MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
23 8.4.1 Strongly Recommended Actions
24 Issue: Net Explosive Weight (NEW) limit for EOD training 25 Recommendation: Review NEW limits for underwater 26 charges in local waters to comply with laws and determine 27 value to EOD units of allowing larger NEW limits. Consider 28 increasing allowable NEW to 20 lbs. 29 Action Command: CNRNW, NASWI 30 Supporting Commands: EFANW
31 8.4.2 Highly Recommended Actions
32 Issue: AGM-88 High-speed anti-radiation Missiles (HARM) 33 Recommendation: Review the restriction on the HARM 34 live fire events and consider a possible change to allow 35 HARM firings at Boardman or in W-237. 36 Action Command: CNRNW, NASWI 37 Supporting Commands: EFANW, CNAF 38 39 Issue: Electronic combat (EC) targets and mobile electronic warfare 40 (EW) emitters for NWSTF Boardman 41 Recommendation: Acquire Smart targets (EW emitters that 42 visually simulate threat systems) and mobile EW emitters at 43 Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility (NWSTF) 44 Boardman. 45 Action Command: CNAF 46 Supporting Commands: CNRNW
8-10 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Issue: Military Training Route (MTR) encroachment mitigation 3 Recommendation: Strive for better coordination between 4 glider operations and low-level military training operations. 5 Maintain awareness of private and commercial development 6 around the MTRs. 7 Action Command: NASWI 8 Supporting Commands: CNAF, CFFC
9 8.4.3 Recommended Actions
10 Issue: Dabob Bay range encroachment 11 Recommendation: Consider an agreement with Washington 12 State to make Dabob an exclusive U.S. Navy range area with 13 public access regulated. Request Indian authorities to agree 14 to use prescribed water routes on the range sites and 15 establish mutual procedures for them to access the range 16 while events in progress. 17 Action Command: CNRNW 18 Supporting Commands: CFFC 19 20 Issue: New EOD training locations 21 Recommendation: Review training requirements of 22 EODMU-11 with CNRNW. EOD unit training may be 23 accomplished more effectively elsewhere. Consider a new 24 underwater EOD site or establishment of a Restricted Area at 25 Crescent Harbor that would restrict non-military operations. 26 Action Command: EODMU-11, CNRNW 27 Supporting Commands: EFANW
28 8.5 OUTREACH RECOMMENDATIONS
29 8.5.1 Strongly Recommended Actions
30 Issue: Develop tailored communication objectives to control and 31 reduce encroachment. 32 Recommendation: Develop a range complex-wide 33 Encroachment Outreach Plan (EOP), guided by overarching 34 Navy policy yet tailored to specific communication 35 objectives and encroachment and sustainability issues facing 36 the NWTRC. The EOP should be developed and 37 implemented by an EOP working group, a subgroup of the 38 Range Complex Management Team (RCMT). The EOP 39 working group should be comprised of CNRNW, Command, 40 and Installation public affairs, range, and environmental 41 representatives, and meet quarterly. 42 Action Command: NASWI (as RCC) 43 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 44
8-11 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Issue: Organize list of stakeholders 2 Recommendation: Develop a Master Stakeholder Database 3 of interested parties and groups for regular information 4 dissemination. To facilitate more targeted outreach efforts, 5 establish stakeholder categories: 6 o Elected officials 7 o Agencies 8 o Community groups 9 o Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 10 o Media 11 o Tribes 12 o Internal Navy personnel 13 14 Validate and maintain stakeholder contact information 15 frequently and update after events of significant change, 16 such as elections. Maintain a tab for each of the categories, 17 regularly disseminating fact sheets, EIS updates, and other 18 informational materials, as appropriate. 19 Action Command: NASWI (as RCC) 20 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 21 22 Issue: Improving dialogue with federal and state elected officials and 23 staff 24 Recommendation: Proactively contact and inform federal 25 and state elected officials and staff of issues, in accordance 26 with Navy protocol. Inquire about their primary concerns 27 and offer to assist where and if appropriate. Provide regular 28 status updates and issue-specific information, such as white 29 papers. 30 Action Command: CNRNW 31 Supporting Commands: NASWI (as RCC) 32 33 Issue: Improving information flow to elected officials 34 Recommendation: Notify and update elected officials prior 35 to airspace training activities for proactive communication 36 and to mitigate noise complaints. 37 Action Command: NASWI 38 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 39 40 Issue: Local government meeting attendance 41 Recommendation: Assign tasking and responsibility to 42 appropriate Navy personnel to regularly attend city council 43 and county commissioner meetings; coach Navy 44 spokespeople and subject matter experts in key messages 45 and frequently asked questions (FAQs). 46 Action Command: CNRNW 47 Supporting Commands: NASWI (as RCC) 48 49 Issue: Regional planning agency coordination 50 Recommendation: The CNRNW Ranges/NASWI CPLO 51 should continue to facilitate discussions and negotiations
8-12 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 with local and regional agencies to ensure compatible land 2 uses; proactively inform local elected officials, staff, and 3 planning agencies about upcoming projects. 4 Action Command: CNRNW, NASWI 5 Supporting Commands: None 6 7 Issue: Community liaison 8 Recommendation: Assign tasking and responsibility to 9 appropriate Navy personnel to attend established community 10 and business group meetings, such as the Chamber of 11 Commerce and Rotary Club; coach Navy spokespeople and 12 subject matter experts in strategic messages and FAQs. 13 Establish a speaker’s bureau and proactively seek 14 opportunities to provide encroachment briefings at 15 established meetings. 16 Action Command: CNRNW 17 Supporting Commands: NASWI 18 19 Issue: Coordinated message to the community 20 Recommendation: To avoid duplication of efforts and 21 inconsistent messages, coordinate outreach to community 22 groups that may support or oppose upcoming range activities 23 and/or range management practices among region, 24 command, range, and installation personnel. 25 Action Command: CNRNW 26 Supporting Commands: None 27 28 Issue: NGO partnering 29 Recommendation: Identify at least three NGOs with a 30 regional presence to focus outreach efforts for improved 31 communication and relations, as well as potential partnering 32 opportunities. Contact NGOs with which relationships 33 already exist and invite recommendations to improve upon 34 and expand these relationships. 35 Action Command: CNRNW 36 Supporting Commands: None 37 38 Issue: National issue awareness 39 Recommendation: Monitor national environmental issue 40 coverage, newsletters, websites, and web logs; anticipate 41 potential movements to localize controversial issues. 42 Action Command: CNRNW 43 Supporting Commands: None 44 45 Issue: Media strategy 46 Recommendation: Develop and pitch feature articles, 47 opinion/editorials, or advertorials to local and regional media 48 outlets. Invite media representatives to events and 49 base/range tours. 50 Action Command: CNRNW 51 Supporting Commands: NASWI
8-13 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Issue: Sea range encroachment 2 Recommendation: Continue regular updates of fishing 3 access schedule in Navy sea ranges through the Point No 4 Point Treaty Council to avoid the fouling of sea ranges. 5 Consider using this communication channel for other 6 purposes to leverage outreach resources. 7 Action Command: NUWC 8 Supporting Commands: CNRNW, NASWI (as RCC)
9 8.5.2 Highly Recommended Actions
10 Issue: Measuring outreach success 11 Recommendation: Develop formal systems and 12 measurements for tracking outreach efforts and “successes;” 13 disseminate information via the EOP working group. 14 Systems and measurements can include: 15 o Database of outreach activities 16 o Stakeholder issues and concerns log 17 o Media log 18 o Stakeholder surveys and interviews 19 Action Command: RCC 20 Supporting Commands: None 21 22 Issue: Informational briefings and tours 23 Recommendation: Invite elected officials and staff, 24 especially military liaisons, for briefings and range tours 25 annually. Through media briefing packets and tour 26 information, inform media representatives about: 27 o the base and/or ranges 28 o its mission and operations (purpose and need) 29 o environmental stewardship and pollution 30 prevention programs 31 o encroachment concerns 32 o Navy contributions to the community 33 Action Command: CNRNW 34 Supporting Commands: NASWI 35 36 Issue: National marine resource strategy coordination 37 Recommendation: Identify a central POC from the RCMT 38 responsible for coordinating efforts with FFC related to 39 national marine resource strategy. This representative 40 should coordinate with CNRNW and local installations, as 41 appropriate, and organize routine communication with 42 local/regional NMFS representatives outside the NEPA 43 environmental planning process for non-incident partnering 44 and cooperation. 45 Action Command: NASWI (as RCC) 46 Supporting Commands: CNRNW, FFC 47
8-14 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Issue: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) partnering 2 Recommendation: Establish a schedule of periodic 3 briefings to inform NMFS officials of marine mammal 4 protection efforts. Use these opportunities to encourage 5 recommendations for additional partnering efforts. 6 Action Command: CNRNW 7 Supporting Commands: NASWI 8 9 Issue: Maintaining “good neighbor” relations with community 10 Recommendation: Proactively notify the public and 11 community groups of significant training activities for “good 12 neighbor” relations and to mitigate noise complaints. 13 Action Command: NASWI (as RCC) 14 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 15 16 Issue: NGO-targeted communication 17 Recommendation: Develop and disseminate quarterly 18 newsletters focusing on environmental stewardship programs 19 and other items of interest to the general community and 20 environmental groups. 21 Action Command: CNRNW 22 Supporting Commands: None 23 Issue: Tribal relations 24 Recommendation: Establish an annual meeting between 25 Commanding Officers and Tribal leaders, alternating 26 between range and reservation visits. 27 Action Command: CNRNW 28 Supporting Commands: Base Commanding Officers
29 8.5.3 Recommended Actions
30 Issue: Formalize internal communications 31 Recommendation: Through the EOP working group, 32 establish formal coordination processes between CNRNW, 33 Command, and Installation personnel for environmental 34 outreach and planning efforts. Activities should focus on 35 impacted stakeholders, encroachment issues, and 36 sustainability interests. Regular coordination allows for: 37 o greater sharing of information and ideas, 38 o leveraging of resources for programs and projects 39 with common objectives, and 40 o brainstorming potential stakeholder partnerships. 41 Action Command: RCC 42 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 43 44 Issue: Outreach message consistency 45 Recommendation: Conduct quarterly spokesperson and 46 message training to ensure more successful communication 47 and message consistency in all outreach efforts. 48 Action Command: CNRNW 49 Supporting Commands: None
8-15 VOL II, CH 8 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Issue: Other agency communications 2 Recommendation: Via the RCMT, assign a representative 3 to maintain ongoing communication with priority agencies 4 outside the NEPA planning process. Closely monitor agency 5 positions and seek opportunities to share beneficial 6 information and invite input. 7 Action Command: NASWI (as RCC) 8 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 9 10 Issue: Issue-specific encroachment plans 11 Recommendation: As needed, develop installation and/or 12 issue-specific “mini” EOPs for targeted outreach efforts to 13 impacted stakeholder groups (i.e., noise abatement 14 programs, land use compatibility issues). 15 Action Command: NASWI (as RCC) 16 Supporting Commands: CNRNW 17 18 Issue: Tribal relations 19 Recommendation: Continue strong participation in 20 Northwest Navy-Tribal Council and working groups. 21 Action Command: CNRNW 22 Supporting Commands: None 23 24 Issue: Tribal Council meeting attendance 25 Recommendation: Attend local Tribal Council meetings, 26 when appropriate. 27 Action Command: CNRNW 28 Supporting Commands: None 29 30 Issue: Tribal visits to ranges 31 Recommendation: Extend annual (or more frequent) 32 invitations to Tribes to visit culturally significant sites in the 33 range complex. 34 Action Command: CNRNW 35 Supporting Commands: NASWI (as RCC)
36 8.6 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
37 None.
38 8.7 OUTSTANDING RANGE COMPLEX PLANNING ISSUES
39 None.
8-16 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 9 ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES
2 United States Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3200.15, 3 Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas (DoD 2003), defines 4 range sustainment as “managing and operating ranges to support 5 their long-term viability and utility to meet the National Defense 6 Mission.” The Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) 7 organizations and management processes must support sustainability 8 practices that will: 9 Ensure the NWTRC is capable of supporting current and 10 future operational requirements while protecting human 11 health and the environment; 12 Protect the NWTRC’s natural and cultural resources; 13 Promote understanding of readiness, safety, environmental, 14 and economic issues regarding the NWTRC use and 15 management; 16 Consider stakeholder interests in range design, use, and 17 management; and 18 Facilitate the return of the NWTRC ranges to non-military 19 uses when they are no longer required for national security.
20 9.1 FORMAL NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX ORGANIZATION
21 Successful NWTRC sustainability management practices rely on an 22 organization with the structure, procedures, planning, methods, 23 coordination, and processes that address range sustainability issues. 24 Some of the many components crucial to this process include, but are 25 not limited to: 26 A range information management system, 27 Data analysis capability, 28 Clear definition of roles and responsibilities, 29 Well-defined range procedures, and 30 Committed senior sponsorship. 31 32 Some of the Navy organizations that provide the NWTRC with the 33 assets, infrastructure, management, and support to sustain the 34 complex include: 35 Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC), 36 Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF), 37 Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT), 38 Commander, Navy Region Northwest (CNRNW), 39 Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, 40 Naval Station (NS) Everett, 41 Naval Base (NB) Kitsap Bangor, 42 Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport, and 43 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest 44 (NAVFAC NW). 45
9-1 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 These organizations must interact on a regular basis to overcome 2 encroachment problems, establish policies, and ensure that 3 operations are conducted in a manner contributing to range 4 sustainment and productivity. 5 6 These organizations work through formal and informal channels of 7 communications. Enhanced Readiness Teams (ERTs) at the 8 USFF/COMPACFLT and Navy Region levels are organizations that 9 are designed to strengthen the processes and communications within 10 the NWTRC. 11 12 Figure 9-1 illustrates the organizational relationships and funding 13 flow that support the NWTRC. The Navy Regions are under the 14 operational control (OPCON) of USFF with respect to mission and 15 operational issues associated with continental United States 16 (CONUS) ranges, to include programming and budgeting. They are 17 under administrative control (ADCON) of CNIC. The Navy Regions 18 have a role in the management of the NWTRC because of their 19 responsibility for environmental coordination and the administration 20 of base operating support (BOS) funding (resourced through CNIC) 21 for range support (range clearance and Explosive Ordnance Disposal 22 [EOD] operations) and range infrastructure such as Class I and II 23 property. 24 25 Figure 9-2 illustrates a stream-lined NWTRC organizational and 26 funding flow restructuring proposal.
9-2 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 2
3 Figure 9-1. Existing NWTRC Organizational Relationships and Funding Support
4 5
9-3 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 2 Figure 9-2. A Proposed NWTRC Organizational Structure and Funding Support Flow Diagram
3 9.2 RANGE COMPLEX COMMAND STRUCTURE
4 The NWTRC command structure is a formal organizational structure 5 requiring established procedures and processes. Establishing formal 6 sustainment organizations and functions such as the Range Complex 7 Coordinator (RCC) with support from the Range Complex 8 Management Team (RCMT) requires headquarters and command 9 concurrence from the participating organizations. 10 11 Range complex command management ensures that current and 12 future range sustainment efforts and planning can be managed 13 efficiently and authoritatively. The RCC and RCMT are designed to 14 address the many variables of range encroachment and sustainment
9-4 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 in a holistic manner. A holistic approach guarantees that 2 encroachment and sustainment matters are analyzed together through 3 coherent, synchronized management practices that lead to integrated 4 outcomes and comprehensive sustainment strategies. 5 6 Since the NUWC Keyport ranges primarily support the 7 experimentation, research, development, test and evaluation of USW 8 Systems, the majority of their capability requirements and funding is 9 prioritized and managed by NAVSEA. Additionally, Dabob Bay and 10 Nanoose ranges are a part of the Major Range and Test Facility 11 Board (MRTFB) where the sponsor is NAVAIR who manages the 12 infrastructure maintenance and improvement and modernization 13 efforts. Where ever possible, the Keyport ranges should be 14 leveraged to support Northwest Fleet training requirements.
15 9.2.1 Range Complex Coordinator (RCC)
16 The RCC will have a direct coordination role with 17 USFF/COMPACFLT and the supporting commands of the RCMT to 18 implement the responsibilities and recommendations for the 19 NWTRC. 20 21 The responsibilities of the Northwest Training RCC will include the 22 following: 23 Implement the vision for the complex; 24 Manage investment planning and execution; 25 Advocate for the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) 26 process, including a role in the funding streams outside of 27 USFF/COMPACFLT and COMNAVAIRPAC purview that 28 have direct impact on the complex. Examples include BOS 29 and Military Construction (MILCON); 30 Manage operational planning, scheduling, and execution; 31 Manage outreach activities related to the range complex; 32 Monitor the status of range complex environmental and 33 facility planning; 34 Develop and maintain a master list of Navy tactical tasks or 35 mission essential tasks and any testing capabilities that the 36 range complex is required to support; 37 Represent the range complex to USFF’s Enhanced Readiness 38 Team (ERT); 39 Validate the capability deficiencies or shortfalls of the range 40 complex identified in Chapter 7 of this RCMP; 41 Develop and monitor environmental and investment plans to 42 ensure that the NWTRC is fully ready to support new 43 platforms and weapons systems at initial operational 44 capability (IOC); 45 Identify range complex capability shortfalls that result from 46 the introduction of new doctrine, force structure, and 47 weapons systems;
9-5 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 On a range complex-wide basis, maintain and update a 2 prioritized list of projects and investments needed to address 3 current and future capability shortfalls; 4 Develop and monitor plans for integrating the range complex 5 into the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) 6 architecture; 7 Identify emerging NWTRC encroachment challenges and 8 develop strategies to negate, minimize, or mitigate potential 9 impacts on the ability of the range complex to support 10 uncompromised training and testing operations; 11 Review and approve NWTRC force structure and supporting 12 range alignment plans; 13 Develop and implement consolidated NWTRC 14 communications and scheduling systems and processes; 15 Accomplish inter-service/inter-claimant coordination; and 16 Perform data collection and reporting, including the quarterly 17 Range Complex Utilization Report (RCUR) to USFF. 18 19 The RCC will be supported by the RCMT to accomplish these 20 responsibilities.
21 9.2.2 Range Complex Management Team (RCMT)
22 The mission of the Northwest Training RCMT will be to assist the 23 RCC with the responsibilities outlined in Section 9.2.1. Participation 24 by RCMT members will involve responding to the needs of the 25 RCC, as requested. The expertise necessary to support the RCC 26 includes operational environmental planning, environmental 27 compliance, marine resources, legal, public affairs and outreach, 28 operational scheduling, investment planning, and execution. 29 30 Recommended membership for the RCMT includes representation 31 from the following commands: 32 Commander, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group One; 33 CNIC; 34 CNRNW; 35 Commander, Naval Air Forces Pacific (COMNAVAIRPAC); 36 Commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific 37 (COMNAVSURFPAC); 38 COMPACFLT; 39 Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet 40 (COMSUBPAC); 41 Commander, Third Fleet (COMTHIRDFLT); 42 Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) San 43 Diego, CA; 44 Naval Special Warfare Command (SPECWARCOM); 45 NAS Whidbey Island; 46 NAVFAC NW; 47 NB Kitsap Bangor; 48 NS Everett;
9-6 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 NUWC Keyport; and 2 Oregon Army National Guard. 3 4 To the extent possible, the RCMT should include Navy operators and 5 range users, and not only staff personnel. The RCC’s organizational 6 relationship with these entities is shown in Figure 9-1.
7 9.2.3 Range Management at Boardman Range
8 Range infrastructure management is vital to sustain the facilities, 9 targets, and instrumentation on training ranges. According to the 10 NAS WHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 3770.1B (PACIFIC 11 NORTHWEST OPERATIONS AREA (PACNORWEST OPAREA) 12 MANUAL), services provided by Naval Weapons Systems Training 13 Facility (NWSTF) Boardman are limited. Support services (moving 14 targets, scoring) are no longer provided. As a result, the primary 15 elements of range infrastructure management include: recurring 16 maintenance, range refurbishment, devegetation, wildfire 17 prevention/management, range security presence, and EOD. Volume 18 I of the RCMP contains definitions for the various elements of range 19 infrastructure management discussed in the following paragraphs. 20 This section will focus on the Boardman Range. 21 22 Funding responsibility for the infrastructure management for the 23 Boardman Range is through NAS Whidbey Island's Base Operating 24 Support (BOS) account resourced through CNRNW and CNIC. 25 Funding for natural resources projects is available from the Navy’s 26 agricultural outlease program, Commander, Pacific Fleet, and the 27 Legacy Resources Management Program (DoN 1999). Although 28 funding for natural resources projects is available through the 29 agricultural outlease program, no agricultural outleases exist at 30 NWSTF Boardman. All agricultural outleases expired in 2002 and 31 were not renewed due to Department of Defense Explosives Safety 32 Board unexploded ordnance clearance requirements. CNRNW 33 currently receives no Range Operating Support (ROS) funds, which 34 it would be able to apply toward range management. 35 36 NWSTF Boardman has several surface targets for tactical aircraft to 37 use, but they have not been maintained since 1996, when the A-6 38 Intruder retired from Naval Service. Boardman has more than 50 39 air-to-ground targets that were scored until the instrumentation was 40 removed in the late 1990’s. Targets included: a Moving Target 41 Track Indicator and Moving Airborne Laser Spot Tracker Target. 42 However, they were also deactivated and not maintained. The range 43 included a laser alignment board at the main target and electric 44 scoring for a mobile target and main bull (DoN 1987). 45 46 NAS Whidbey Island maintains a small detachment of Navy 47 Personnel (6 to 8 enlisted, CPO in charge) on site to maintain the 48 grounds and facilities (Class 1 and Class 2 real estate). The typical 49 current detachment includes: 1 CPO Machinest Mate, 1 CPO
9-7 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 Corpsman, 1 Mechanic, 1 Heavy Equipment Operator, 1 Steel 2 Worker, 1 Plumber, 1 Electronics Technician and 1 Yeoman. During 3 the more active 1980’s, 32 Navy personnel were assigned to 4 Boardman (DoN 1987). The current Navy personnel are 5 Construction Battalion (CB) rates from NAS Whidbey Operations, 6 and also include one Hospital Corpsman. These personnel provide 7 the day-to-day maintenance for the few buildings, vehicle 8 maintenance/repairs on an as-needed basis, brush fire 9 prevention/response, and provide a security presence (0700-1500 10 weekdays).
11 9.2.3.1 Recurring Maintenance 12 Recurring maintenance at NWSTF Boardman is performed by the 13 Sailors stationed there. Recurring maintenance includes repairing 14 inoperative equipment and maintaining roads, fencing, facilities, and 15 fire breaks. The vehicle inventory at Boardman includes: 1 front-end 16 loader, 1 road grader, 1 5-ton truck with a 1000 gallon fire-fighting 17 package, and a John Deere 6WD “Gator.” EOD operational range 18 clearance and unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal actions also take 19 place on a periodic basis. 20 21 As range training intensifies and the numbers of on-range events 22 increase, scheduling range maintenance may become more difficult. 23 It requires advanced, coordinated planning to ensure sufficient time 24 is provided for range maintenance. It also requires flexibility, such 25 as the ability of maintenance personnel to react to last-minute 26 schedule changes to cease all maintenance and open the range.
27 9.2.3.2 Range Refurbishment 28 Range refurbishment can include the installation of new range 29 infrastructure hardware or systems, or the upgrade of an existing 30 system. Whether or not the NWTRC requires range refurbishment at 31 NWSTF Boardman is dependent on the Navy’s requirements for the 32 range. 33 34 Should refurbishment be advised, the following are a few examples 35 of what may be expected. First, refurbishment can include the 36 necessity to maintain on-range targets and the replacement or repair 37 of battered or damaged targets. Another example is the need to clean 38 up around bull’s-eyes, remark the ground, and replace any objects 39 located adjacent to the target that aid in target recognition. As 40 electronic warfare systems age, they require refurbishment to ensure 41 that they provide realistic threat scenarios. Refurbishment may 42 include review of aging range systems and planned replacement of 43 system components with state-of-the-art hardware when conducting 44 repairs to malfunctioning systems. Older systems may be 45 refurbished to represent current targets, threats, and realistic combat 46 scenarios. Potential future refurbishment at NWSTF Boardman may 47 include: the addition of a mobile electronic threat emitter for 48 Electronic Combat training and target refurbishment to accommodate
9-8 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 live or inert ordnance releases. Also, a proposal is being evaluated 2 under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to construct a 3 multi-purpose machine gun range and multi-purpose training range 4 for the Oregon Army National Guard on 2,240 acres of NWSTF 5 Boardman. 6 7 A system replacement and modernization (SRAM) program is an 8 avenue available to assist the NWTRC with range refurbishment. 9 SRAM funding requirements are coordinated by COMNAVAIRPAC 10 through USFF, resourced by Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 11 (OPNAV) N43, and executed by Program Management, Air (PMA- 12 205; previously PMA-248), whose agent is Naval Surface Warfare 13 Center (NSWC) Corona. This progressive refurbishment or 14 upgrading of systems is a cost-effective method for enhancing range 15 performance and reducing the scope of periodic system replacement.
16 9.2.3.3 Sage-Scrub Management 17 According to the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 18 (INRMP) for NWSTF Boardman, The Nature Conservancy leases 19 5,050 acres of the total 47,400 acres at NWSTF Boardman. This 20 leased acreage is divided among three tracts, which are managed as 21 Research Natural Areas (RNAs). The RNAs are focused primarily 22 on the conservation of relic populations of native grasslands and are 23 used for ecological studies. At the time the RNAs were first leased 24 to The Nature Conservancy, little was known about what areas of 25 NWSTF Boardman were the healthiest and most ecologically 26 important (DoN 1999). 27 28 RNA #1 is centered on the main target bull’s-eye, located in the 29 center of NWSTF Boardman and the Surface Danger Zones (SDZs) 30 for the proposed ORARNG training ranges. This RNA has received 31 a considerable amount of disturbance over the years from the use of 32 the target for bombing practice. A dune area in the northwest portion 33 of NWSTF Boardman has been identified by The Nature 34 Conservancy as a more viable and ecologically important part of the 35 range, and as a possible relocation area for RNA #1 (Nelson 2005). 36 One aspect of the decision-making process in connection with the 37 proposed ORARNG training at Boardman would be the relocation of 38 RNA #1. Such relocation would likely be positive for the Navy, 39 ORARNG, and The Nature Conservancy.
40 9.2.3.4 Devegetation 41 Removal of vegetation may be periodically required. Vegetation can 42 obscure targets, restrict access to range areas, and create fire hazards, 43 all of which result in range degradation. Navy maintenance teams 44 conduct periodic devegetation as it becomes necessary around range 45 structures and targets. The need for periodic devegetation at 46 NWSTF Boardman is reduced somewhat by the semi-arid climate. 47 Should air-to-ground activity increase, regular programmed 48 devegetation would likely be necessary to prevent wildfires.
9-9 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 2 Targeted devegetation is also conducted pursuant to the Weed 3 Control Plan, as set forth in NWSTF Boardman INRMP Appendix D 4 (DoN 1989). Several noxious weeds are present at NWSTF 5 Boardman, including: rush skeletonweed, yellow starthistle, 6 spikeweed, perennial pepperweed, Scotch thistle, knapweed, 7 medusahead rye, cereal rye, and Russian thistle, among others. As 8 funds are available, Navy weed control is conducted via aerial 9 application of certain herbicides in the appropriate concentration for 10 the target species. Manual spraying and pulling of weeds was also 11 conducted by The Nature Conservancy within the RNAs and their 12 associated 200 meter-wide buffer areas (DoN 1989).
13 9.2.3.5 Wildfires 14 The 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy directs each 15 federal agency with burnable acreage to develop a Fire Management 16 Plan. Fire management plans are strategic documents based on 17 existing land management plans, and designed to guide the full range 18 of fire management related activities in a unit or area. Fire 19 Management Plans are supplemented by operational plans such as 20 preparedness plans, dispatch plans, prescribed burn plans, and 21 prevention plans. Fire Management Plans include consideration of 22 local resource management objectives and activities, such as 23 restoring and sustaining ecosystems and protecting communities and 24 public safety. The Department of Defense was a signatory to the 25 2001 policy. NAS Whidbey Island is in the process of developing a 26 Fire Management Plan for NWSTF Boardman. 27 28 According to the 2006 Morrow County, OR Community Wildfire 29 Protection Plan, within the county there are two incorporated cities 30 with fire departments, Heppner and Lexington. Both are operated 31 with volunteer fire fighters. In addition, there are six rural fire 32 protection districts within the county: Heppner, Ione, Irrigon, 33 Boardman, S. Gilliam Rural, and Pilot Rock rural fire districts. In 34 the rural fire districts, there are only three paid fulltime fire fighters, 35 the remainder are volunteers. In 2005, Morrow County elected to 36 cover all lands outside the Forest Protection District with rural fire 37 protection for both structures and wildland (Morrow County, OR 38 2006). 39 40 Although Sailors at Boardman are qualified in basic wildland fire 41 fighting, none are Incident Commander qualified – a required 42 qualification for at least one individual of a crew attempting to 43 suppress wildfires. The Sailors at Boardman are qualified to supress 44 incipient fires, but not true wildland fires, nor are they trained or 45 equipped to fight structural fires.. Fires most often occur naturally at 46 the range (by lightning). Fires at NWSTF Boardman in 1998 and 47 2002 burned 17,000 and 5,000 acres respectively. 48
9-10 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 Due to the now infrequent and inert character of the ordnance use at 2 NWSTF Boardman, there is little concern for a resultant fire hazard 3 which may ensue from ordnance use. However, as a precaution, the 4 stationed detachment does construct firebreaks around any impact 5 areas and is trained in basic wildland fire suppression. The current 6 threat of wildfire from ordnance use stems from spotting charges 7 associated with practice bombs and tracers. The threat of wildland 8 fire would increase should either the bombing range return to live 9 fire or host ORARNG training. All range use would need to follow a 10 Fire Management Plan crafted to account for such increased use.
11 9.2.3.6 Operational Range Clearance 12 The Department of Defense (DoD) established programmatic 13 requirements to promote the long-term sustainable use of test and 14 training ranges in DoD Directive 4715.11, “Environmental and 15 Explosives Safety Management on Department of Defense Active 16 and Inactive Ranges Within the United States.” This directive 17 establishes policy for the sustainable use and management of DoD’s 18 active and inactive (operational) ranges located within the United 19 States. It requires the Head of each DoD Component to establish 20 procedures necessary to ensure that its ranges comply with this 21 Directive. The Directive requires range management plans be 22 developed at the installation or activity level, addressing long-term 23 sustainable use, management procedures, and record keeping. 24 25 The Navy Operational Range Clearance (ORC) Policy for Fleet 26 Training Ranges establishes the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 27 (N45) policy and requirements for performing operational range 28 clearance on Navy Fleet training ranges in accordance with DoD 29 4715.11. The policy applies to all operational land-based ranges 30 administered by the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT) 31 and Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (COMLANTFLT) exclusive of 32 water ranges and small arms ranges. The policy requires an ORC 33 Plan for each operational range programmed for continued use (DoN 34 2004). 35 36 ORC at NWSTF Boardman is conducted in accordance with the 37 Navy ORC Policy. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel 38 stationed at Seaplane Base are sent TAD to NWSTF Boardman to 39 neutralize any unspent marking charges and stockpile any inert 40 ordnance for removal. Expended ordnance is not handled until 41 inspected by EOD personnel. 42 43 There is the possibility for the presence of UXO within areas 44 proposed for use by the ORARNG at NWSTF Boardman. UXO 45 surveys would be needed in any areas where construction activities 46 would take place, and any UXO discovered would need to be 47 disposed of in accordance with standard procedures and the ORC 48 Policy. ORARNG does not propose the use of explosive ordnance 49 during the operation of the proposed ORARNG training ranges.
9-11 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 Therefore, ORARNG operations would not increase the potential 2 presence of UXO at NWSTF Boardman.
3 9.2.3.7 Integration of Maintenance Activities 4 Benefits can occur when maintenance activities are integrated. The 5 reverse also can occur, where an individual maintenance activity 6 performed on its own may interfere with other range management 7 activities. When maintenance activities are integrated and 8 synchronized, there is less duplication of effort and more efficient 9 and effective range sustainment. 10 11 The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) sustainable range 12 guidance focuses on maintenance practices to “maximize and sustain 13 the availability of military range and land assets by resourcing for 14 restoration and maintenance of range infrastructure and land assets.” 15 Further, OSD provides guidance to: 16 Implement active land management practices that sustain 17 range quality as required for military operations; 18 Institute range UXO and residue management programs; and 19 Institute appropriate operational range clearance programs.
20 9.2.4 Range Management at the NUWC Ranges
21 The Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC) is composed of the Dabob 22 Bay operating area (OPAREA), the Hood Canal OPAREA, and 23 interconnecting waters. The DBRC is managed in accordance with 24 an adopted Operations and Management Plan (OMP). An EA 25 determined that the implementation of this OMP would not cause 26 significant impact to the environment. The DBRC contains 7.25 nm 27 by 1.25nm of tracking area in Dabob Bay. Tracking instrumentation 28 is installed on the bottom of the site and maintained for continual 29 operation.
30 9.2.4.1 Recurring Maintenance 31 Recurring maintenance at the Dabob Bay OPAREA may include 32 maintenance on such items as the seven permanently deployed short 33 baseline arrays, which provide underwater tracking capability. There 34 are other cables and systems located on the floor of the Dabob Bay 35 that are used to measure acoustic/magnetic signals or act as 36 communications and submarine warning systems during operations. 37 38 The Hood Canal OPAREA is used to determine sensor accuracy, 39 conduct special torpedo launches, and conduct simple tests not 40 requiring underwater tracking. Additionally, Unmanned Underwater 41 Vehicles (UUVs) may be launched or recovered during transit tests 42 between the Hood Canal OPAREAs and the Dabob Bay OPAREA. 43 Two radar reflectors and other portable equipment are used to test 44 radar range and bearing accuracy. No noise monitoring equipment 45 or communications gear is permanently installed.
9-12 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 9.2.4.2 Range Refurbishment 2 Range refurbishment can include the installation of new range 3 infrastructure hardware or systems, or the upgrade of an existing 4 system. An example of refurbishment at the DBRC may include the 5 maintenence of bottom-moored arrays and the replacement or repair 6 of battered or damaged arrays or cables. NUWC Keyport is 7 currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 8 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) that will analyze the 9 impacts of extending the DBRC. 10 11 The Quinault range has been mostly inactive for many years, but the 12 aforementioned DEIS will examine a proposed extension of this 13 range area to include all of W-237A. Though DEIS details are not 14 available at this time, refurbishment of underwater tracking 15 equipment may be included in the analysis.
16 9.3 RANGE COMPLEX SUPPORT COMMANDS
17 The main support commands for the NWTRC consist of CNRNW 18 and NAVFAC NW.
19 9.3.1 Commander, Navy Region Northwest
20 CNRNW has a role in the management of the NWTRC because of 21 their responsibility as the Navy Regional Environmental Coordinator 22 (REC) and the administration of BOS funding (resourced through 23 CNIC) for Class I and II property. Programming and budgeting of 24 BOS resources for these ranges are under ADCON of CNIC. 25 However, the Regional Commands fall under the OPCON of USFF 26 on mission and operational issues associated with CONUS ranges. 27 28 The Regional Commands’ OPCON functions relate primarily to 29 land-based CONUS ranges. Support functions include legal, 30 environmental, facilities, public affairs, and comptroller support. 31 32 CNRNW serves as the Navy service component REC. A DoD REC 33 office and a Service Component REC (who coordinates with the 34 DoD REC) are assigned to each federal EPA region. The EPA 35 regions covered by CNRNW are Regions VIII and X. This vast area 36 includes the 10 states listed in Figure 9-3. Also shown in Figure 9-3 37 is the DoD REC office location. 38 39 The role of the DoD REC is to take the lead on issues that affect 40 more than one Service, and to manage these issues through the 41 Service Component RECs. The Service Component RECs have the 42 task of managing coordination within their respective Services and 43 delivering a Service position to the DoD REC. If consensus cannot 44 be reached, then the DoD REC must elevate the issue to the 45 Executive Agent for resolution. 46
9-13 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
EPA Region VIII EPA Region X Montana Washington North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Idaho Wyoming Alaska Utah Colorado
DoD REC Region VIII DoD REC Region X U.S. Army Environmental Center U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Western Regional Env. Office Excellence ATTN: SFIM-AEC-WR Western Regional Office Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Bldg 111 ATTN: AFCEE/CCR-S Commerce City, CO 80022-1748 333 Market Street, Suite 600 Phone: 303-289-0260; San Francisco, CA 94105-2196 DSN 749-2260 Phone: 415-977-8849 Fax: 303-289-0272 Fax: 415-977-8900 1 Figure 9-3. REC States and DOD REC Office Addresses
2 The CNRNW Regional Program Director (RPD) and Deputy REC 3 ensure that the REC is fully informed of all Navy REC issues, and 4 that such issues are coordinated appropriately with the DoD REC for 5 each EPA Region (Street 2005). 6 7 The Navy Regional Commands’ REC responsibilities are a key link 8 in the communication process between the military services, the 9 states, and federal agencies. They have the responsibility of 10 knowing and understanding the dynamics of state and environmental 11 issues within the NWTRC. 12 13 The responsibilities of the Navy REC as set forth in the DOD 14 Instruction 4715.2 are: 15 1. Monitor and coordinate the consistent interpretation and 16 application of DoD environmental policies at their 17 component’s installations within the region, and elevate 18 issues of interest or those requiring executive agents or 19 Environmental Safety and Occupational Health Policy Board 20 level attention to the DoD REC with a copy to the component 21 headquarters. 22 2. Serve as the focal point for information and coordination of 23 issues related to their component’s activities in the region. 24 3. Provide semi-annual executive summaries of their 25 component’s regional activities, success stories, and issues to 26 the DoD REC with a copy to the component’s headquarters. 27 4. Participate in regional meetings, as necessary, with other 28 DoD components and regulators, and monitor and coordinate 29 training activities with the DoD REC.
9-14 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 9.3.2 Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2 NAVFAC is the execution agent and service provider for the 3 MILCON Program within CONUS. The NWTRC is within the Area 4 of Responsibility (AOR) of NAVFAC NW. The NWTRC command 5 structure must work closely with NAVFAC NW to generate the 6 requirements and associated 1391 documentation to participate in the 7 MILCON Program. 8 9 NAVFAC NW is the service provider for the range sustainability 10 products including RCMPs, environmental planning documents, 11 range condition assessments, operational range clearance plans, etc. 12 Additionally, NAVFAC NW is the service provider for facility 13 support contracts (FSC) for standard operations and maintenance 14 (O&M) activities, as well as shore facility environmental compliance 15 activities. NAVFAC NW has many numerous contracts in place to 16 assist the NWTRC with range sustainment management support and 17 installation level O&M.
18 9.4 RANGE COMPLEX PLANNING
19 9.4.1 Fleet Enhanced Readiness Team
20 Enhanced Readiness Teams (ERTs) bring together operations, 21 facility, legal, and environmental staffs to focus on preserving 22 operations, training, testing, and other critical mission activities from 23 encroachment caused by environmental regulations. The charter 24 places responsibility on the ERT to develop strategies that address 25 emergent encroachment issues and establish organizational structures 26 that enable the Fleets to plan and implement proactive strategies. In 27 part, the charter states: 28 “The ERT mission is to ensure sustained readiness by 29 securing access to areas that allow us to meet current 30 training requirements and to provide for the long-term needs 31 of training with emerging weapons systems. The ERT must 32 be both reactive to resolve existing issues, and proactive to 33 address future encroachment impacts.” 34 35 The ERT is co-chaired by USFF and Commander, Pacific Fleet 36 (CPF) with USFF N73 and N77 and CPF N01CE1 and N7 as their 37 designated representatives or co-chairs. The ERT membership 38 consists of Fleet Directors of Training, Public Affairs, Legal, 39 Environmental, Type Commanders, Numbered Fleet Commanders 40 and CNIC/Regions. NAVFAC, SYSCOMs, CNO N43/Navy Range 41 Office, CNO N45, and other major commands are invited 42 participants. The USFF/CPF ERT shall: 43 1. Identify, prioritize, and address readiness and sustainment 44 issues;
9-15 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 2. Coordinate these issues with the Unified Commanders, 2 OPNAV, and other Fleet Commanders; and 3 3. Facilitate coordination of readiness and sustainment 4 encroachment issues that cross regional, Service, or other 5 Federal agency boundaries. 6 7 According to the charter, “Fleet and/or Regional ERT involvement in 8 an issue is required when the issue: 1) could have an adverse effect 9 on our standard operating procedures, 2) may increase expenses 10 associated with conducting standard operations/training, or 3) arises 11 from the action(s) of an organization outside of the Fleet claimancy.
12 9.4.2 CNRNW Enhanced Readiness Team
13 The CNRNW ERT has similar goals and mission as the Fleet ERT, 14 but implemented on a regional scale. According to the 2001 charter 15 for the CNRNW ERT the specific responsibilities are: 16 1. Develop a strategic action plan to address encroachment 17 issues within the CNRNW primary area of responsibility 18 (AOR). This plan should include the following provisions: 19 a) A process to prioritize or categorize encroachment issues 20 impacting the AOR. 21 b) A means to assess the level of impact of identified issues 22 on training, operations, and sustained readiness. 23 c) A means to identify those issues which reach, impact, or 24 set a precedent beyond the ERT’s ARO (region, Fleet, 25 Service). 26 d) A means to provide public affairs guidance for each 27 encroachment issue highlighting USN efforts to 28 safeguard the environment. 29 e) Form sub-committees or working groups as needed. 30 f) At a minimum, meet semi-annually or as specific issues 31 arise. 32 2. Forward to the next level all encroachment issues that cannot 33 be resolved within an ERT’s AOR or that will have impact 34 beyond an ERT’s AOR. 35 3. Develop a NIPRNET web page to serve as a shared database 36 on encroachment issues under their purview. The CPF ERT 37 will develop a model web page and assist the regional ERTs 38 with web page construction. The CNRNW ERT will assign a 39 point of contact for changes and updates to the web page. 40 41 The composition of the CNRNW ERT includes: 42 CNRNW (PAO, Legal, Environmental, and Public Works) 43 COMNAVSURFGRU PACNORWEST 44 COMSUBGRU-9 45 Fleet Air Support Unit PACNORWEST 46 EFA Northwest 47 NUWC Division Keyport 48 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
9-16 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 NAS Whidbey Island 2 NAVSURFWARCEN CARDEROCK DIV, DET BREM 3 Naval Forces Alaska 4 Commander, Naval Reserve Readiness Command 5 (COMNAVREDCOM) 22 6 7 To date, the CNRNW ERT has been relatively inactive due to 8 personnel resource constraints (i.e., ERT mandated new and 9 additional requirements, but with no corresponding increase in 10 personnel resources).
11 9.4.3 Range Complex Operations Environmental Planning Team
12 The purpose of the Range Complex Operations Environmental 13 Planning Team is to conduct the TAP program’s environmental 14 planning activities related to the NWTRC. The composition of this 15 team will have similar representation from the RCMT with a focus 16 on environmental planning. 17 18 Representation from NAVFAC NW’s Environmental Planning group 19 and USFF’s Environmental Operational Support Group (N77) are the 20 primary entities responsible for the management of the operational 21 planning phase of the TAP program. Participation from CNRNW 22 Environmental (N45) and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 23 Environmental Readiness (N45) may be required depending on the 24 nature of the environmental planning activity. 25 26 The NWTRC environmental planning phase was funded in FY 06. 27 The team’s objective is to facilitate the transition from the RCMP to 28 the execution of the environmental planning phase.
29 9.5 DATA COLLECTION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
30 Data collection and management is a critical element in managing 31 the NWTRC and providing quantifiable information that reflects the 32 range’s contribution to fleet readiness. Data must also be available 33 to support investment planning to ensure that range capabilities meet 34 current and future fleet training and testing requirements. 35 Operational and environmental planning requires data to determine 36 the most effective and efficient way to prioritize problems. These 37 data are the basis of a program that provides best care and 38 maintenance of the range’s resources and environment.
39 9.5.1 Tactical Training and Testing Ranges Repository and Management System (T- 40 RAMS) and the Environmental Information Management System (EIMS)
41 T-RAMS was developed to meet the USFF requirement to establish 42 a single, comprehensive, Navy-wide information management 43 system, document storage system, and database for operational and 44 environmental planning documents and to support operational 45 requirements. The primary data themes within T-RAMS include:
9-17 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 range operations, sustainability planning, and sustainability 2 management. 3 4 As part of the TAP program, a large amount of data has and will 5 continue to be collected, organized, and analyzed. The centralized 6 T-RAMS was developed to: 7 Store and manage data collected during the development of 8 TAP products, 9 Provide methods for standardizing data collection to facilitate 10 data queries, 11 Provide methods for standardizing the validation process for 12 data collected, 13 Provide methods for maintaining the currency and validity of 14 data once they are accepted for storage, 15 Provide standard rules and methods for data archival, 16 Provide access to the data for further analysis or study, 17 Provide an interface to the Navy's Environmental Information 18 Management System (EIMS) to allow environmental and 19 operational planners to access the TAP data through EIMS, 20 and 21 Store and manage data within the secured Navy/Marine 22 Corps Intranet (NMCI). 23 24 The Navy’s EIMS was validated in the year 2000. The broad 25 requirements were to provide a single comprehensive Navy GIS- 26 based information management system and data repository for 27 operational and environmental planning to support operational 28 requirements, at-sea environmental issues, range/OPAREA 29 compliance, and encroachment concerns. EIMS development 30 resulted in two tangible planning tools: 1) Protective Measures 31 Assessment Protocol (PMAP) and 2) the Planning Use Case. 32 33 A description of the PMAP was provided previously in Chapter 4 of 34 this RCMP. The original requirement for the Planning Use Case was 35 to develop a tool that would make timely notifications to 36 environmental planners about major exercises being planned 37 throughout the Navy. 38 39 EIMS is a tool that greatly enables the planning required prior to the 40 use of range complexes and OPAREAs. It specifically supports the 41 TAP program. T-RAMS and EIMS are described in further detail in 42 Volume I of the RCMP.
43 9.5.2 Northwest Training Range Complex Data Management
44 Operational data within the NWTRC must be captured to document 45 current utilization of the ranges. These data will contribute to 46 developing a historical record to track patterns of utilization and 47 assist in the formulation of range investment planning. 48
9-18 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 At other range complexes, operational data is captured in such 2 systems as: 1) Navy Scheduling System (NAVSKED), 2) Military 3 Airspace Management System (MAMS), 3) Range Facility 4 Management Support System (RFMSS), and 4) Target and Range 5 Information Management System (TRIMS). However, in the 6 NWTRC, no such systems are in use. 7 8 During the data collection process for the Northwest Training 9 RCMP, several main data sets were not available for analysis. These 10 included the At-Sea and Airspace Operational Exercise Data for 11 events conducted in the NWTRC, and scheduling data. The data sets 12 that were not available are discussed below. 13 14 More details on scheduling and data management are included in 15 Chapter 2, but below are listed the general sources for operational 16 data. NAS Whidbey Island is the controlling and scheduling 17 authority for Navy training ranges, airspace and surface space (water 18 and land). COMSUBPAC (CTG 14.9) is the controlling and 19 scheduling authority for the Offshore subsurface water-space in 20 WIRC. McChord Air Force Base is the controlling authority for W- 21 93 and W-570. 22 23 NUWC Keyport is the scheduling authority for the RDT&E range 24 sites. Surface/airborne tracking is achieved by visual observation or 25 Global Positioning System (GPS). Analog or digital tapes provide 26 permanent recordings of tracking data. The raw range data is sent to 27 Keyport for analysis and production of smooth data products. 28 29 In addition to logging each individual RDT&E test feedback, range 30 personnel use the DBRC monitor and log certain other items 31 whenever the range is in use. This data is maintained for at least ten 32 years and for use in studies related to sustainability and management 33 of the range. The types of data logged include: 34 The number of boats contacted to clear the range 35 The number of boats contacted that come to a full stop 36 The number of boats that were unable to be contacted, thus 37 holding up range operations during their transit 38 Adverse interactions with citizens 39 Damage to fishing hardware/boats incurred during range 40 operations 41 List of hardware not retrieved/recovered in the DBRC for 42 each test (including anchors, lead weights, copper wire, 43 torpedo hardware, and other hardware) 44 Marine mammal sightings.
45 9.5.2.1 Operational Exercise Data 46 Unavailable At-Sea Operational Exercise Data for events conducted 47 in the NWTRC OPAREAs fall into three categories. 48 Types of operations conducted, including: 49 o Numbers of operations (training exercises),
9-19 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 o Area of operations, 2 o Types of operations correlated to a specific warfare 3 mission area or Navy mission essential task (NMET), 4 o Participants and platforms utilized in each type, and 5 o Total number of operations on an annual basis. 6 Ordnance expended, including: 7 o Use correlated to mission area/NMET and 8 o Type, quantity, and location (land, water, or ocean area) of 9 expenditure on an annual basis. 10 Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training events involving 11 active sonar transmission, including: 12 o Area of operations, 13 o Duration of the event, 14 o Participants and platforms utilized, and 15 o Number of ASW events on an annual basis. 16 17 Unavailable Airspace Operational Exercise Data for events conducted in 18 the NWTRC SUA includes: 19 20 Types of operations conducted, including: 21 o Types of operations correlated to a specific warfare 22 mission area or Navy mission essential task (NMET) and 23 o Participants and platforms utilized in each type. 24 Ordnance expended, including: 25 o Use correlated to mission area/NMET and 26 o Type, quantity, and location (land, water, or ocean area) of 27 expenditure on an annual basis. 28 29 An information technology investment of a web-enabled operations 30 report (OPREP) system would assist in satisfying this data collection 31 requirement. The current OPREPs could be web-enabled so the data 32 entry at the user level would remain the same. A few additional 33 fields to complete the operations picture would be added to the report 34 to facilitate in the population of the OPREP database. Over time, 35 this database would become populated with applicable information 36 required to develop/update the NWTRC RCMP.
37 9.5.2.2 Scheduling Data 38 Based on data gathered for the RCMP, special use airspace schedules 39 are promulgated daily via email across an intranet. Notices to 40 Airmen (NOTAMs) are published twice daily and Notices to 41 Mariners (NOTMARs) are published as needed. A process to 42 compare the initial published schedule to the executed schedule for 43 the NWTRC does not exist. When an event is modified, moved, or 44 cancelled, it would be beneficial to have a mechanism to document 45 those changes and capture the true utilization of NWTRC. Reasons 46 for the changes would also be captured to assist with the 47 encroachment analysis conducted in Chapter 5. When a scheduled 48 event was changed, the range manager would have the ability to 49 trace the change back to the root cause.
9-20 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
1 2 An information technology investment of a web-enabled scheduling 3 system would facilitate the process described above. In addition, it 4 would assist with the exchange of scheduling data with other range 5 complexes and FACSFAC San Diego.
6 9.5.2.3 Recommendations to Enhance Data Management 7 The two information technology recommendations identified above 8 can be included as part of the Fleet’s Range Management System 9 currently being researched by USFF.
9-21 VOL II, CH 9ORGANIZATION AND PROCESSES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX RCMP
This page intentionally left blank
9-22 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 10 OUTREACH
2 10.1 INTRODUCTION
3 Range sustainability requires that the Department of Defense (DoD) 4 work with stakeholders to identify and resolve issues. The purpose 5 of this outreach chapter is to support the overall Range Complex 6 Management Plan (RCMP) by recommending targeted outreach 7 strategies and approaches that address encroachment issues and 8 support sustainment strategies for the Northwest Training Range 9 Complex (NWTRC). This chapter encompasses outreach to key 10 stakeholders who can have an impact on encroachment and 11 sustainability at training ranges, and whose decisions may positively 12 or negatively affect the ability to use those ranges. The 13 recommended outreach strategies and approaches provide methods, 14 messages, and tools to address the future needs and challenges of 15 NWTRC and are designed to support its strategic vision and 16 investments. Implementation of these recommendations will require 17 coordination among all responsible for management of the range 18 complex. 19 20 It is not the purpose of this outreach chapter to serve as a 21 comprehensive public affairs or stakeholder relations plan for the 22 range complex or for individual Installations and facilities. Ongoing 23 outreach efforts beyond those recommended here will continue, as 24 appropriate, to support other goals and issues of the region and the 25 facilities that comprise the range complex. 26 27 Outreach is defined as the process of communicating the military 28 mission and developing and maintaining stakeholder partnerships to 29 ensure the continuation of mission-essential operations. Outreach is 30 not only mandated by DoD Directive 3200.15, Sustainment of 31 Ranges and Operating Areas (OPAREAS), January 2003, it is highly 32 recommended to maintain positive partnerships between the range 33 and its stakeholders. According to the Directive, ranges should: 34 Institute multi-tiered coordination and outreach programs 35 that promote sustainment of ranges and OPAREAs, and 36 resolution of encroachment issues that promote 37 understanding of the readiness, safety, environmental, and 38 economic considerations surrounding the use and 39 management of ranges and OPAREAs. 40 Ensure consideration of stakeholder interests in DoD range 41 related decisions. 42 Improve communications and enter into cooperative 43 agreements and partnerships with other Federal agencies; 44 state, Tribal, and local governments; and nongovernmental 45 organizations (NGOs) with expertise or interest in DoD
10-1 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 ranges, OPAREAs, and airspace, to further sustainment 2 objectives. 3 In a June 2003 memorandum entitled Guidance for Fiscal Years 4 2006 – 2011 Sustainable Ranges Programs from the Under Secretary 5 of Defense, the Services were directed to “implement sustainment 6 outreach efforts that will improve public understanding of DoD 7 requirements for training and testing and support coalition building 8 and partnering on range sustainment issues important to DoD 9 readiness.” The Services are to: 10 Conduct local community involvement at all ranges and 11 associated Installations. 12 Develop Servicewide programs to provide common 13 community involvement information and tools to all 14 Installation commanders and staff. 15 Establish local Points of Contact (POCs) (non-Public 16 Affairs) for range sustainment. 17 18 Chapter 10 describes existing and proposed outreach activities as 19 well as suggested activity and results-based outreach metrics for 20 NWTRC. The intent of this chapter is to detail how to create and 21 maintain stakeholder partnerships through regular, proactive 22 dialogue and information exchange. For the purpose of this chapter, 23 “stakeholder” is a broad term used to encompass individuals and/or 24 groups in the following categories: elected officials, regulatory and 25 government agencies, community and business groups, NGOs, 26 Native American groups, and the media.
27 10.2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION
28 This section provides a brief overview of demographic 29 characteristics of the areas surrounding the naval facilities and ranges 30 covered in this RCMP (Offshore, Inshore, Naval Undersea Warfare 31 Center [NUWC], and Explosive Ordnance Disposal [EOD]/Navy 32 Special Warfare [NSW] ranges). This demographic summary helps 33 provide a background and context for the outreach strategies and 34 recommendations.
35 10.2.1 Economic Contribution
36 In July 2004, the Washington State Office of Financial Management 37 conducted a study of the economic contribution of military bases and 38 activities to the state (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/economy/ 39 military/index.htm). The study found that military bases contribute 40 significantly to the state’s economic activity. In Island County, 88 41 percent of the economic activity comes from military bases. Other 42 counties with large percentages of economic activity from bases 43 include Kitsap (54 percent) and Pierce (30 percent). Spokane and 44 Snohomish counties receive 9 and 5 percent, respectively, of their 45 economic activity from military bases. 46
10-2 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Other findings in the report include data that sales by Washington 2 companies to local bases total $528 million per year. In King 3 County alone, businesses sold $174 million to bases statewide. 4 Forty-four companies in the state derive 100 percent of their business 5 from military bases, and 30 others generate more than half of their 6 business from the bases.
7 10.2.2 Island County, WA
8 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (NASWI) is situated in northwest 9 Washington on Whidbey Island, which is one of two islands 10 comprising Island County – Camano Island and Whidbey Island. It 11 is located approximately three miles north of the city of Oak Harbor 12 and near the town of Coupeville. 13 14 Eighty-one percent of the Island County population (71,558) resides 15 on Whidbey Island. As mentioned, nearly 88 percent of economic 16 activity in Island County is directly or indirectly linked to the Navy’s 17 presence. NAS Whidbey Island’s net direct impact in 2003 18 amounted $494.5 million, of which $399.1 million was in the form 19 of payroll earnings of both civilian and military workers.
20 10.2.3 Kitsap County, WA
21 Kitsap County, home to NUWC Keyport, Naval Base (NB) Kitsap- 22 Bangor, NB Kitsap-Bremerton, and NUWC Dabob Bay/Hood Canal, 23 has a population of 231,969 with the following ethnicity breakdown: 24 Caucasians (84.3 percent), Black or African American (2.9 percent), 25 American Indian and Alaska Native (1.6 percent), Asian (4.4 26 percent), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (0.8 percent), 27 and other races (1.4 percent). Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 28 account for 4.1 percent of the population. Over 90 percent of the 29 population above 25 years of age has a high school degree. The 30 median household income is $46,840, the per capita income is 31 $22,317, and 8.8 percent of the population lives below the poverty 32 line. The educational, health, and social services industry is the 33 largest employer (19.7 percent), followed by retail trade (12.6 34 percent), and manufacturing (11 percent). 35 36 The Port Madison Indian Reservation is located on the Kitsap 37 Peninsula, on the waterfront across the Puget Sound from Seattle and 38 Keyport. The reservation is home to the Suquamish people, a fishing 39 tribe whose leader was Chief Seattle, after whom the city took its 40 name. The Tribe’s 1996 membership roster listed over 780 41 members. 42 43 According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, 44 54 percent of all economic activity in Kitsap County is directly or 45 indirectly linked to personnel and procurements at naval bases. On- 46 base employment of 27,375 constitutes about 36 percent of total 47 employment in Kitsap County.
10-3 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 10.2.3.1 City of Silverdale, WA 2 Silverdale is home to 15,816 people over 6.9 square miles. The 3 majority of Silverdale’s population is Caucasian (74.9 percent), 4 followed by Filipino (8.6 percent), Black or African American (3.5 5 percent), American Indian (1.9 percent), and Native Hawaiian or 6 Pacific Islander (1.1 percent). The median household income in 7 2000 was $48,164, and 5.9 percent of the population is unemployed. 8 9 Silverdale attracts visitors from the region due to its large mall and 10 other shopping opportunities, and retail trade accounts for 15.2 11 percent of the county’s economy. Other industries include 12 education, health, and social services (21.7 percent); public 13 administration (12.1 percent); arts, entertainment, recreation, 14 accommodation, and food service, (11.1 percent); and professional, 15 scientific, management, administrative, and waste management 16 services (10.2 percent).
17 10.2.3.2 City of Poulsbo, WA 18 The city of Poulsbo has a population of 7,450 and lies on Liberty 19 Bay, a fjord of Puget Sound. Poulsbo is a popular boating and tourist 20 destination, particularly in the summer. It is especially known for its 21 Scandinavian heritage and proximity to the Olympic Mountains to 22 the west. Poulsbo is governed by a mayor and seven council 23 members (http://www.cityofpoulsbo.com/).
24 10.2.4 Snohomish County, WA
25 Snohomish County, like other counties discussed previously, is not 26 very ethnically diverse. Of the 606,024 people living in the County, 27 85.6 percent are Caucasian. Asians and Hispanics are the next 28 largest ethnic groups at 5.8 and 4.7 percent respectively. Of the 25 29 years and over population, 89.2 percent have high school degrees. 30 The median household income is $53,060, the per capita income is 31 $23,417, and 6.9 percent of the population lives below the poverty 32 line. Manufacturing (17.7 percent), educational, health and social 33 services (16.3 percent), and retail sectors (13 percent) contribute 34 significantly to local employment and earnings. 35 36 Naval Station Everett, located in Snohomish County, contributes 37 directly or indirectly to five percent of economic activity in the 38 County. On base employment of 4,517 constitutes about two percent 39 of total County employment.
40 10.2.5 Jefferson County, WA
41 Jefferson County borders the Dabob Bay Range Complex, Offshore 42 Areas W-237 (A-H, J), Olympic MOA (A/B), NUWC Quinault 43 Range, and includes Naval Magazine Indian Island. Jefferson 44 County has a primarily Caucasian population (92.2 percent) of 45 25,953. A small percentage of American Indians (2.3 percent) and
10-4 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Hispanics (2.1 percent) live in Jefferson County. Over 91 percent of 2 the people 25 years of age and over have high school degrees. The 3 median household income is $37,869, the per capita income is 4 $22,211, and 11.3 percent of the population lives below the poverty 5 line. 6 7 The educational, health, and social services industry is the largest 8 employer in Jefferson County (18.3 percent), followed by arts and 9 entertainment (12.7 percent), and construction and manufacturing 10 (10.5 and 10.4 percent respectively). Forest resources represent the 11 principal component of the local economy. The Federal government 12 has significant roles in Jefferson County for national defense, 13 forestry, and recreation. 14 15 In the mid-19th century, American Indian tribes in what is now 16 Jefferson County included the Chemakum (or Chimacum), Hoh (a 17 group of the Quileute), Klallam (or Clallam), Quinault, and Twana 18 (the Kilcid band—Anglicized as Quilcene) (Jefferson County 19 History [JCH] 2003). Local tribes had populations of no more than a 20 few hundred. Currently, there is only one reservation (created in 21 1893) in Jefferson County. The Hoh Reservation occupies 640 acres 22 on the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Hoh River. The Jamestown 23 S’Klallam Tribe presently has 526 enrolled tribal members. 24 Although a few members (13 percent) live outside of the state, most 25 live on the Olympic Peninsula, within Jefferson and Clallam 26 Counties. Some tribal members still live in Jamestown, but much of 27 the land has been sold over the years.
28 10.2.5.1 City of Port Townsend, WA 29 The city of Port Townsend is in Jefferson County and is the 30 administrative center or county seat for the county. It is primarily 31 known for its independent boat builders and other marine industries. 32 All marine traffic entering and leaving Puget Sound goes past Port 33 Townsend. 34 35 Approximately 8,334 people reside in Port Townsend (Census 2000), 36 comprised of 3,917 households and 2,201 families. The population 37 density in 2000 was 1,191.8 people per square mile and 4,250 38 housing units, at an average density of 607.8 housing units per 39 square mile. The average household size was 2.09 and the average 40 family size was 2.67. 41 42 Port Townsend residents consist of 93.3 percent Caucasian, 0.6 43 percent African American, 1.3 percent Native American, 1.3 percent 44 Asian, 0.2 percent Pacific Islander, 0.9 percent from other races, and 45 2.5 percent from two or more races. In addition, 2.3 percent of the 46 population was Hispanic or Latino of any race (Census 2000). 47 48 Port Townsend operates with a city council/manager form of 49 government. The city council is made up of seven elected officials.
10-5 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 10.2.6 Clallam County, WA
2 Clallam County is a neighbor to Offshore Areas W-237 (A-H, J), 3 Chinook MOA (A/B), Olympic MOA (A/B), and NUWC Quinault 4 Range and has a population of 67,867 over 1,739 square miles. The 5 majority of the county (89.1 percent) is Caucasian, with American 6 Indians or Alaska Natives making up 5.1 percent and Asians making 7 up 1.1 percent. In addition, 3.4 percent identify as Hispanic. Among 8 citizens 25 years or older, 85.5 percent are high school graduates. 9 The median household income is $36,449, and per capita income is 10 $19,517 (USCB 2004). Clallam County is governed by a three- 11 member board of commissioners. 12 13 Clallam County is home to the Makah Indian Nation, and the Neah 14 Bay fishing village which serves as the center for Makah cultural and 15 seafaring economy events. The new Neah Bay Marina harbors over 16 200 commercial and sport fishing vessels and other watercraft. 17 Further south, the Ozette archaeological site provides information on 18 early Makah life. Clallam County is also home to the Quileute 19 (population 381) and Lower Elwha (population 137) reservations.
20 10.2.7 Grays Harbor County, WA
21 Grays Harbor County is a neighbor to Offshore Areas W-237 (A-H, 22 J), Olympic MOA (A/B), and NUWC Quinault Range. Grays 23 Harbor County is located on the western portion of the Olympic 24 Peninsula. Grays Harbor County’s 2004 population was 25 approximately 70,338 (UCSB 2004). The majority of the county is 26 Caucasian (88.3 percent). The next largest ethic groups are Asian 27 (4.7 percent) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (1.2 percent). 28 Additionally, 4.8 percent identified as Hispanic. Of residents 25 29 years old or older, 81.1 percent are high school graduates. The 30 median household income is $34,160, per capita income is $16,799 31 and 16.1 percent of the population lives below the poverty line 32 (USCB 2004). 33 34 At the entrance to Grays Harbor is Ocean Shores. It has been voted 35 Washington’s top family vacation spot for the last 5 years (Grays 36 Harbor Economic Development Council 2003). Ocean Shores has a 37 resident population of 3,800 but receives nearly 2.5 million visitors 38 each year. To the south of Grays Harbor is Westport, which harbors 39 much of the county’s fishing fleet. Fifteen miles inland, where the 40 Chehalis River flows into Grays Harbor, are the contiguous cities of 41 Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Comopolis. These cities form the 42 commercial and industrial core of the county, and almost half of 43 Grays Harbor residents live here. The Olympic National Forest 44 covers a majority of the county, and the Olympic Coast National 45 Marine Sanctuary lies offshore from the county. 46 47 The 189,621-acre Quinault Reservation is located in northwest Grays 48 Harbor County. The Quinault Indian Nation consists of the Quinault
10-6 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 tribe, plus the descendents of five other coastal tribes: the Hoh, 2 Quileute, Chehalis, Chinook, and Cowlitz. The town of Taholah is 3 the center for the Quinault Indian Nation.
4 10.2.8 Whatcom County, WA
5 Whatcom County is home to the Darrington OPAREA. Its 6 population is approximately 180,167 over 2,120 square miles. The 7 majority of the county is Caucasian (88.4 percent). The next largest 8 ethnic groups are American Indian or Alaskan Native and Asian, 9 both at 2.8 percent. In addition, 5.2 percent identify as Hispanic. Of 10 residents at least 25 years old, 87.5 percent are high school 11 graduates. The median household income is $40,005, per capita 12 income is $20,025, and 14.2 percent of the population lives below 13 the poverty line. 14 15 Whatcom County encompasses the cities and towns of Bellingham, 16 Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas, plus 17 many unincorporated communities. Whatcom is a charter county, 18 which means its legislative and administrative functions are separate. 19 The county is governed by an elected, part-time, seven-member city 20 council and a full-time elected county executive. The County 21 Charter also grants county citizens the right of initiative and 22 referendum. 23 24 The Lummi Indian Reservation is located in Whatcom County, seven 25 miles northwest of Bellingham. The reservation is a five-mile long 26 peninsula covering approximately 12,000 acres with a population of 27 3,147. The tribal economy is driven by fishing, a restaurant, a 28 marina complex, and a fish-processing plant at Gooseberry Point. 29 The reservation is governed by an 11-member council, which meets 30 at least once a year. The Nooksack Indian Reservation is also 31 located in Whatcom County. It encompasses 2,500 acres in the town 32 of Deming and has a population of 556 (WA State Office of 33 Financial Management, 1990 Census Profiles).
34 10.2.9 Skagit County, WA
35 Skagit County is home to Darrington OPAREA. Its population is 36 111,064 over 1,735 square miles. The county, ethnically, is mostly 37 Caucasian (86.5 percent), followed by American Indian or Alaska 38 Native (1.9 percent) and Asian (1.5 percent). In addition, 11.2 39 percent identify as Hispanic. Of residents at least 25 years old, 84 40 percent are high school graduates. The median household income is 41 $42,381, per capita income is $21,256 and 11.1 percent of the 42 population lives below the poverty line. Skagit County is governed 43 by a three-member Board of Commissioners. 44 45 Skagit County is home to two American Indian reservations. The 46 Swinomish Reservation is located on Fidalgo Island near LaConner. 47 The reservation has a population of 2,282 and is governed by the
10-7 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 eleven-member Swinomish Indian Senate. The Upper Skagit 2 Reservation has a population of 180 and is governed by a seven- 3 member Tribal Council.
4 10.2.10 Snohomish County, WA
5 Snohomish County, like others discussed previously, is not very 6 ethnically diverse. Of the 606,024 people living in the County, 85.6 7 percent are Caucasian. Asians and Hispanics are the next largest 8 ethnic groups at 5.8 and 4.7 percent, respectively. Of the population 9 at least 25 years old, 89.2 percent have high school degrees. The 10 median household income is $53,060, the per capita income is 11 $23,417, and 6.9 percent of the population lives below the poverty 12 line. Manufacturing (17.7 percent); educational, health and social 13 services (16.3 percent); and retail sectors (13 percent) contribute 14 significantly to local employment and earnings. 15 16 Naval Station Everett, located in Snohomish County, contributes 17 directly or indirectly to five percent of economic activity in the 18 County. On-base employment of 4,517 constitutes about two percent 19 of total County employment. 20 21 Snohomish County is home to the Tulalip Tribe Reservation, which 22 encompasses 22,000 acres near Marysville and the Snohomish River. 23 The reservation is shared by members from the Snohomish, 24 Snoqualmie, Skagit, Suiattle, Samish, and Stillaguamish tribes, along 25 with allied bands living in the area. In 2004, the tribe reported 3,611 26 members living on the reservation.
27 10.2.11 Pierce County, WA
28 Pierce County is home to parts of NUWC Keyport Range. Pierce 29 County encompasses 24 cities and towns, with a population of 30 745,411 over 1,679 square miles. Ethnically, the County is 78.4 31 percent Caucasian, 7 percent Black or African American, 5.1 percent 32 Asian, and 1.4 percent American Indian or Alaska Native. 33 Additionally, 5.5 percent identify as Hispanic. Of the population 25 34 years old and older, 86.9 percent are high school graduates. The 35 median household income is $45,204, per capita income is $20,948, 36 and 10.5% of the population lives below the poverty line (USCB 37 2004). Pierce County is governed by a seven-member county 38 council. 39 40 Pierce County produces 50 percent of the country’s rhubarb, and its 41 79 other agricultural products contribute a large percentage to the 42 areas economy. The Port of Tacoma makes the area a major trade 43 and service center. The county also participates in some 44 manufacturing. 45 46 Pierce County is home to 32,406 members of the Puyallup Tribe of 47 Indians. The tribe is governed by a seven-member council. The
10-8 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 tribe developed and runs Puyallup International Inc., which operates 2 Chinook Landing marina, the Bingo Palace, and Emerald Queen 3 Casino.
4 10.2.12 Okanogan County, WA
5 Okanogan County houses Okanogan Military Operating Areas 6 (A/B/C). It has a population of 39,444 over 5,268 square miles. The 7 largest ethnic group is Caucasian (75.3 percent), followed by 8 American Indian or Alaska Native (11.5%). In addition, 14.4 9 percent identify as Hispanic. Of residents 25 years old or older, 76.6 10 percent are high school graduates. The median household income is 11 $29,726, per capita income $14,900, and 21.3 percent of the 12 population lives below the poverty line. Okanogan County is 13 governed by three elected Commissioners. 14 15 The Colville Reservation encompasses 1.4 million acres (2,100 16 square miles) of Okanogan and nearby Ferry Counties. This 17 reservation is composed of twelve confederated tribes: Wenatchee, 18 Nespelem, Moses-Columbia, Methow, Colville, Okanogan, Palus, 19 San Poil, Entiat, Chelan, Nez Perce, and Lake. Total tribal 20 enrollment is 8,700.
21 10.2.13 Ferry County, WA
22 Ferry County houses Roosevelt Military Operating Areas (A/B). Its 23 population is 7,565 over 2,204 square miles. The majority of the 24 population is Caucasian (75.5 percent) or American Indian or Alaska 25 Native (18.3 percent). 2.8 percent identify as Hispanic. Of residents 26 25 years old or older, 82.7 percent have graduated high school. The 27 median household income is $30,388, per capita income is $15,019, 28 and 19 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. 29 Lumber, mining, and agriculture are the county’s major economic 30 activities. Ferry County is governed by three commissioners. 31 32 The Colville Reservation encompasses 1.4 million acres (2,100 33 square miles) of Ferry and adjacent Okanogan Counties. See Section 34 10.2.12 for more information.
35 10.2.14 Stevens County, WA
36 Stevens County is home to Roosevelt Military Operating Areas 37 (A/B). The county’s population is 41,310 over 2,478 square miles. 38 The majority of the population (90 percent) is Caucasian, followed 39 by American Indian or Alaska Native (5.7 percent). In addition, 1.8 40 percent identify as Hispanic. Of the population at least 25 years old, 41 85.4 percent have graduated high school. The median household 42 income is $34,673, per capita income $15,895 and 15.9 percent of 43 the population lives below the poverty line (USCB 2004). Stevens 44 County is governed by three commissioners. 45
10-9 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Stevens County is home to the Spokane Indian Reservation. The 2 reservation spans 157,000 acres and, in 1990, had a population of 3 1,502.
4 10.2.15 Pend Oreille County, WA
5 Pend Oreille County houses Roosevelt Military Operating Area 6 (A/B). It has a population of 12,474 over 1,400 square miles. Most 7 of the population is Caucasian (93.5 percent), followed by American 8 Indian or Alaska Native (2.9 percent). Additionally, 2.1 percent 9 identify as Hispanic. Of residents at least 25 years old, 81.0 percent 10 are high school graduates. The median household income is 11 $31,677, per capita income is $15,731, and 18.1 percent of the 12 population lives below the poverty line (USCB 2004). 13 14 Newport is the county seat of Pend Oreille County. The county 15 otherwise consists of four incorporated towns (Cusick, Ione, 16 Metaline, and Metaline Falls) and two unincorporated towns (Usk 17 and Dalkena). Pend Oreille County is governed by a three county 18 commissioners. 19 20 Approximately 100 Kalispel Indians live on the Kalispel Indian 21 Reservation in Pend Oreille County.
22 10.2.16 Lincoln County, OR
23 Lincoln County is adjacent to Offshore Area W-570. Lincoln 24 County has a population of 44,479 over 980 square miles. The 25 county has a primarily Caucasian population (90.6 percent), with a 26 smaller population of American Indians or Alaska Natives (3.1 27 percent). Almost 5 percent of the county’s population identifies as 28 Hispanic. The median income is $32,769, per capita income is 29 $18,692, and 13.9 percent of the population lives below the poverty 30 line. Lincoln County incorporates the cities of Depoe Bay, Lincoln 31 City, Newport, Siletz, Toledo, Waldport, and Yachats. 32 33 Lincoln County’s economy consists of tourism, government, 34 services/retail, forest products, and fishing. In addition, Lincoln 35 County is one of the most popular visitor destinations on the Oregon 36 Coast. Specifically, Depoe Bay is known as the “whale watching 37 capital of the world.” 38 39 The town of Siletz is home to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz 40 Indians Reservation. The reservation is home to 4,094 members on 41 3,666 acres. The tribe manages water, timber, and fish resources.
42 10.2.17 Douglas County, OR
43 Douglas County is adjacent to Offshore Area W-93. The population 44 of the county is 103,152 over 5,037 square miles. The county’s 45 population is predominately Caucasian (93.9 percent), with a small
10-10 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 population of American Indians or Alaska Natives (1.5 percent). 2 Additionally, 3.3 percent identifies as Hispanic. Of residents 25 3 years old or older, 81 percent are high school graduates. The median 4 household income is $33,223, per capita income is $16,581, and 13.1 5 percent of the county’s population lives below the poverty line. 6 Douglas County is governed by a three-member Board of 7 Commissioners.
8 10.2.18 Coos County, OR
9 Coos County is adjacent to Offshore Area W-93 (A/B). Coos 10 County has a population of 63,739 over 1,600 square miles. The 11 population is mostly Caucasian (92 percent), with a small population 12 of American Indians or Alaska Natives (2.4 percent). Additionally, 13 3.4 percent identify as Hispanic. Of residents at least 25 years old, 14 81.6 percent have graduated high school. The median household 15 income is $34,542, per capita income is $17,547, and 15 percent of 16 the population lives below the poverty line. Coos County is 17 governed by a three-member Board of Commissioners. 18 19 The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 20 Indians consist of 754 members; a reservation is currently being 21 planned in Coos County. The Coquille Indian Tribe has a population 22 of 819 and lives on a 6,512-acre reservation.
23 10.2.19 Curry County, OR
24 Curry County is adjacent to W-93 (A/B). Curry County comprises 25 the cities of Agness, Brookings, Carpenterville, Gold Beach, Harbor, 26 Hunter Creek, Langlois, Nesika Beach, Ophir, Pistol River, Port 27 Orford, and Wedderburn. It has a population of 22, 100 over an area 28 of 1,627 square miles. The population is predominately Caucasian 29 (92.9 percent), with a smaller population of American Indians or 30 Alaska Natives (2.1 percent). In addition, 3.6 percent identifies as 31 Hispanic. Of residents at least 25 years old, 81.7 percent are high 32 school graduates. The median household income is $30,117, per 33 capita income is $18,138, and 12.2 percent of the population lives 34 below the poverty line. The county is governed by a three-member 35 Board of Commissioners.
36 10.2.20 Morrow County, OR
37 Morrow County, Oregon is located in central Oregon at the border 38 with Washington and is home to Boardman Military Operating Area, 39 R-5701 (A-E), R-5706, and Naval Weapons Systems Training 40 Facility (NWSTF) Boardman. The county has a population of 41 11,681 over 2,032 square miles. Five main communities make up 42 Morrow County: Boardman, Irrigon, Ione, Lexington, and Heppner 43 (the county seat). The county is predominately Caucasian (76.3 44 percent), with a smaller population of American Indians or Alaska 45 Natives (1.4 percent). Notably, 19.5 percent of the population
10-11 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 identifies as two or more races, and 24.4 percent identifies as 2 Hispanic. Of residents 25 years old or older, 74.1 percent are high 3 school graduates. The median household income is $37,521, per 4 capita income is $15,802, and 14.8 percent of the population lives 5 below the poverty line (USCB 2004). 6 7 Morrow County’s major industries include timber, energy, food 8 processing, and agricultural production of corn, potatoes, 9 watermelons, grapes, wheat, canola, sheep, cattle, and dairy 10 products. The county consists agriculturally of irrigated farming in 11 the north; wheat fields and cattle ranches in the center, and timber 12 products in the south (Oregon Blue Book 2006). 13 14 Points of interest in Morrow County include the Blue Mountains, 15 Umatilla National Forest, parts of the Oregon Trail, and sections of 16 the Lewis and Clark Route.
17 10.2.21 Del Norte County, CA
18 Del Norte County is adjacent to Offshore Area W-93 (B). It has a 19 population of 28,351 over 1,008 square miles. The county is 78.9 20 percent Caucasian, 6.4 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 4.3 percent Black or African American, and 2.3 percent Asian. 22 Additionally, 13.9 percent identifies as Hispanic. Of residents 25 23 years old or older, 71.6 percent are high school graduates. The 24 median household income is $29,642; per capita income is $14,573, 25 and 20.2 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Del 26 Norte County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors. 27 28 Del Norte is home to several rancherias, or small areas of land set 29 aside as American Indian settlements in California. Around 77 30 Tolowa Indians live on the 105-acre Elk Valley Rancheria near 31 Crescent City and run the Elk Valley Casino. Around 36 Yurok 32 Indians live on the Resighini Rancheria near Klamath. The Smith 33 River Rancheria of Tolowa Indians comprises 186 acres near the 34 town of Smith River. Around 240 members of their 900-person 35 group live on this reservation, which supports a casino, a medical 36 and dental facility, housing for the elderly and handicapped, an 37 elderly nutrition center, a Headstart facility, tribal housing, and a 38 tribal cemetery. Additionally, a section of the Yurok reservation lies 39 within Del Norte County (see Humboldt County).
40 10.2.22 Humboldt County, CA
41 Humboldt County is adjacent to Offshore Area W-93 (B). It spans 42 3,573 square miles and has population of 128,529. The county is 43 predominately Caucasian (84.7 percent), with American Indian or 44 Alaska Native (5.7 percent) and Asian (1.7 percent) making up the 45 next largest groups. In addition, 6.5 percent identify as Hispanic. Of 46 residents 25 years old or older, 84.9 percent are high school 47 graduates. The median household income is $31,226, per capita
10-12 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 income is $17,203, and 19.5 percent of the population lives below 2 the poverty line (USCB 2004). Most of the economy of Humboldt 3 County is driven by education, health, and social services (26.6%) 4 and retail (12.5%). Humboldt County is governed by a five-member 5 Board of Supervisors. 6 7 Like Del Norte County, Humboldt County contains several 8 Rancherias. Members of the Wiyot, Yurok, and Hupa groups share 9 the 31-acre Blue Lake Rancheria 12 miles north of Eureka. Yurok 10 and Tolowa Indians (24 individuals) live on the 20-acre Big Lagoon 11 Rancheria in Trinidad. The Bear River Band of the Rohnerville 12 Rancheria is located near Eureka, and is shared by the Wiyot and 13 Mattole Indians. The area is 60 acres and is home to approximately 14 96 persons. The Table Bluff Rancheria comprises 102 acres and a 15 population of 97 Wiyot Indians near Loleta. The Trinidad Rancheria 16 (also known as the Cher-ae Heights Indian Community of the 17 Trinidad Rancheria) of Yurok and Wiyot Indians comprises 47.2 18 acres and 73 persons, located 25 miles north of Eureka. About 154 19 other members of the Yurok and Wiyot tribes live off the rancheria 20 but in the vicinity. 21 22 In addition, the Hoopa (or Hupa) Valley Indian Reservation is 23 located 64 miles east of Eureka. Over ¾ of the reservation is 24 designated as commercial timberland. The reservation’s total area is 25 85,446 (144 sq. mi.) and the population is 2,633. At the heart of the 26 Hoopa Valley is the ancient village of Takimildin, which is the 27 “center of the world” for Hoopa people. 28 29 Some of the 4,800 members of the Karuk Tribe live in the Orleans 30 district of Humboldt County. The Yurok reservation is located in 31 Eureka and is home to 1,103 Yurok individuals on 56,585 acres in 32 Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.
33 10.2.23 Kodiak Island Borough, AK
34 Kodiak Island Borough is home to the Kodiak Island Cold Weather 35 Training Facility. The Borough encompasses the entire Kodiak 36 Island archipelago, which extends about 177 miles long and 67 miles 37 across. It has a population of 13,276 over 6,560 square miles, 38 resulting a population density of just 2.1 persons per square mile. 39 This area has the lowest percentage of Caucasians (59.7 percent) of 40 any area studied in this RCMP. The next largest group is Asian (16 41 percent), followed by American Indian or Alaska Native (14.6 42 percent), and Black or African American (1 percent). Additionally, 43 6.1 percent identifies as Hispanic. Of residents 25 years old or older, 44 85.4 percent are high school graduates. The median household 45 income is $54,636, per capita income is $22,195, and 6.6% of the 46 population lives below the poverty line. Kodiak Island Borough is 47 governed by an elected mayor and a seven-member assembly. 48
10-13 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 While no Federally-recognized Native American reservations exist 2 within the Borough, the Kodiak Island archipelago is home to about 3 2,500 Alutiiq Native Alaskans. The Alutiiq live in the City of 4 Kodiak and in six small villages along the coast: Ouzinkie, Port 5 Lions, Larsen Bay, Karluk, Akhiok, and Old Harbor. Today, the 6 Alutiiq of the Kodiak Island Borough are shareholders of Alutiiq 7 LLC, Koniag, Inc., and six village-level corporations.
8 10.2.24 Elected Officials
9 The state of Washington is represented in the U.S. Senate by two 10 elected senators and in the U.S. House of Representatives by nine 11 elected congressional district representatives. The OPAREAs of the 12 NWTRC are within the jurisdiction of WA U.S. Congressional 13 districts 1, 2, and 5-9; State Senate districts 7, 10, and 24; and State 14 Assembly districts 7, 10, and 24. 15 16 The state of Oregon is represented in the U.S. Senate by two elected 17 senators and in the U.S. House of Representatives by five elected 18 congressional district representatives. The OPAREAs of the 19 NWTRC are within the jurisdiction of OR U.S. Congressional 20 districts 2, 4, and 5; State Senate districts 1, 5, and 29; and State 21 Assembly districts 1, 9, and 57. 22 23 The state of California is represented in the U.S. Senate by two 24 elected senators and in the U.S. House of Representatives by 53 25 elected Congressional district representatives. The OPAREAs of the 26 NWTRC are within the jurisdiction of CA U.S. Congressional 27 district 1, State Senate districts 2 and 4, and State Assembly district 28 1. 29 30 The state of Alaska is represented in the U.S. Senate by two elected 31 senators and in the U.S. House of Representatives by one elected 32 congressional district representative. The OPAREAs of the NWTRC 33 are within the jurisdiction of AK U.S. Congressional district 1, State 34 Senate district R, and State Assembly district 36. 35 36 The state of Nevada is represented in the U.S. Senate by two elected 37 senators and in the U.S. House of Representatives by three elected 38 congressional district representatives. The OPAREAs of the 39 NWTRC are within the jurisdiction of NV U.S. Congressional 40 district 2, State Senate Central Nevada Senatorial District, and State 41 Assembly district 35. 42 43 Maps of U.S. Congressional districts and statewide legislative 44 districts are provided in Appendix G: Supplemental Outreach 45 Information. 46 47 Within the Federal and state legislative bodies in Washington, 48 Oregon, California, Alaska, and Nevada, there are numerous
10-14 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 committees with interest in or that could directly impact naval 2 operations at the air station. Among these are: 3 4 Federal 5 Senate and House Armed Services Committees 6 Senate and House Appropriations Committees 7 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 8 House Resources Committee 9 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 10 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 11 12 Washington State 13 House Economic Development, Agriculture, and Trade 14 Committee 15 House Select Committee on Hood Canal Committee 16 House Natural Resources, Ecology, and Parks Committee 17 Senate Natural Resources, Ocean, and Recreation 18 Committee 19 Senate Water, Energy, and Environment Committee 20 21 Oregon 22 Senate Economic Development Agency Oversight Committee 23 Senate Natural Resources and Alternative Energy Committee 24 Senate Public Health Committee 25 House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee 26 House Land Use Committee 27 House Transportation Committee 28 29 California 30 Senate Agriculture Committee 31 Senate Appropriations Committee 32 Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee 33 Senate Environmental Quality Committee 34 o Subcommittee on Toxic Materials 35 Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee 36 Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 37 Assembly Committee on Agriculture 38 Assembly Committee on Appropriations 39 Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic 40 Materials 41 Assembly Committee on Natural Resources 42 Assembly Committee on Transportation 43 Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife 44 45 Alaska 46 Senate and House Community and Regional Affairs 47 Committees 48 Senate and House Resources Committees
10-15 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Senate and House Transportation Committees 2 Senate and House Environmental Conservation 3 Subcommittees 4 Senate and House Fish and Game Subcommittees 5 Senate and House Military and Veterans Affairs 6 Subcommittees 7 Senate and House Natural Resources Subcommittees 8 Senate and House Transportation and Public Facilities 9 Subcommittees 10 11 Nevada 12 Senate Commission on Homeland Security 13 Senate and Assembly Government Affairs Committees 14 Senate Legislative Committee on Public Lands 15 Senate Natural Resources Committee 16 Senate Transportation & Homeland Security Committee 17 Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining 18 Committee 19 Assembly Transportation Committee 20 Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission
21 10.3 HISTORY OF OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT
22 10.3.1 Analysis of Current Stakeholder Relations
23 For the purposes of this RCMP, outreach and stakeholder relations 24 analyses and opportunities are tied directly to existing or potential 25 issues of encroachment and/or sustainability of the NWTRC. As 26 noted in Chapter 5, encroachment issues exist at varying levels in the 27 complex, and include marine mammal and marine resource issues 28 associated with use of ocean space, sonar, and ordnance. To a 29 limited extent, issues associated with airspace, jet noise, and urban 30 encroachment also exist. Connected to these issues is a similarly 31 diverse set of stakeholders, including: 32 Regulatory agencies with responsibilities impacting or 33 impacted by the activities of the Navy in the NWTRC; 34 Elected officials who must balance the interests of 35 constituents in support of Navy presence and the associated 36 benefits, with constituents opposed to Navy activity; 37 Local community members and officials supportive of the 38 military and its contribution to the local economy, yet 39 impacted by Navy activities, such as noise. 40 Environmental groups with concerns related to marine 41 mammals and marine resources, habitat, species protection, 42 sonar use, and mitigation measures; 43 Native American tribal and nation interests; 44 Commercial and recreational interests associated with 45 fishing, boating, and shipping; and
10-16 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Commercial and private airspace interests. 2 3 A list of key stakeholders is provided in Appendix G: Supplemental 4 Outreach Information.
5 10.3.1.1 Elected Officials 6 At the Federal level, legislators have an interest in both the 7 contributions that Navy presence brings to their state, as well as the 8 concerns among their constituents related to naval activities. Around 9 the NWTRC, there is not a high level of concern among the public 10 about land-based Navy activity. Most issues are related to at-sea 11 activity and potential environmental impacts. 12 13 NASWI regularly offers base tours to the 2nd District Congressional 14 Representative and invitations for base tours are sent out to new 15 congressional representatives, as appropriate. The Navy provides 16 visiting elected officials with a Command Brief, developed to inform 17 elected officials of Navy activities and encroachment concerns, and 18 to promote the Navy’s environmental stewardship and management 19 programs. Congressional representatives are also kept fully apprised 20 of military construction projects and Base Realignment and Closure 21 (BRAC) issues. 22 23 NUWC Keyport and regional personnel invite elected officials to 24 special events, tours, and visits. Commander, Navy Region 25 Northwest (CNRNW) personnel usually take the lead for elected 26 official visits, which occur two to fours times per year. The District 27 6 Congressional Representative has been supportive of military 28 activities and actively promotes NUWC Keyport activities, which 29 aided in securing funding for the Naval Sea Systems Command 30 (NAVSEA) National Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Test and 31 Evaluation Center. The NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex 32 Extension Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 33 Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) also generated interest from 34 congressional staff, senators from Washington, and the House and 35 Senate Armed Services Committees. 36 37 With respect to local and regional land use compatibility conflicts, 38 attempts are being made to schedule regular meetings between the 39 Admiral of the Northwest Region and county commissioners to 40 discuss the issues. The NASWI Community Planning and Liaison 41 Office (CPLO) receives notices regarding land use changes and 42 permits and participates in the Citizen’s Comprehensive Task Force. 43 NASWI is also on Island County’s “checklist” for land use planning 44 changes.
45 10.3.1.2 Regulatory and Government Agencies 46 The NWTRC is monitored and/or regulated by several state and 47 Federal agencies, including those that are responsible for air space, 48 environmental issues, and at-sea activity.
10-17 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Environmental Compliance 2 As part of the Navy’s natural resource management program, 3 NASWI Environmental Division prepares and regularly updates an 4 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP). The 5 primary goal of the INRMP is to “integrate management activities 6 with all programs and mission requirements, while sustaining, 7 promoting and restoring the health and integrity of NASWI 8 ecosystems.” The INRMP is updated every five years. In the 9 regulatory review of the INRMP document, the Navy coordinates 10 with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine 11 Fisheries Service (NMFS) (endangered species issues), and the 12 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). There is 13 some contact with the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 14 which provides survey assistance and comments on the plan. 15 16 Under the TAP program umbrella, a Range Sustainability 17 Environmental Program Assessment (RSEPA) is being developed. 18 The RSEPA was initiated by the Navy partly in response to feedback 19 received from regulators. The program’s goal is to maintain range 20 sustainability and dedication to environmental compliance and 21 stewardship. As a part of the program, range complex personnel are 22 currently working closely with regulators to sample soil and 23 groundwater and identify environmental contamination sources to 24 comply with groundwater remediation programs. 25 26 Formal regulatory agency consultation is not regular or frequent, but 27 is rather determined on an event-by-event or project-by-project basis 28 (i.e., for training activities that may have environmental impacts); 29 regulatory communication and coordination takes place on a more 30 frequent basis. During the scoping period for the NAVSEA Keyport 31 Range Complex Extension EIS/OEIS, briefings were provided to 32 Federal and state regulatory agencies, including USFWS, NMFS, 33 Washington State Department of Ecology (DE), and DFW. Native 34 American tribes and nations also received briefings. Several public 35 open houses were held. 36 37 At NWSTF Boardman, there is regulatory oversight by USEPA, 38 Region X and the Oregon State Department for Environmental 39 Quality (DEQ) on groundwater issues. Groundwater and soil 40 sampling at NWSTF Boardman occurred between May 16 and June 41 24, 2005 as part of the Comprehensive Range Evaluation (CRE) 42 Phase 1 to determine if there had been an off-range release of 43 munitions constituents. Groundwater and soil sampling tested for 44 nitrates, perchlorate, and other contaminants. Perchlorate detections 45 at the eastern and northern border wells were consistent with the 46 range of perchlorate contamination found throughout the Lower 47 Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area; no soil samples 48 indicated perchlorate contamination. The major findings of the CRE 49 included: 1) Data indicates that no off-range release occurred and 2) 50 CRE Phase 1 supports the conclusion of the Range Condition
10-18 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Assessment for the NWTRC – that a perchlorate contamination 2 source does not exist at NWSTF Boardman (EFA NW 2006). 3 4 The Washington Ground Squirrel, found on the Boardman Range in 5 Oregon, is listed as a state endangered species. The Navy allows 6 USFWS access to conduct surveys on the ground squirrel 7 populations found on the range. To protect the ground squirrel and 8 its habitat, and prevent its listing as a Federally endangered species, 9 there is the potential for establishing a conservation easement at 10 Boardman.
11 Regulatory Partnerships 12 In recent years, there has been a more focused effort on partnership 13 development and coalition building to manage natural resources, 14 prevent and mitigate against encroachment, and leverage limited 15 resources. NWTRC and CNRNW personnel have recognized the 16 common objectives and interests of the Navy, regulatory agencies, 17 land conservancies, and environmental groups in preserving 18 endangered species, critical habitat, and open space, which also helps 19 protect the military mission.
20 Natural Resource Management Programs 21 There are several natural resource management programs being 22 implemented at NASWI ranges, including Ault Field, Seaplane Base, 23 Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville, Lake Hancock, and NWSTF 24 Boardman. 25 26 NWTRC and CNRNW are currently partnering with several natural 27 resource management agencies for the preservation of “communities 28 of ecological significance.” These agencies include USFWS, U.S. 29 Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington State Department 30 of Natural Resources (DNR), DE, and DFW. The Nature 31 Conservancy, a land conservation and biodiversity preservation 32 organization, is also actively involved in these programs. With the 33 Navy, these partners provide resources and services to support 34 various natural resource management programs. 35 36 CNRNW successfully partnered with local, state, and Federal 37 agencies, along with NGOs, in data collection and forage fish 38 sampling efforts at NAVMAG Indian Island. The Environmental 39 Affairs Office partnered with the North Olympic Salmon Coalition 40 and regulatory agencies, including NOAA, USGS, and the Jefferson 41 County Marine Resources Committee, in shoreline surveys for 42 forage fish spawning grounds as part of the Intertidal Forage Fish 43 Spawning Site Investigation project. This “win-win” collaboration 44 leveraged the resources, expertise, and capabilities of the individual 45 partners to ensure the project’s success. The Navy provided 46 shoreline access and biological staff to assist with sampling, as well 47 as sampling supplies and disposal of sample waste. The data,
10-19 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 analysis, and maps of spawning patterns, were shared with the Navy, 2 which was used for subsequent investigations and consultations. 3 4 The Nature Conservancy leases 5,050 acres at NWSTF Boardman. 5 The acreage the divided into three areas managed as Research 6 Natural Areas (RNAs). At the time the RNAs were first leased to 7 The Nature Conservancy, little was known about what areas of the 8 NWSTF Boardman were the most viable and ecologically important 9 (DoN 1999). 10 11 The RNAs are used for ecological studies and for the conservation of 12 native grasslands. RNA #1 has been recommended for relocation by 13 The Nature Conservancy to a more appropriate location due to 14 significant disturbance from bombing activity. Relocating RNA # 1 15 would have significant benefits to the Navy, the Oregon Air National 16 Guard, and The Nature Conservancy, including the protection of one 17 of the most ecologically important parts of the Boardman Range, and 18 would allow increased access to biologists for further research. 19 Additional information on the RNAs is provided in Section 9.2.3.3.
20 Marine Resources Outreach 21 Marine resources represent a special category of issues from an 22 outreach perspective. Unlike terrestrial encroachment issues of 23 urban sprawl, noise, safety areas, and ordnance, the human 24 stakeholders are not usually defined by proximity or political 25 jurisdiction. Instead, the primary stakeholders of concern are 26 regulators and national and international NGOs. In addition, the 27 resources they seek to protect (such as marine mammals) are often 28 difficult to quantify or locate, and the impacts of naval operations on 29 them are the subject of significant scientific debate. While the Navy 30 is the largest funder of marine mammal acoustic research, definitive 31 answers regarding potential liability are still many years off. As a 32 result, allegations of Navy injury to marine animals are currently 33 difficult to prove false. Additionally, the Navy is the executive agent 34 for all maritime issues within the DoD. It is therefore critical that the 35 Navy define existing marine resource outreach activities within its 36 range complexes, identify the department or group within those 37 complexes that has the right and responsibility to conduct those 38 outreach activities, and outline additional outreach opportunities that 39 would allow the Navy to maintain a consistently proactive stance on 40 maritime sustainability issues. 41 42 Marine resource outreach is not just limited to marine mammals, but 43 is extended to all potential marine resource categories where they 44 occur within a range complex, including: 45 Marine mammals; 46 Coral reefs; 47 Marine protected areas; 48 National marine sanctuaries; 49 Essential fish habitat;
10-20 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Sea turtles and other endangered species; 2 Multiuse ocean space, including Usual and Accustomed 3 Treaty Rights; 4 Ballast water invasive species; 5 Bays and estuaries; and 6 Coastal zones. 7 8 While Volume 1 of the RCMP describes the Navy’s overarching 9 maritime outreach strategy related to marine resources, this chapter 10 focuses on range complex and regional outreach efforts for those 11 marine resources that are considered significant within this range 12 complex. Descriptions of significant marine resources are found in 13 Chapter 4 and significant encroachment challenges associated with 14 marine resources, if any, are described in Chapter 5. Chapter 10 15 focuses on marine resource outreach in the complex, including 16 command roles and responsibilities. In addition, resources for 17 marine resource related communications are referenced in this 18 chapter.
19 Marine Mammals 20 Marine mammals present a significant issue in the NWTRC, 21 particularly related to the endangered Southern Resident Killer 22 Whale Pods (J, K, and L) and other protected species, potential 23 whale strandings, potential whale strikes, and acoustic issues, 24 including the use of mid-frequency active sonar. On May 5, 2003, 25 the Naval Station Everett-based destroyer, the USS Shoup, drew 26 fierce criticism from whale researchers, the public, and the media for 27 conducting military exercises using mid-frequency sonar in Haro 28 Strait. Conflicting reports from observers reported watching orcas 29 acting “annoyed” to “resting.” Between May 2 and June 2, 2003, 30 there were 16 reported harbor porpoise strandings. Of these 16 31 strandings, 15 could not be causally linked by COMPACFLT 32 investigators to the use of sonar from the USS Shoup. Although a 33 Federal investigative team later cleared the Navy from responsibility 34 and a NOAA report did not reveal any signs of acoustic trauma in the 35 porpoises, public perceptions indicate that the Navy is still deemed 36 responsible for the incident. According to the CNRNW PAO 37 Summary Data Report of 9 February 2004, the Navy obtained a clear 38 understanding of the public’s level of sensitivity to marine mammal 39 impacts. 40 41 The Navy has undertaken a number of global initiatives to carefully 42 monitor its activities and their possible impacts, and has taken active 43 steps to reduce any impact on marine resources. These steps include 44 guidance to ship commanders, periodic updates regarding migratory 45 whale patterns, and marine mammal identification training for 46 personnel. OPNAV N45 has also developed and brought on-line a 47 marine mammal website (http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil), 48 which includes information approved for public release by the 49 Navy’s Marine Mammal Working Group.
10-21 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 As noted in the Introduction to the Protective Measures Assessment 3 Protocol (PMAP) (which sets out standard operating procedures, 4 protective measures and guidelines, and provides planning tools to 5 minimize impacts on marine resources), "Conducting safe, effective 6 training at-sea is one of the most important things we do in 7 peacetime, but we must also take prudent steps to minimize the 8 impact of that training on the marine environment." Many of these 9 efforts, however, are unknown to the general public. 10 11 Commander, Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) and Commander, 12 Pacific Fleet (CPF) also provide guidance to commanders through 13 detailed documents and messages, including: 14 Navy Sonar and Marine Mammal Communications Plan 15 (October 2005) 16 Sonar Operation in Puget Sound (June 2003, interim policy) 17 Fleet-wide Implementation of Protective Measures 18 Assessment Protocol (PMAP) (October 2004). 19 20 The biggest challenge to the sustainability of the Navy’s training and 21 operations in the NWTRC is sound in the water. Unfortunately, the 22 prevailing public perception nationally is that the Navy causes large 23 numbers of marine mammal injuries and deaths worldwide. 24 CNRNW has attempted to combat this perception by communicating 25 to regulators and key NGOs the proactive and effective measures the 26 Navy has taken to evaluate and prevent impacts to marine mammals 27 from training operations. While many issues related to sound in the 28 water are handled at the national level by the Chief of Naval 29 Operations (CNO), CNRNW has been active at the local and state 30 levels in developing and sustaining positive relationships with 31 regulatory agencies and other stakeholders charged with the 32 protection of marine mammals. For example, a CNRNW 33 representative is a member of the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) 34 for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (NMS). The 35 SAC, a 22-member board, is comprised of ocean recreation 36 businesses, ocean users, environmental interests, fishermen, 37 educators, researchers, and Federal, state, and county officials. 38 39 The Navy in Washington State is engaged in numerous partnerships 40 with other government agencies and marine mammal protection 41 groups to spot, track, and disseminate information regarding the 42 presence and movement of marine mammals so their migratory 43 patterns are better understood. For example, range operators have 44 assisted NMFS efforts to protect marine mammals by participating in 45 trainings on the methods of spotting and identifying different marine 46 mammal species. 47 48 CNRNW has taken a more prominent role in reaching out to the 49 environmental community on marine mammal issues, particularly 50 the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale Pods (J, K, and L). 51 The Navy participated in the development of the Orca Conservation
10-22 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Plan by attending meetings and working with the NOAA team, and 2 continually works with the Seattle Aquarium on their Orca Exhibit. 3 Navy Headquarters supports the Region’s participation in these 4 proactive partnering programs as a method of disseminating 5 information about the Navy’s mission and ensuring the Navy speaks 6 with “one voice” on marine mammal issues. 7 8 Despite these activities, it does not appear that the Region’s efforts to 9 prevent injury to marine mammals have permeated into the general 10 public’s awareness. Continuing to communicate the Navy’s efforts 11 on marine mammal issues and improving outreach to the greater 12 public and national NGOs will be increasingly important in the 13 future.
14 Marine Mammal Incident Protocol 15 In terms of logistics, the Chief of Information (CHINFO) has 16 developed Navy Standard Operating Procedures for Responding to 17 Stranding Incidents (Navy Sonar and Marine Mammal 18 Communications Plan, 17 October 2005): 19 1. Local/Regional Public Affairs Office (PAO) immediately 20 notify appropriate fleet command 21 Numbered fleet PAO notifies Commander, Pacific Fleet 22 (CPF) or Commander, Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) 23 PAO 24 CPF/CFFC PAO notifies CHINFO and N45 25 2. Local PAO collect the following data: 26 Date/time of stranding incident 27 Latitude and longitude of stranding location 28 Navy assets in the region 29 Closest distance of a Navy asset within a 72-hour period 30 Latitude and longitude of nearby vessels at time of 31 stranding 32 Nearby vessels’ activity/operational employment at the 33 time 34 If sonar was in use at the time or in the 72 hours prior to 35 the stranding 36 If applicable: type of sonar in use, periodicity of use, 37 active sonar start/stop times 38 Environmental conditions at time of stranding (visibility, 39 water temperature, etc.) 40 Video or photos of the sighting or stranding if they exist 41 42 If a stranding were to occur in the coastal areas of the range 43 complex, CNRNW personnel would be notified immediately and 44 would elevate the issue through the above chain of command as 45 appropriate. In the event of a marine mammal strike or stranding, it 46 is Navy policy that N45 serves as the sole point of contact for liaison 47 activities with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 48
10-23 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 If the event were to become public, potentially attracting media 2 attention, Navy personnel are well aware, as a consequence of on- 3 the-job knowledge, that marine mammal issues are sensitive and 4 personnel should not speak publicly unless directed to do so. There 5 is no established set of messages or talking points that range 6 personnel are authorized to follow when addressing public and/or 7 media questions regarding marine mammal issues.
8 Coral Reefs 9 Navy testing and training activities in the NWTRC do not impact 10 coral reefs. In the Olympic Coast NMS, deep water coral reefs are 11 present.
12 Marine Protected Areas 13 Marine protected areas (MPAs) are defined as “any area of the 14 marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, state, Tribal, 15 or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or 16 all of the natural and cultural resources therein” (Executive Order 17 [EO] 13158, 26 May 2000). MPAs are becoming a higher profile 18 issue in Washington, and there is a greater level of public interest in 19 establishing new MPAs. Government entities, such as the Northwest 20 Straits Commission, and many national and regional environmental 21 NGOs, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the local 22 chapter of the Audubon Society, and the Olympic Coast Alliance, are 23 active in supporting and promoting measures to protect marine 24 ecosystems and developing stewardship and conservation programs. 25 The Navy maintains positive working relationships with the various 26 NGOs interested in these issues. 27 28 EO 13158 requires Federal agencies whose actions affect natural or 29 cultural resources that are protected by an MPA to: 1) identify such 30 actions and 2) avoid harm to the resources to the extent permitted by 31 law and to the maximum extent practicable. 32 33 The Navy has been authorized to continue its existing activities in 34 MPAs where the Navy conducts range operations. However, if there 35 are to be new operations or increased activity or tempo in protected 36 areas, the Navy would conduct an Overseas Environmental Analysis 37 and perform needed consultations with interested parties to discuss 38 the proposed actions.
39 National Marine Sanctuaries 40 The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) is one of 41 North America's most productive marine ecosystems. It provides 42 seasonal habitats for 29 species of marine mammals and is a popular 43 migratory route of various seabird species. The mission of the 44 Olympic Coast NMS program is to “manage ocean, coastal, and 45 Great Lakes areas of special national significance to protect their 46 ecological and cultural integrity for the benefit of current and future
10-24 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 generations.” The program provides leadership and acts as a catalyst 2 to link the assets and resources of governmental and non- 3 governmental organizations to focus attention on the need to 4 effectively and efficiently manage and protect marine resources.” 5 (www.ocnms.nos.noaa.gov/). 6 7 The CNRNW Regional Environmental Coordinator (REC) is the 8 Navy representative to the Olympic Coast NMS SAC and attends the 9 SAC meetings, which are held every other month. There are 22 10 participants in the SAC, including representatives from: 11 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard 12 U.S. Department of the Interior, Olympic National Park 13 U.S. Navy 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15 National Marine Fisheries Service 16 Washington State Department of Ecology 17 Washington State Department of Natural Resources 18 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 19 County representation (rotational seat) 20 Hoh Tribe 21 Makah Tribe 22 Quileute Tribe 23 Quinault Nation 24 Chambers of Commerce 25 Marine businesses, ports, and industry 26 Commercial fishing interests 27 Environmental and conservation interests 28 Tourism and recreational interests 29 Research interests 30 Education interests
31 Essential Fish Habitat 32 CNRNW is a leader among Navy regions in outreach related to 33 essential fish habitat (EFH). In preparing the INRMP, the region 34 solved open marine water issues and secured concurrence with 35 NGOs on the plan. The Navy also received concurrence on two 36 salmon studies from the USFWS and NMFS.
37 Sea Turtles and Other Endangered Species 38 Outreach related to endangered marine species varies by species 39 stability. Installations in the NWTRC are responsible for 40 implementing policies to meet the required consultations and 41 regulations governing endangered species. Sea turtles do not present 42 an encroachment issue in the range complex. 43 44 In 1999, USFWS listed local salmon species as threatened and 45 specified that local government entities had the responsibility for 46 salmon recovery. In their efforts to develop a recovery program, 47 Island County was able to procure the necessary grants and leverage
10-25 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 the expertise and services of the other partners for developing 2 beneficial solutions and a successful project. A cooperative 3 agreement was formed between Island County, the Navy, University 4 of Washington, and Oak Harbor School District for restoration of a 5 marsh on Navy property at Crescent Harbor. The development of 6 the feasibility study for this project, which aims at restoring tidal 7 flow and salmon populations, is currently underway.
8 Multiuse Ocean Space 9 Under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as the “Boldt 10 Decision,” (U.S. v. Washington, 1974, upheld in 1979), the treaty 11 rights of 15 western Washington tribes and nations to fish in “usual 12 and accustomed” (U&A) areas were reaffirmed, and 50 percent of 13 the annual catch was allocated to them. The case of United States v. 14 Oregon (1969) legally upheld the Columbia River treaty tribes 15 reserved fishing rights. According to Judge Robert C. Belloni’s 16 ruling, “state regulatory power over Indian fishing is limited because, 17 in 1855 treaties between the United States and…tribes, tribes had 18 reserved rights to fish at ‘all usual and accustomed’ places, whether 19 on or off reservation.” For more information about Usual and 20 Accustomed Treaty Rights, see Section 10.3.1.4. 21 22 According to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, a tribe or 23 nation’s U&A harvest area reflects the historical region in which 24 finfish, shellfish, and other natural resources were collected. Tribe 25 and nation members are allowed to exercise their treaty-protected 26 harvest rights only within their tribe’s U&A, and all Tribal members 27 must have a valid identification card to be eligible to harvest. 28 29 Another issue for the Navy related to multiuse ocean space is derelict 30 nets. The Navy’s involvement in the derelict gear removal program 31 has received positive feedback from stakeholders and is an example 32 of effective partnering and leverage of program resources.
33 Derelict Fishing Gear Removal Project 34 The Navy has been active in the coordination of derelict fishing gear 35 removal in state marine waters. Derelict fishing gear includes nets, 36 lines, traps, pots, and other recreational or commercial equipment 37 lost or left behind in marine waters. This gear takes hundreds of 38 years to decompose and can cause numerous accidents, including 39 tangling, trapping and wounding fish, birds, and marine mammals, 40 and degrading the marine ecosystem. After significant controversy 41 over the derelict gear issue (primarily due to inaction), state 42 legislation called for greater coordination in the cleanup of the gear. 43 The program has been very successful in addressing the problem and 44 improving coordination and communication among project partners 45 as they work toward a common goal. 46 47 Some of the agencies and organizations involved in the Derelict 48 Fishing Gear Removal Project include:
10-26 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Northwest Straits Commission 2 Marine Resources Committees, Counties of 3 o Island 4 o Whatcom 5 o Skagit 6 o San Juan 7 o Snohomish 8 o Clallam 9 o Jefferson 10 NOAA 11 Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State 12 Department of Natural Resources, Washington State 13 Washington Sea Grant Program 14 Puget Sound Action Team 15 Tulalip Tribes 16 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group 17 Commercial fishing and diving companies 18 Private foundations 19 20 (Partner information obtained from Puget Sound Action Team Web 21 site at: www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/Derelict_gear.htm). 22 23 Native American tribes and nations are interested and active in this 24 program because of the impacts to crab and finfish from derelict 25 gear. The project has also improved relations with Native American 26 tribes and nations by building credibility, sharing information, and 27 providing Navy points of contact.
28 Ballast Water Invasive Species 29 There has been concern in the community about ballast water 30 discharges and the potential for invasive species being transported to 31 the region. In response to the concern, the Navy changed its policy 32 and now discharges ballast water in the open ocean. CNRNW 33 Environmental Operations negotiates the discharge permits (the last 34 permit was issued approximately 10 years ago).
35 Bays and Estuaries 36 The coastal areas of the Northwest Region include a number of bays 37 and estuaries, most notably Puget Sound. CNRNW works with 38 various Federal and state agencies regarding the Puget Sound 39 environment, including USFWS, DNR, and DE. NB Kitsap 40 personnel also support and participate in the Liberty Bay Watershed 41 Management Committee and the Kitsap County Nearshore 42 Coordination Group.
10-27 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Coastal Zones 2 EO 13089 Coral Reef Protection (11 June 1998) requires Federal 3 agencies to identify actions that may affect reef ecosystems, use 4 programs and authorities to protect and enhance reef ecosystems, and 5 ensure actions will not degrade the conditions of reef ecosystems. In 6 the Northwest, coastal zone management issues are more directly 7 linked to Navy facilities rather than Navy ranges. There exists the 8 potential for coastal zone issues for inshore ranges within the state 9 coastal zone, including Dabob Bay Range, Admiralty Bay, Lake 10 Hancock, and Crescent Harbor. 11 12 The Navy’s coastal range areas are regulated by Federal agencies, 13 not the state. However, the Navy makes every attempt to comply 14 with the stricter state regulations. To maintain positive working 15 relations with counties, the Navy provides counties with information 16 on Navy activities or plans within 200 feet of the shoreline.
17 10.3.1.3 Community, NGOs, and Media 18 For purposes of this RCMP, community, NGO interests, and the 19 media are generally defined as the stakeholders surrounding the 20 Installations included in the NWTRC, as well as the many 21 stakeholders associated with the marine environment.
22 Community 23 Historically, there has been some community opposition to noise 24 levels from aircraft training activities at NASWI; in the late 1980s, 25 the Assistant AICUZ Officer (later changed to CPLO) was 26 established at NASWI because of significant noise issues. Low level 27 air routes pass over three states (Washington, Oregon, Nevada) and 28 several Congressional districts, therefore garnering the attention of 29 multiple stakeholders, particularly the public and elected officials. In 30 the past, there were also concerns from government agencies and the 31 public about aircraft noise impacts to wildlife at an Oregon National 32 Wildlife Refuge. 33 34 The Navy has increased participation in joint community committees 35 and working groups as a means of two-way communication with 36 community members related to range and/or environmental issues. 37 For example, working groups and committee that include both 38 community interests and the Navy include the Northwest Straits 39 Commission, the Tribal Council Working Group, and the Marine 40 Resources Committees. These groups have increased the ability of 41 the Navy to communicate its messages directly and have informed 42 individuals about encroachment and sustainability challenges. 43 44 Although the Navy is one of the largest employers in Kitsap County, 45 recent community sentiment has largely been negative. There has 46 been negative media coverage of the NAVSEA Keyport Range 47 Complex Extension EIS/OEIS and Navy activities have been
10-28 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 criticized for negatively impacting the economy. Impacts to logging, 2 fishing, and tourism industries, recreational boating interests, and 3 public beach access are identified as significant concerns. This 4 NEPA process presented the first formal opportunity for the Navy to 5 receive feedback from community members on Navy mission, 6 training and testing activities, weapons platforms, and submarine 7 systems. To communicate project-specific information and updates, 8 NAVSEA Keyport published a community newsletter for the 9 NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex Extension EIS/OEIS. A website 10 has been developed and contains Navy contact information, FAQs, 11 and project schedule.
12 NGOs 13 There are many active and interested NGOs in the NWTRC, 14 particularly those related to environmental and marine resource 15 issues. Because of this active nature, the Navy monitors and 16 engages, when appropriate, environmental groups and NGOs for 17 situational awareness, to improve relations, and to convey accurate 18 information. 19 20 Figure 10-1 provides an illustrative list of the diverse environmental 21 NGOs that are active within the Range Complex, their primary 22 mission or issue area, and their geographic reach. For a complete list 23 of active NGOs in the NWTRC, their missions, and websites, see 24 Section G.4 in Appendix G: Supplemental Outreach Information. 25 Geographic Organization Name Mission/Issue Area Scope Acoustic Ecology Institute Sound science/policy National American Cetacean Society (Puget Sound Cetacean protection National Chapter) Audubon Society Washington Ecosystem preservation, birds, National other wildlife Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory Marine sciences Local B.C. Endangered Species Coalition Endangered species International Beach Watchers Puget Sound protection Local Canadian Wildlife Service & Species at Risk Endangered Species International Center for Biological Diversity Endangered species and habitat International protection Center for Whale Research Orcas Local Committee to Save the Kings River Kings River protection Local Defenders of Wildlife Endangered species/wildlife National protection Earth Share of Washington Environmental education Local Fisheries & Oceans Canada Fisheries/Oceans International FRIENDS of the San Juans San Juan islands environmental Local protection Georgia Strait Alliance Georgia Strait environmental Local protection Greenpeace Environmental protection, whales National Hood Canal Coordinating Council Watersheds Local Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Salmon restoration Local
10-29 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Geographic Organization Name Mission/Issue Area Scope Humane Society Animal protections National Institute for Fisheries Resources Fisheries National Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Interpretive Orcas International Centre Society Kitsap County Conservation District Water quality/soil erosion Local Liberty Bay Foundation Liberty Bay restoration Local Long Live the Kings Salmon restoration Local Marine Conservation Biology Institute Marine Science, advocacy International Mason County Conservation District Soil conservation/endangered Local species Natural Resources Defense Council Environmental action, advocacy, law International The Nature Conservancy Species and habitat preservation International North Olympic Salmon Coalition Salmon restoration Local Northwest Environmental Defense Center Pacific Northwest environmental Local protection Northwest Resource Information Center Public policy/ Native American Local advocacy Northwest Straits Commission Northwest Straits marine resources Local Ocean’s Advocates Ocean policy and protection National Ocean Futures Society Ocean science/protection International Olympic Coast Alliance Coastal preservation Local Olympic Peninsula Women’s Outdoor Institute Outdoor recreation Local Orca Conservancy Orcas Local Orca Network Orcas Local Orca Relief Citizens Alliance Orcas Local Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee Commercial fishing/ocean industry Local Oregon Institute of Marine Biology Academic/research National Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center Environmental Law Local Pacific Marine Conservation Council Marine ecosystems Local Pacific Fishery Management Council Fisheries Local Parks Canada National parks International People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Animal protections National People for Puget Sound Education/Environmental protection Local Progressive Animal Welfare Society Animal protections National Public Employees for Environmental Environmental protection National Responsibility Puget Sound Action Team Puget Sound restoration Local Save our Wild Salmon Salmon restoration National Sierra Club Environmental protection International Surfrider Foundation Ocean protection, clean water National University of Washington School of Academic/research, Marine science International Oceanography Veins of Life Watershed Society Watershed protection Local Washington Foundation for the Environment Environmental education Local The Whale Museum Orcas/Salish sea protection Local Wild Whales B.C. Cetacean Sighting Network Cetacean protection Local 1 Figure 10-1. Active NGOs within the NWTRC
10-30 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Media Outreach 2 The CNRNW Environmental PAO has several media programs in 3 place for disseminating information about the Navy’s environmental 4 stewardship and pollution prevention programs. There is a concerted 5 level of effort to secure coverage to disseminate information to 6 internal and external media outlets. For example, a successful media 7 campaign garnered positive media coverage for the delisting of 8 Naval Magazine Indian Island from the National Priorities List 9 (NPL) – the first Navy site deleted from the NPL. Earth Day events 10 and recycling programs are also touted. 11 12 Range and OPAREA related media coverage is not as widely 13 disseminated as Installation information. Recently, there have been 14 more attempts to garner media coverage about range issues and 15 encroachment challenges. 16 17 Regional and Installation PAOs regularly track media coverage, 18 letters to the editor, and editorials. The Navy on Whidbey Island is 19 generally supported by local newspapers and editorial boards, 20 although individual reporters may sometimes target the Navy and its 21 activities. 22 23 Media outreach is focused on the geographic range of Portland to the 24 south, Vancouver to the north, Spokane to the east, and surrounding 25 communities and other states for issue-specific reasons. Additional 26 outreach is directed to the San Juan Islands, Alaska, Idaho, and 27 Montana news outlets, as necessary. 28 29 Regionally, the public and media have a heightened interest in 30 environmental issues. Topical issues – such as terrestrial and 31 groundwater contamination, marine mammals, and endangered 32 species – often garner significant media attention. The issuance of 33 environmental study findings, analysis documents, and news releases 34 are also of interest to the media and its readers and listeners. 35 36 The NAVSEA Keyport Range Complex Extension EIS/OEIS has 37 also been the subject of negative community sentiments, primarily 38 stemming from misleading information published in a local 39 newspaper. The article gave the false impression that the Navy 40 would be closing off all access to certain ocean/coastal areas, which 41 caused several local residents to object to the proposed action. 42 43 Groundwater contamination issues have been the subject of articles 44 in the Oregonian press. After the Department of Environmental 45 Quality released information about perchlorate contamination, there 46 was increased media focus on perchlorate issues at the Boardman 47 ranges.
10-31 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 10.3.1.4 Native American Tribes and Nations 2 Navy relations with neighboring Native American tribes and nations 3 in the Northwest are positive and have improved through increased 4 communication. The Navy has established or participates in several 5 effective communication forums with Native American tribes and 6 nations, such as the Northwest Navy-Tribal Council and the Point No 7 Point Treaty Council. Tribes are willing to share data, resources, and 8 their expertise with the Navy. The Navy has also worked jointly 9 with Tribes, USFWS, and NMFS on underwater explosive ordnance 10 training issues in Crescent Harbor by developing plans and programs 11 and negotiating mitigation activities. 12 13 Most Native American issues with respect to Navy activities 14 typically involve fishing and range access. Range access tends to be 15 more of an issue at NB Kitsap-Bangor and Naval Magazine Indian 16 Island. Under the “Boldt Decision,” the treaty rights of 15 western 17 Washington tribes and nations to fish U&A areas were reaffirmed, 18 and 50 percent of the annual catch was allocated to them. Native 19 American tribes and nations covered by the ruling include 20 Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, Lummi, Makah, 21 Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Nooksack, Port Gamble S'Klallam, 22 Puyallup, Skokomish, Squaxin Island, Suquamish, Swinomish, 23 Tulalip, and Upper Skagit. All tidelands in Puget Sound are within 24 the U&A harvest areas of one or more tribes. Similar rulings for 25 Oregon tribes and nations legally upheld the Columbia River treaty 26 tribes’ reserved fishing rights, including the Nez Perce, Umatilla, 27 Warm Springs, and Yakama tribes. For more information, see 28 Section 10.3.1.2 Multiuse Ocean Space. 29 30 The exclusion zone at Dabob Bay Range also necessitates restricting 31 access to tribal, commercial, and recreation fishing interests during 32 testing and training operations. Activities at the Naval Shipyard near 33 Keyport have, at times, caused issue with nearby tribes and nations. 34 35 Tribes are particularly interested in BRAC decisions and activities. 36 Several tribes and nations have formed partnerships with the Navy in 37 the cleanup efforts at Installation Restoration sites by developing 38 habitat protection plans, and contributing to shoreline restoration and 39 landfill projects. However, some tribes are opposed to the U.S. 40 military obtaining more property and petitioned the U.S. government 41 requesting the transfer of former military property to the tribes under 42 BRAC. 43 44 The Navy has consulted and/or solicited input from neighboring 45 Tribes on issues or projects that may affect them. For example, the 46 Navy provided a copy of the Draft Pier Replacement Environmental 47 Assessment (EA) to the Suquamish Tribe and requested their 48 comments. Tribes also received a briefing on the NAVSEA Keyport 49 Range Complex Extension EIS/OEIS during the scoping period.
10-32 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Northwest Navy-Tribal Council 2 The impetus for establishing the Northwest Navy-Tribal Council was 3 that interactions between the Installations and the Tribes were 4 scattered and fragmented. In addition, the Admiral of CNRNW 5 wanted a consistent regional policy to ensure that all Navy bases in 6 the region were speaking to Tribes with one voice and one message. 7 As of June 2005, six tribes have formally signed the charter; eight 8 additional tribes attend Council meetings, but have not formally 9 signed the charter. To encourage greater participation from all local 10 Tribes, the Navy does not exclude any non-Charter signatories from 11 participating in Council meetings. 12 13 The purpose of the Northwest Navy-Tribal Council is to “provide a 14 forum to facilitate the exchange of information and effective 15 collaboration on matters of mutual concern between the Navy and 16 Federally-recognized Tribes in western Washington” (Charter for 17 the Northwest Navy-Tribal Council, July 2004). The Council works 18 to develop trust, communicate effectively, and prioritize common 19 goals. The Council works cooperatively to identify regional 20 solutions to environmental, natural resources, and cultural resource 21 issues on Navy-owned lands and areas of operation. 22 23 The objectives of the Council are to: 24 Facilitate cooperative efforts and partnerships, 25 Increase awareness of sensitivities, 26 Provide a mechanism for addressing concerns and issues, 27 Establish working groups and committees, and 28 Develop and coordinate mutually agreeable protocols and 29 procedures. 30 31 Five working groups have been established to allow for greater 32 communication about specific issue areas. The working groups are: 33 Waterfront and Restricted Areas 34 Sediment, Shellfish, and Water Quality 35 On Base Inadvertent or Archeological Discovery 36 Derelict Gear Removal 37 Marine Mammals 38 39 The Tribal Council meets every four to six months, which is 40 appropriate. Council members have the flexibility to call for 41 additional meetings as needed. Working groups meet more 42 frequently, but are understaffed.
43 Point No Point Treaty Council 44 The Point No Point Treaty Council is a natural resource management 45 organization formed in 1974 to fulfill the requirements placed upon 46 Tribes by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Treaty Council implements 47 goals set by member Tribes for resource conservation, fisheries 48 management, and the protection of treaty fishing rights. The Treaty
10-33 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Council’s primary purpose is to assist member tribes in exercising 2 their treaty-reserved rights to harvest finfish and shellfish. Treaty 3 Council staff, which includes biologists, fisheries planners, and 4 fisheries enforcement officers, work together to ensure that treaty 5 rights are preserved and treaty fisheries and harvests occur in a 6 biologically sound and sustainable manner. Native American tribes 7 and nations pay a fee to be part of the Council. 8 9 The Navy allows periodic access to Naval Magazine Indian Island 10 and NB Kitsap-Bangor for Native American fishermen. Access is 11 granted to shellfish beaches that tribes and nations have U&A treaty 12 rights for harvesting. Security measures are in place, and fishermen 13 must have badges to access areas of the range open to fishing. 14 Access authorization is reviewed and updated annually. 15 16 Facilitated through the Point No Point Treaty Council, e-mail 17 notification was established as part of an outreach program 18 supporting an environmental process. Via weekly e-mails, the Navy 19 can notify DFW and the Point No Point Treaty Council about fishing 20 access in training areas up to two weeks in advance of training 21 operations. There is no requirement for the Navy to continue to 22 provide the information; however, notifying Native American tribes 23 and nations, commercial, and recreational fishing interests of Navy 24 activity reduces encroachments on sea ranges.
25 10.4 OUTREACH OBJECTIVES AND MESSAGES
26 10.4.1 Outreach Objectives
27 These outreach recommendations are specifically designed to 28 address the existing or anticipated encroachment and sustainability 29 challenges of the NWTRC. Areas in which strategic outreach and 30 communication can support overall range encroachment 31 management primarily involve: 32 Marine resource and marine mammal protection efforts, 33 Land use planning decisions, 34 Range transients, 35 Airspace encroachments, 36 Environmental stewardship programs and pollution 37 prevention measures, and 38 Urban encroachment and noise issues. 39 40 Recommended communication efforts designed to address 41 encroachment issues and promote sustainability objectives include: 42 Develop a joint Fleet/Regional outreach program to 43 maintain, expand, and improve relationships with NOAA, 44 NMFS, state regulatory agencies, and NGOs that have the 45 ability to positively or negatively impact Navy marine 46 training operations.
10-34 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Continue a proactive approach to marine mammal and 2 marine resource issues by participation in Advisory Councils 3 and working groups; seek opportunities to partner with 4 regulatory agencies and NGOs in marine mammal protection 5 programs. 6 Solidify relationships and foster additional cooperative 7 partnerships with regulatory agencies and NGOs for 8 establishing buffer zones, fostering land conservation, and 9 implementing species and habitat protection programs. 10 Proactively work with local elected officials, planning 11 agencies, Native American tribes and nations, and 12 community members in the region to minimize range 13 transients and urban encroachment issues. 14 Sustain civic and community organization support for the 15 Navy’s significant regional and community contributions. 16 Garner positive media coverage of the Navy mission, range- 17 related issues, community activities, and environmental 18 stewardship and cleanup programs through an active media 19 outreach program.
20 10.4.2 Strategic Messages
21 To support the above objectives, the Navy should incorporate 22 strategic messages in all communication efforts. Developing 23 succinct and understandable key messages and incorporating them 24 into communication efforts is highly recommended. Using key 25 messages consistently, through all communication tools and outreach 26 forums, will ensure more successful communication. 27 28 Key messages are therefore designed to address range specific 29 encroachment issues and promote sustainability objectives: 30 Realistic training is vital to national defense. Defending the 31 U.S. and protecting military personnel requires rigorous, 32 real-life training in the air, on land and at sea. Conducting 33 realistic training is one of the most important things the 34 Navy does in peacetime to ensure readiness. The Navy takes 35 active steps to minimize the impact of this training on the 36 environment. 37 The Ranges and Installations of the NWTRC are unique. 38 The ranges, air stations, and Installations of the range 39 complex provide unique training opportunities essential for 40 the readiness and safety of military personnel and the 41 success of the military mission. 42 The Navy respects the cultural practices, resources, and 43 heritage of its Native American neighbors. The Navy 44 cooperates fully in the protection of cultural resources and 45 strives to provide access to culturally significant and fishing 46 areas in the NWTRC. 47 The Navy is a vital community partner. The Navy 48 understands how its activities affect its neighbors and is
10-35 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 committed to addressing their needs and concerns. The 2 Navy appreciates the support of its host communities, 3 elected officials, business groups, and Native American 4 tribes and nations. 5 The Navy is committed to protecting the marine environment 6 and is an active participant in its protection. The Navy 7 values the ocean environment and marine life. The Navy 8 will continue to participate in forums aimed at protecting the 9 marine environment and continually implements protective 10 measures to minimize impacts. 11 Environmental protection and stewardship programs are 12 part of our mission. The Navy is proud of its successful 13 environmental stewardship, pollution prevention, and 14 cleanup programs and will continue to actively seek 15 partnerships with regulators, NGOs, and other interested 16 stakeholders for habitat conservation and species protection. 17 The Navy seeks collaborative and compatible land use 18 solutions to minimize potential conflicts. The Navy works 19 with local planning agencies and government agencies to 20 seek solutions that reduce potential conflicts between the 21 military mission, population growth, the economic vitality of 22 the region, and human and environmental health and safety.
23 10.4.3 Strategy and Recommendations
24 This section details suggested outreach activities for key 25 stakeholders to help meet the above objectives. The activities are 26 separated into four stakeholder groups: elected officials; regulatory 27 and government agencies; community, NGOs, and the media; and 28 Native American tribes and nations. Also described are internal 29 Navy coordination efforts to be undertaken to ensure effective 30 outreach.
31 10.4.3.1 Internal Coordination
32 Strategy 33 The crucial factor for the successful development and 34 implementation of a range complex-wide strategic outreach program 35 is internal coordination and accountability. Sharing information 36 among the various Installations, range users, public affairs, and 37 environmental planning divisions of the Commands, Region, and 38 Fleet is critical to facilitate a unified, consistent, targeted, 39 multifaceted, and sustained communication program. 40 41 Most members of the general public, government agencies, elected 42 officials, and NGOs are unaware of the many involved departments 43 and Commands or division of labor within the Navy regarding 44 encroachment issues. Recent sentiment expressed at a Regional 45 Encroachment Partnering workshop concerned the number of POCs
10-36 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 for specific issue areas, including planning, real estate, public affairs, 2 legal, etc. 3 There is a significant need for one POC for encroachment issues for 4 the Region. It is strongly recommended that CNRNW establish one 5 POC that is responsible for communicating information to 6 stakeholders or referring issues to the appropriate subject matter 7 expert or POC. A Regional Community Plans & Liaison Officer 8 working directly for the Regional Commander would be a solution. 9 This would go far in improving the accessibility of information to the 10 public, reducing frustrations, and ensuring greater accountability.
11 Recommendations 12 Develop a range complex-wide Encroachment Outreach Plan 13 (EOP), guided by overarching Navy policy yet tailored to 14 specific communication objectives and encroachment and 15 sustainability issues facing the NWTRC. The EOP should 16 be developed and implemented by an EOP working group 17 (with contractor assistance, as needed), a subgroup of the 18 Range Complex Management Team (RCMT). The EOP 19 working group should meet quarterly and be comprised of 20 COMPACFLT, CNRNW, NAVSEA, Command, and 21 Installation public affairs, range, and environmental 22 representatives. 23 Establish one POC that is responsible for communicating 24 information to stakeholders or referring issues to the 25 appropriate subject matter expert or POC. 26 Develop a Master Stakeholder Database of interested parties 27 and groups for regular information dissemination. To 28 facilitate more targeted outreach efforts, establish 29 stakeholder categories: 30 o Elected officials 31 o Agencies 32 o Community groups 33 o NGOs 34 o Media 35 o Native American 36 o Internal Navy personnel 37 Validate and maintain stakeholder contact information 38 frequently and update after events of significant change, 39 such as elections. 40 Through the EOP working group, establish formal 41 coordination processes between COMPACFLT, CNRNW, 42 NAVSEA, Command, and Installation personnel for 43 environmental outreach and planning efforts. Activities 44 should focus on impacted stakeholders, encroachment issues, 45 and sustainability interests. Regular coordination allows for: 46 o greater sharing of information and ideas, 47 o leveraging of resources for programs and projects with 48 common objectives, and 49 o brainstorming potential stakeholder partnerships.
10-37 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Use existing internal communication methods, such as 2 Region and Installation newspapers and electronic 3 communications, to regularly communicate, educate, and 4 convey information to Navy personnel about encroachment 5 issues and upcoming projects and activities. Navy personnel 6 are often viewed by their neighbors and community members 7 as informal spokespeople for the Navy simply because they 8 work on base. Knowledgeable Navy personnel can serve as 9 credible “messengers” in their communities by conveying 10 accurate information in an informal setting. 11 Conduct quarterly spokesperson and message training to 12 ensure more successful communication and message 13 consistency in all outreach efforts. 14 Develop formal systems and measurements for tracking 15 outreach efforts and “successes”. Disseminate information 16 via the EOP working group. Systems and measurements can 17 include: 18 o Database of outreach activities 19 o Stakeholder issues and concerns log 20 o Media log 21 o Stakeholder surveys and interviews 22 23 Additional outreach tools and metrics are provided in Figures 10-2 24 and 10-3.
25 10.4.3.2 Elected Officials 26 Federal, state, and local elected officials in the NWTRC have an 27 active interest in Navy activities, and have legislative authority over 28 environmental, regulatory, land use, and marine-related requirements 29 that, to a degree, impact the Navy’s ability to operate. Elected 30 officials are interested in the Navy’s presence and its activities from 31 both an economic perspective (benefits to their districts and 32 constituents) and a sustainability perspective (environmental and 33 encroachment issues facing the Navy and the public).
34 Federal and State Elected Officials
35 Strategy 36 It is imperative that Federal and state elected officials understand the 37 critical importance of military training and readiness activities, and 38 the role that the NWTRC plays in the local and regional economy. 39 Gaining support from Federal elected officials, who vote on 40 legislation that may affect the range complex mission and investment 41 strategy, is critical.
42 Recommendations 43 Proactively contact and inform Federal and state elected 44 officials and staff of issues, in accordance with Navy
10-38 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 protocol. To improve dialogue, inquire about their primary 2 concerns and offer to assist where and if appropriate. 3 Provide regular status updates and issue-specific 4 information, such as white papers. 5 Notify and update elected officials prior to unusual training 6 activities for proactive communication and to mitigate 7 complaints. 8 Invite elected officials and staff, especially military liaisons, 9 for briefings and range tours annually. 10 Maintain Elected Official tab of Master Stakeholder 11 Database; regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and 12 other informational materials, as appropriate.
13 Local Elected Officials
14 Strategy 15 Coordinated and facilitated through the RCMT and the EOP working 16 group, maintain regular two-way communication with city and 17 county officials, and city and regional planning entities.
18 Recommendations 19 Assign tasking and responsibility to appropriate civilian 20 personnel to regularly attend city council and county 21 commissioner meetings; coach civilian spokespeople and 22 subject matter experts in key messages and frequently asked 23 questions (FAQs). 24 The CNRNW Ranges/NASWI CPLO should continue to 25 facilitate discussions and negotiations with local and 26 regional planning agencies to ensure compatible land uses; 27 proactively inform local elected officials, staff, and planning 28 agencies about upcoming projects. 29 Invite elected officials and staff, especially military liaisons, 30 for briefings and range tours annually. 31 Provide regular status updates and issue-specific 32 information, such as white papers. 33 Maintain Elected Official tab of Master Stakeholder 34 Database; regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and 35 other informational materials, as appropriate.
36 10.4.3.3 Regulatory and Government Agencies
37 National Marine Fisheries Service 38 N45 will continue to deal with national and international issues 39 associated with marine mammals. Specifically, N45 will manage 40 interactions with NMFS at the national level for marine mammal 41 research and policies, and marine mammal incident coordination. 42 This approach ensures consistency in policy setting and avoids 43 creating unintended precedents by regional or local personnel.
10-39 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Strategy 2 Marine mammal and ecosystem issues are predominant and the focus 3 of regional and national attention, particularly related to the use of 4 mid-frequency active sonar. As the regulatory agency enforcing 5 Federal regulations related to marine issues, it is imperative that a 6 strong and sustained relationship with NMFS be continued and 7 expanded at the regional level.
8 Recommendations 9 Identify a central POC from the RCMT responsible for 10 coordinating efforts with FFC related to national marine 11 resource strategy. This representative should coordinate 12 with COMPACFLT, CNRNW, and local Installations, as 13 appropriate, and organize routine communication with 14 local/regional NMFS representatives outside the NEPA 15 environmental planning process for non-incident partnering 16 and cooperation. 17 Establish a schedule of periodic briefings to inform NMFS 18 officials of marine mammal protection efforts. Use these 19 opportunities to encourage recommendations for additional 20 partnering efforts.
21 Other Federal and State Agencies
22 Strategy 23 There are numerous Federal and state agencies with an interest in 24 and with regulatory authority over some Navy activities within their 25 jurisdictions. Routine, periodic interactions with key agencies 26 should be established in the EOP.
27 Recommendations 28 Via the RCMT, assign a representative to maintain ongoing 29 communication with priority agencies outside the NEPA 30 planning process. 31 Closely monitor agency positions and seek opportunities to 32 share beneficial information and invite input. 33 Maintain Agency tab of Master Stakeholder Database; 34 regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and other 35 informational materials, as appropriate.
36 10.4.3.4 Community, NGOs, and Media
37 Community
38 Strategy 39 Positive relations with host communities, business groups, and the 40 general public are important for the Navy to fulfill its mission. Navy
10-40 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 activities can negatively impact its neighbors; therefore, the Navy is 2 committed to understanding and addressing community concerns.
3 Recommendations 4 Assign tasking and responsibility to appropriate Navy 5 personnel to attend established community and business 6 group meetings, such as the Chamber of Commerce and 7 Rotary Club; coach Navy spokespeople and subject matter 8 experts in strategic messages and FAQs. 9 Establish a speaker’s bureau and proactively seek 10 opportunities to provide encroachment briefings at 11 established meetings. 12 To avoid duplication of efforts and inconsistent messages, 13 coordinate outreach to community groups that may support 14 or oppose upcoming range activities and/or range 15 management practices among region, command, range, and 16 Installation personnel. 17 As needed, develop Installation and/or issue-specific “mini” 18 EOPs for targeted outreach efforts to impacted stakeholder 19 groups (i.e., noise abatement programs, land use 20 compatibility issues). 21 Proactively notify the public and community groups of 22 significant training activities for “good neighbor” relations 23 and to mitigate noise complaints. 24 Maintain Community tab of Master Stakeholder Database; 25 regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and other 26 informational materials, as appropriate.
27 NGOs
28 Strategy 29 A host of national, regional, and local NGOs and interest groups are 30 active and vocal in the NWTRC. It is in the Navy’s short and long 31 term interest to engage NGOs with common goals or outcomes and 32 develop alliances and partnerships. 33 34 Given the high profile nature of environmental and marine resource 35 issues in the region, the Navy should consider a more proactive 36 strategy to initiate partnerships with environmental groups. Effective 37 partnering builds trust and credibility, allows for the leveraging and 38 sharing of resources, and has ancillary benefits, such as garnering 39 more positive media coverage.
40 Recommendations 41 Identify at least three NGOs with a regional presence with 42 common interests, goals, or outcomes to focus outreach 43 efforts for improved communication and relations, as well as 44 potential partnering opportunities. Contact NGOs with 45 which relationships already exist and invite
10-41 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 recommendations to improve upon and expand these 2 relationships. 3 Monitor national environmental issue coverage, newsletters, 4 websites, and web logs; anticipate potential movements to 5 localize controversial issues. 6 Develop and disseminate quarterly newsletters focusing on 7 environmental stewardship programs and other items of 8 interest to the general community and environmental groups. 9 Offer briefings and presentations to NGOs to explain the 10 Navy mission and suggest any steps NGOs can take to 11 leverage and share resources toward a common goal. 12 Submit articles on encroachment issues for inclusion in 13 NGO publications to reach an audience who may not 14 typically endorse the military mission. 15 Maintain NGO tab of Master Stakeholder Database; 16 regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and other 17 informational materials, as appropriate.
18 Media
19 Strategy 20 There is a greater need to focus on garnering more positive media 21 coverage, both locally and regionally. This is accomplished through 22 a proactive media relations approach.
23 Recommendations 24 Develop and pitch feature articles, opinion/editorials, or 25 advertorials to local and regional media outlets that focus on 26 range or OPAREA issues, challenges, or success stories. 27 Invite media representatives to events and base/range tours. 28 Through media briefing packets and tour information, 29 inform media representatives about: 30 o the base and/or ranges 31 o its mission and operations (purpose and need) 32 o environmental stewardship and pollution prevention 33 programs 34 o encroachment concerns 35 o Navy contributions to the community 36 Maintain Media tab of Master Stakeholder Database; 37 regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and other 38 informational materials, as appropriate.
39 10.4.3.5 Native American Tribes and Nations
40 Strategy 41 CNRNW and NWTRC personnel have cultivated positive 42 relationships with local Native American tribes and nations through
10-42 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 increased two-way communication efforts. Maintaining these 2 relations continues to be a primary outreach objective.
3 Recommendations 4 Continue strong participation in Northwest Navy-Tribal 5 Council and working groups. 6 Continue regular updates of fishing access schedule in Navy 7 sea ranges through the Point No Point Treaty Council to 8 avoid the fouling of sea ranges. Consider using this 9 communication channel for other purposes to leverage 10 outreach resources. 11 Establish an annual meeting between Commanding Officers 12 and Native American tribes and nations leaders, alternating 13 between range and reservation visits. 14 Attend local Tribal Council meetings, when appropriate. 15 Extend annual (or more frequent) invitations to Tribes to 16 visit culturally significant sites in the range complex. 17 Maintain Native American tab of Master Stakeholder 18 Database; regularly disseminate fact sheets, EIS updates, and 19 other informational materials, as appropriate.
20 10.5 POINTS OF CONTACT
21 Successful outreach programs require formalization and coordination 22 to sustain positive relationships. To ensure that the NWTRC speaks 23 with one voice, departmental POCs should be identified as a 24 mechanism for regular communication and information sharing. 25 26 It is recommended that CNRNW establish one POC that is 27 responsible for communicating information relating to range 28 encroachment or sustainability challenges to stakeholders or 29 referring issues to the appropriate subject matter expert or POC. It is 30 recommended that the Region consider establishing a Regional 31 Community Plans & Liaison Office that works directly for the 32 Regional Commander. 33 34 Key messages and an events and communications master calendar 35 should reside with the CNRNW Environmental PAO. It is 36 recommended that key stakeholder messages and individual 37 Installation POC lists be revised annually and distributed to the 38 Commands through the RCMT. It is also suggested that Regional 39 and Installation POC information is made available at locations 40 frequented by the public (libraries, community meetings) and posted 41 in a user-friendly manner on a publicly accessible website.
42 10.6 METRICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
43 Encroachment issues are active and changing, and issues grow and 44 recede in importance with time. Therefore, measuring the 45 “successes” of outreach efforts, although subjective, is important.
10-43 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 To assist in this endeavor, suggested metrics have been provided in 2 Figures 10-2 and 10-3 as examples. Results-based (qualitative) and 3 activity-based (quantitative) metrics are useful tools for tracking 4 outreach efforts and can help gauge if the appropriate level of 5 outreach is being conducted and the progress made. 6 Activity-based metrics are best for tracking a regularized 7 schedule of actions taken to build trust and promote ongoing 8 relationships. 9 Results-based metrics are more appropriate for measuring 10 success in achieving specific objectives for particular range 11 sustainability issues, such as favorable land use decisions 12 and regulatory determinations. 13 To use the metrics most effectively, it is important for the RCMT to 14 discuss point allotments or “scores” as an organization. It is highly 15 recommended that the RCMT and the EOP working group assign 16 ownership and accountability POCs to ensure appropriate outreach is 17 conducted, measure progress, and modify point values or outreach 18 activities based on current outreach goals and priorities. These 19 metrics should be reevaluated annually (or biannually if needed). 20 Metrics can be very useful if discussed, negotiated, and agreed upon 21 by those who have ownership and accountability for the outreach 22 activities.
10-44 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Accountability Total Results-Based Metric (majority are qualitative) Point of Contact Points Internal Outreach activities being jointly coordinated and implemented between COMPACFLT, CNRNW, NAVSEA, Commands, and Installations Spokespeople and POCs for outreach accountability identified and list distributed Spokespeople trained on key messages Develop measurements for successful outreach <
10-45 VOL II, CH 10 OUTREACH FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Accountability Recommended Activity-Based Metric (quantitative) Total Points Point of Contact Frequency Internal EOP working group meet to coordinate strategies, goals, and stakeholder outreach activities with COMPACFLT/CNRNW/ Command/Installation outreach POCs Evaluate if implementation of EOP on track Update and distribute NWTRC POC list for outreach accountability Spokespeople trained on key messages; Key messages revised and posted on internal website Develop and maintain Master Stakeholder Database Maintain events and communications calendar Outreach “measurements” distributed to and discussed by RCMT Internal Subtotal External Distribute NWTRC POC list to government agencies, public, elected officials (leave behinds) Develop and distribute environmental, marine mammal, environmental, and/or NEPA fact sheets Update website (with POC list, fact sheets) Provide community group briefings on encroachment issues Meet with/brief Federal, state, local elected officials Hold meetings or briefings with NMFS and key regulatory and government agencies Meet with regional NGO representatives Meet with Tribal representatives (formal) Publish news release, or environmental interest story in regional media External Subtotal Grand Total Total Possible Points 100 Points 100-90: on track, good job 89-80: could use slight improvement 79-70: allocate more resources to improve performance <70: strategy needs reevaluation 2 Source: Katz & Associates, January 2005 3 Figure 10-3. Activity-Based Performance Measure Example
10-46 VOL II, CH 11 INVESTMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 11 INVESTMENT STRATEGY
2 Range sustainability requires regular investment to sustain, upgrade, 3 and modernize range instrumentation and infrastructure. Each 4 Service is implementing a planning process that is best suited to its 5 requirements and ranges. This chapter recommends and prioritizes 6 investment products to ensure sustainability of current and projected 7 training and test operations. 8 9 The investment plan is based on the strategic vision (Chapter 6), 10 including prioritized roles and missions, and shortfalls (or gaps) 11 within the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) measured 12 against range requirements contained in the Navy Ranges Required 13 Capabilities Document (RCD). Planned investments are those 14 funded or un-funded projects currently identified for the range 15 complex. The recommended investments are additional projects, 16 which may or may not be currently planned, derived directly from 17 the RCMP process such as the range capability shortfalls identified 18 in Chapter 7. 19 20 Planned and recommended investments are prioritized based on their 21 defined relative importance or priority for each warfare area or range 22 level in the strategic vision identified for the range. See Prioritized 23 Roles and Missions in Chapter 6. 24 25 The following paragraphs describe the major planned and 26 recommended investments for the NWTRC. Figure 11-1 provides a 27 summary of these investments.
28 11.1 RANGE PLANNING,PROGRAMMING,BUDGETING AND EXECUTION PROCESS
29 In 2003, the DOD Senior Executive Council, responding to tasking 30 from Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), recommended a process 31 that is now known as Planning, Programming, Budgeting and 32 Execution (PPBE). PPBE replaced the Planning, Programming and 33 Budgeting System (PPBS) that had been in use since 1962. PPBE is 34 a continuous process that results in the annual submission of the 35 President’s budget. It addresses the Future Years Defense Program 36 (FYDP), which is a six year forecast and established a two-year 37 budget cycle that permits a focus on budget execution and program 38 performance evaluation during the off year. 39 40 There are four phases to the PPBE cycle; Planning, Programming, 41 Budgeting, and Execution. While PPBE activity occurs throughout 42 the year, component and combatant commander activity is especially 43 active May through August when combatant commanders submit the 44 Integrated Priority List and the components submit their input to the 45 Program Objective Memorandum (POM). 46
11-1 VOL II, CH 11 INVESTMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 An understanding of the organization between the range complex 2 and the Chief of Naval Operations is essential to understanding the 3 Budget Development process. Chapter 9 discusses this organization 4 in detail and makes the recommendation that a RCC and a support 5 team be identified to help manage the range complex. The 6 overarching recommendation for this investment plan is that the 7 RCC range complex management team be afforded the opportunity 8 to comment on or provide input to the requirements generation 9 process for the range complex. In summary, the Navy Range Office 10 (NRO) functions as the Office of the Chief of Navy Operations 11 (OPNAV) representative responsible for Training Ranges, Target 12 development and procurement, and Major Range and Test Facility 13 Base (MRTFB). NRO is the single Point of Contact (POC) for 14 PPBE, range policy and management oversight (DON, 2004b). 15 Commander, Navy Installations Command retained ownership of all 16 Class I and II property (Class I is land and Class II is buildings) 17 (DON, 2004b).
18 11.1.1 Range Complex POM Input
19 In general, range requirements are initiated at the local level under 20 the guidance provided by various stakeholders. Principal among the 21 available guidance is the Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG) and 22 Joint Programming Guidance (JPG). These flow down from the 23 Quadrennial Defense Review. The SPG and the JPG together form 24 the replacement for the old Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) 25 (DOD, 2005c). These requirements are vetted through applicable 26 elements of the chain of command up to the resource sponsor who 27 then submits that input to the Budget Submitting Office.
28 11.2 MODERNIZATION
29 This category captures research and capital investments in ranges 30 and range infrastructure variously supported through RDT&E, 31 Procurement, MILCON, O&M, and MILPERS program funding. 32 Examples of investments that fit in this category are (DOD, 2005a): 33 Real Property: including equipment that is attached to 34 buildings and structures, major and minor construction 35 projects, and land acquisition. 36 Instrumentation and Communications: including scoring and 37 feedback systems, radars, optical tracking systems, 38 monitoring equipment, controlling equipment, debriefing 39 equipment, inter- and intra- range communication systems, 40 range support networks and instrumentation frequency 41 management systems. 42 Targets and Target Arrays: including air, land, sea and 43 undersea presentations, target control systems, target 44 augmentation systems and recurring purchases of 45 expendable target materials. 46
11-2 VOL II, CH 11 INVESTMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Another system under this category is the system replacement and 2 modernization (SRAM) program which provides limited funding to 3 assist the Navy ranges within the NWTRC with range refurbishment. 4 SRAM funding requirements are coordinated by Commander, Naval 5 Air Forces (COMNAVAIRFOR) through FFC, resourced by 6 OPNAV N43, and executed by PMA-205 (previously PMA-248), 7 whose agent is NSWC Corona. This progressive refurbishment or 8 upgrading of systems is a cost-effective method for enhancing range 9 performance and reducing the scope of periodic system replacement.
10 11.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
11 This category captures day-to-day recurring activities for operating 12 and managing range infrastructure and assets. It is supported 13 through O&M and MILPERS program funding. Examples of 14 investments that fit in this category are (DOD, 2005a): 15 Range Clearance: including destruction, removal and proper 16 disposition of used munitions. It does not include removal, 17 treatment or remediation of chemical residues or munitions 18 constituents from the environment or actions to address 19 discarded military munitions. 20 Centralized Range Maintenance for Digital Ranges: 21 including standardized maintenance support packages. 22 Real Property Maintenance: including expenses and costs 23 associated with sustaining, restoring, modernizing lands, 24 buildings, structures and utility systems. 25 Range Operations and Maintenance: including costs 26 associated with administrative functions, scheduling, safety, 27 security, operations and maintenance of vehicles, targets, 28 and other systems and resources. 29 Management Planning including the development and 30 maintenance of range sustainability plans.
31 11.4 ENVIRONMENTAL
32 This category captures all environmental management systems that 33 support continued sustainable use of the ranges, including (DOD, 34 2005a): 35 Range Assessments used to determine the extent of 36 environmental effects of range activities; 37 Range Response Actions to address the removal of 38 munitions, constituents or other environmental 39 contamination on ranges, including the design and 40 implementation of the response plan; 41 Range Sustainment Actions taken to preserve the ranges 42 mission; 43 Natural and Cultural Resource Management Plan execution 44 costs including all Sikes Act requirements, and 45 All other sustainment actions necessary to satisfy 46 environmental compliance requirements including those
11-3 VOL II, CH 11 INVESTMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 associated with the National Environmental Policy Act 2 (NEPA).
3 11.5 ENCROACHMENT
4 This category captures actions to optimize accessibility to ranges by 5 mitigating restrictions that limit range activities, including (DOD, 6 2005a): 7 Outreach which includes marketing and focus group research 8 as well as the process of dialogue, information sharing, and 9 issue resolution to inform stakeholders. This does not 10 include outreach that is part of an environmental law such as 11 NEPA. That is covered under the Environmental category; 12 Noise Program efforts; 13 Compatible Land Use including the development of Range 14 Air Installation Compatible Use Zones; and 15 Assessment Tools that identify, quantify, qualify and 16 catalogue the impact of encroachment on ranges.
17 11.6 SUMMARY
18 Table 11-1 summarizes the NWTRC investment plan including 19 current and recommended investments. It is organized by 20 investment category. Funding status categories are funded, 21 unfunded, or recommended. Funded and unfunded are already in 22 progress with varying stages of funding authorized. A recommended 23 investment is supported by the data collection and analysis 24 associated with the RCMP process. Investment priorities are defined 25 in Chapter 8.
11-4 VOL II, CH 11 INVESTMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Navy Investment Summary for the Northwest Training Range Complex Env. Funding Funding NTA Investment Pri. Planning Chapter Comments Status Type supported Status Investment Category Moderni ation Procure EC targets, mobile EC Not 2 Recommended ment, 3.2.5 5, 7 Smart targets, mobile emitters target Started SRAM Procure Provide high-fidelity TSPI Range instrumentation Not 2 Recommended ment, 3.2.3, 3.2.5 7 capability throughout range system Started SRAM complex A-G scoring system at Potential STW missions from 3 Recommended O&M N/A 3.2.6 6 Boardman Fallon and/or EA-18G Boardman targets Not Allow for multiple simultaneous 3 Recommended O&M 3.2.6 7 reconfigured Started events Not Provide ship services for ASUW Surface target capability 3 Recommended O&M 3.2.1.1 7 Started training Live fire capability near Not 1.1.2.4, For NSW weapons (5.56mm and 3 Recommended O&M 7 Puget Sound and Kodiak Started 1.5.6 7.62mm) Not Offshore Instrumentation 3 Recommended O&M 3.2.3 7 Provide AAW debrief capability Required Investment Category Operations and Maintenance Increase in staff to support RCC RCC Staff increase 1 Recommended CIVPERS N/A All 9 responsibilities Web-enabled operations Procure reporting and scheduling 3 Recommended N/A All 7, 9 Consider NAVSKED ment system Air services, air target Provide ship and aircraft services 3 Recommended O&M N/A 3.2.3 7 capability for AAW training Investment Category Environmental Environmental Coverage Include current and potential Navy 1 Recommended TAP Started All 4 for NWTRC operations operations Boardman RAICUZ Not 3.2.3, 3.2.4, Include EA-18G and UAV 3 Recommended TAP 4 update Started 3.2.5, 3.2.6 operations Environmental study to Not 1.3.1.3, For EOD training at existing 3 Recommended O&M 7 increase NEW limits Started 1.4.4, 1.5.6 ranges Investment Category Encroachment Large NEW underwater Not For SEAL and EOD training with 3 Recommended O&M 1.3.1, 1.5.6 3 demo site Started larger detonations EOD land site at Not Addresses encroachment issues at 3 Recommended O&M 1.3.1 5 Boardman Started current ranges Notes: Pri = Priority of project. Pri 1 addresses potentially severe impacts that affect high priority mission areas. Pri 2 addresses moderate impacts to high priority mission areas or severe impacts to medium priority mission areas. Pri 3 addresses all minimal impacts and all impacts to low priority mission areas. Funded: In progress, funding identified. Unfunded: In progress, funding to be identified. Recommended: Investment identified during the RCMP process. 2 Figure 11-1. Northwest Training Range Complex Investment Summary
11-5 VOL II, CH 11 INVESTMENT PLAN FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
This page intentionally left blank
11-6 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 APPENDIX A
2 TERMINOLOGY 3 Access 4 The right to transit to and from and to make use of an area. 5 6 Activity 7 An individual scheduled training function or action such as missile 8 launching, bombardment, vehicle driving, or FCLP that, when 9 combined with other functions or actions, generally makes up an 10 operation. 11 12 Alert Area 13 A designated airspace in which flights are not restricted but there is 14 concentrated student training or other unusual area activity of 15 significance. 16 17 Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) 18 Airspace of defined vertical/lateral limits, normally within Positive 19 Control Area, which is assigned by Air Traffic Control for the 20 purpose of providing air traffic segregation between the specified 21 activities being conducted therein, and other IFR air traffic. 22 23 Backyard Range 24 A range within a radius of one hour’s drive (50-65 miles) of a unit, 25 such that training there can be considered non-deployed for 26 personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) purposes. 27 28 Battlespace 29 The environment, factors, and conditions that must be understood to 30 successfully apply combat power, protect the force, or complete the 31 mission. This includes the air, land, sea, space, and the included 32 enemy and friendly forces; facilities; weather; terrain; the 33 electromagnetic spectrum; and the information environment within 34 the operational areas and areas of interest. 35 36 Controlled Access 37 Area where public access is prohibited or limited due to periodic 38 training operations or sensitive natural or cultural resources. 39 40 Co-Use 41 Scheduled uses that safely allow other units to transit the area or 42 conduct activities. 43 44 Event 45 A significant operational employment during which training is 46 accomplished. “Event” is a Navy approved employment schedule 47 term. The event may be primarily designated as operational, such as 48 TRANSIT, MIO, or STRIKEOPS during which training may take 49 place. Training events may be periods of operational employment
A-1 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 that are also considered major training events such as COMPTUEX 2 (Composite training unit exercise), JTFEX (Joint training fleet 3 exercise), or other exercises such as BRIGHT STAR, COBRA 4 GOLD, or UNIFIED ENDEAVOR. 5 6 Danger Area 7 1. In Canadian airspace, an airspace of defined dimensions within 8 which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may exist at 9 specified times. 10 2. (DoD only) A specified area above, below, or within which there 11 may be potential danger. 12 13 Exclusive Use 14 Scheduled solely for the assigned unit for safety reasons. 15 16 Facilities 17 Physical elements that can include roads, buildings, structures, and 18 utilities. These elements are generally permanent or, if temporary, 19 have been placed in one location for an extended period of time. 20 21 Fee Simple Land 22 Fee simple land means land held absolute and clear of any condition 23 or restriction, and where the owner has unconditional power of 24 disposition. 25 26 Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) 27 Navy facility that provides air traffic control services and controls 28 and manages Navy-controlled off-shore operating areas and 29 instrumented ranges. 30 31 Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) 32 The 27-month cycle that replaces the Interdeployment Training 33 Cycle (IDTC). The FRTP includes four phases prior to deployment: 34 Maintenance, Unit Level Training, Integrated Training, and 35 Sustainment. 36 37 Fleet Response Plan/Fleet Readiness Program (FRP) 38 The Fleet Response Plan was the Navy’s response to the 2002/2003 39 international situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Fleet Readiness 40 Program was later developed by the Fleet commanders. Both names 41 refer to the same operational construct. The FRP is designed to more 42 rapidly develop and then sustain readiness in ships and squadrons so 43 that, in a national crisis or contingency operation, the Navy can 44 quickly surge significant combat power to the scene. 45 46 Frequent User 47 A unit that conducts training and exercises in the training areas on a 48 regular basis but does not maintain a permanent presence. 49
A-2 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Host 2 The Facilities Host holds plant account of all Class I (Land) and 3 most Class II (Buildings) property. The Operational Host determines 4 and executes operational policy for the range/range complex. 5 6 Impact Area 7 The identified area within a range intended to capture or contain 8 ammunition, munitions, or explosives and resulting debris, 9 fragments, and components from various weapon system 10 employments. 11 12 Intermittent User 13 A unit that conducts training and exercises in the training areas 14 throughout the year, but not on a regularly scheduled basis, and does 15 not maintain a permanent presence. 16 17 International Waters 18 Sea areas beyond 12 nm of the U.S. shoreline. 19 20 Interdeployment Readiness Cycle 21 The period by which Naval units progress through maintenance/unit 22 level training, integrated training, and sustainment training stages 23 prior to being deployed with the Fleet to support the gaining CINC. 24 25 Land/Sea Use 26 The exclusive or prioritized commitment of a land/sea area, and any 27 targets, systems, and facilities therein, to a continuing purpose that 28 could include a grouping of operations, buffer zone, environmental 29 mitigation, etc. The land/sea area may consist of a range/range 30 complex, grouping of similar facilities, or natural resource-based 31 area with no facilities. 32 33 Long-Term Sustainability of DOD Ranges 34 The ability to indefinitely support national security objectives and 35 the operational readiness of the Armed Forces, while still protecting 36 human health and the environment. 37 38 Major Range Event 39 A significant operational employment of live, virtual, and/or 40 constructive forces during which live training is accomplished. A 41 training event is a major field exercise with multiple training 42 objectives, usually occurring over an extended period of days or 43 weeks. An event can have multiple training operations (sub-events 44 each with its own mission, objective and time period. Examples 45 include C2X, JTFEX, SACEX, and CAX. Events (JTFEX) are 46 composed of specific operations (e.g., Air-to-Air Missile), which 47 consist of individual activities (e.g., missile launch). 48 49 Maneuver 50 The employment of forces on the battlefield through movement in 51 combination with fire, or fire potential, to achieve a position of
A-3 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 advantage with respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the 2 mission. 3 4 Maneuver Area 5 Range used for maneuver element training. 6 7 Maneuver Element 8 The basic element of a larger force independently capable of 9 maneuver. Normally, a Marine Division recognizes its infantry 10 battalions, tank battalion, and light armored reconnaissance (LAR) 11 battalion as maneuver elements. A rifle (or tank/LAR) 12 battalion would recognize its companies as maneuver elements. A 13 rifle (or tank/LAR) company would recognize its platoons as 14 maneuver elements. Maneuver below the platoon level is not 15 normally possible since fire and movement can be combined only at 16 the platoon level or higher. The Army and National Guard recognize 17 a squad and platoon as maneuver elements. 18 19 Military Operating Area (MOA) 20 Airspace below 18,000 feet used to separate or segregate certain non- 21 hazardous military flight activities from IFR traffic and to identify 22 for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted. 23 24 Military Training Route (MTR) 25 An airspace corridor established for low altitude military flight 26 training at airspeeds in excess of 250 nautical miles/hour. 27 28 Munitions Constituents 29 Any materials originating from unexploded ordnance, discarded 30 military munitions, or other military munitions, including explosive 31 and non-explosive materials, and emission, degradation, or 32 breakdown elements of such ordnance or munitions. 33 34 Operation 35 A training exercise, R&D test, or field event. A combination of 36 activities accomplished together for a scheduled period of time for an 37 intended military mission or task. An operation can range in size 38 from a single unit exercise to a Joint or Combined event with many 39 participants (e.g., aircraft, ships, submarines, troops). 40 41 Operational Range 42 A range that is under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the 43 Secretary of Defense and is used for range activities; or although not 44 currently being used for range activities, that is still considered by 45 the Secretary to be a range and has not been put to a new use that is 46 incompatible with range activities. 47 48 Operating Area (OPAREA) 49 Land, air, sea surface and sub-surface space not part of a range used 50 by military personnel or equipment for training and weapons system 51 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E).
A-4 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Participant 2 An individual ship, aircraft, submarine, amphibious vehicle, or 3 ground unit. 4 5 Prohibited Area 6 Designated airspace where aircraft are prohibited, except by special 7 permission. Can also apply to surface craft. 8 9 Range 10 A land or sea area designated and equipped for any or all of the 11 following reasons: 12 Maneuver element training; 13 Research, development, test and evaluation of weapons and 14 weapons systems; 15 Delivery or firing of live/inert ordnance against scored and/or 16 tactical targets for training purposes. 17 18 Could include firing lines and positions, maneuver areas, firing 19 lanes, test pads, detonation pads, impact areas, and buffer zones with 20 restricted access and exclusionary areas, but does not include 21 airspace. 22 23 Range Activity 24 An individual training or test function performed on a range or in an 25 Operating Area. Examples include missile launching, bombardment, 26 and vehicle driving. Activities, when combined with other functions, 27 generally make up an operation. Individual RDT&E functions are 28 also included in this category. 29 30 Range Complex 31 A geographically integrated set of ranges, operational areas, and 32 associated special use airspace, designated and equipped with a 33 command and control system and supporting infrastructure for 34 freedom of maneuver and practice in munitions firing and live 35 ordnance use against scored and/or tactical targets and/or Electronic 36 Warfare tactical combat training environment. 37 38 Range Operation 39 A live training exercise, RDT&E test, or field maneuver conducted 40 for a specific strategic, operational or tactical military mission, or 41 task. A military action. The basic metric of range activity. Operations 42 may occur independently, or multiple operations may be 43 accomplished as part of a larger event. One operation consists of a 44 combination of activities accomplished together. Operations can be 45 characterized by their number (ops tempo) and type, participants, 46 footprint and ordnance expended. The type of operation can include 47 air, land, sea, and undersea warfare training or testing and can be 48 identified by Naval Tactical Task. Participants can include a specific 49 number and type of aircraft, ships, submarines, amphibious or other 50 vehicles and personnel. Ordnance broadly encompasses all weapons, 51 missiles, shells, and expendables (chaff and flares). An individual
A-5 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 operation occurs over a given geographic footprint for a scheduled 2 period of time, usually less than one day. An example is a Mining 3 Operation. Each Mining Operation is discrete and relatively short in 4 duration, but it may be combined with other operations in a single, 5 larger event, like a JTFEX, which lasts for several days or weeks. 6 7 Range Safety Zone (RSZ) 8 Area around air-to-ground ranges designed to provide safety of flight 9 and personnel safety relative to dropped ordnance and crash sites. 10 Land use restrictions can vary depending on the degree of safety 11 hazard, usually decreasing in magnitude from the weapons impact 12 area (including potential ricochet) to the area of armed over flight 13 and aircraft maneuvering. 14 15 Readiness 16 The ability of forces, units, weapon systems, or equipment to deliver 17 the outputs for which they were designed (includes the ability to 18 deploy and employ without unacceptable delays). 19 20 Restricted Area 21 Airspace designated under Federal Air Regulations, Part 73, within 22 which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to 23 restriction. 24 25 Safety Zone 26 Administratively designated/implied areas designated to limit 27 hazards to personnel and the public, and resolve conflicts between 28 operations. Can include range safety zones (RSZ), EQDS arcs, 29 Surface danger zones, HERO/HERP Areas, etc. 30 31 Security Zone 32 Area where public or non-operational support access is prohibited 33 due to training operations of a classified or hazardous nature. 34 35 Sortie 36 A single operational training or RDT&E event conducted by one 37 aircraft tin a range or operating area. A single aircraft sortie is one 38 complete flight (i.e., one take-off and one final landing). 39 40 Special Use Airspace (SUA) 41 Airspace within which the FAA can confine certain activities such as 42 military flight operations and/or may impose limitations upon 43 aircraft operations not part of those activities. SUA includes military 44 operating areas, restricted areas, and warning areas. 45 46 Stakeholder 47 Those people or organizations that are affected by or have the ability 48 to influence the outcome of an issue. In general this includes 49 regulators, the regulated entity, and the public. It also includes those 50 individuals who meet the above criteria and do not have a formal or 51 statutorily defined decision-making role.
A-6 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 State Jurisdictional Waters 2 Sea areas within 3 nm of a state’s continental and island shoreline. 3 4 Sustainable Range Management 5 Management of an operational range in a manner that supports 6 national security objectives, maintains the operational readiness of 7 the Armed Forces, and ensures the long-term viability of operational 8 ranges while protecting human health and the environment. 9 10 Sustaining the Capability 11 Maintaining necessary skills, readiness and abilities. 12 13 System of Systems 14 All communications, electronic warfare, instrumentation, and 15 systems linkage supporting the range/range complex. 16 17 Targets 18 Earthwork, materials, actual or simulated weapons platforms (tanks, 19 aircraft, EW systems, vehicles, ships, etc.) comprising tactical target 20 scenarios within the range/range complex impact areas. Could also 21 include SEPTAR, AQM, BQM, MQM, etc. 22 23 Tenant 24 A unit that has an Inter-Service Support Agreement with the host for 25 use of the training areas and that maintains a permanent presence. 26 27 U.S. Territorial Waters 28 Sea areas within 12 nm of the U.S. continental and island shoreline. 29 30 Warning Area 31 Airspace which may contain hazards to nonparticipating aircraft in 32 international airspace. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
A-7 APPENDIX ATERMINOLOGY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 This page intentionally left blank
A-8 APPENDIX BENCROACHMENT ISSUES-ENV.DOCUMENTS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 APPENDIX B 2 ENCROACHMENT ISSUES BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
B-1 APPENDIX BENCROACHMENT ISSUES-ENV.DOCUMENTS FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
B-2 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex
Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6) Air Quality; 7) Airborne Noise; 8) Urban Growth; 9) Cultural Resources; 10) Water Quality; 11) Wetlands; 12) Range Transients.
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats Airspace Restrictions Airborne Noise 1. Pacific Northwest The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) management regulations The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary OPAREA - Olympic Coast contain the following restrictions on Navy training: (OCNMS) management regulations contain the (OCNMS) management regulations contain the National Marine Sanctuary o No bombing live or inert within the OCNMS boundaries; following restrictions on Navy training: following restrictions on Navy training: Final Environmental o No flying recommended less than 2000’ within one o No flying recommended less than 2000’ within Impact Statement (1993) nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, one nautical mile of the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute and NAS Whidbey Island or Copalis National Wildlife Refuge; Needles, or Copalis National Wildlife Refuge; Instruction 3770.1C o No flying recommended less than 2000’ within one o No flying recommended less than 2000’ within nautical mile of the coastal boundary (Shoreline to 1 one nautical mile of the coastal boundary (Pacific Northwest nm seaward). (Shoreline to 1 nm seaward). Operations Area Manual)
B-3 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6)
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats Maritime Sustainability Water Quality Range Transients 2. Nanoose Range - 1. It is recommended that CFMETR continue its present policy of suspending torpedo 1. NUWC Keyport should ensure that all their 1. The DND should prepare a 1. A written policy is recommended Environmental testing when cetaceans are detected within one thousand (1000) yards of the intended promotional and briefing material clearly identify that the study that addresses the clean-up for dealing with range intruders who Assessment of the torpedo track or within the fenced boundary of the torpedo in the case of ADCAP CFMETR ranges are jointly run with the Canadian activities which are envisaged are not cooperative. Operational Testing torpedoes. Armed Forces. and the anticipated division of 2. CFMETR should continue its Exercises at the Canadian 2. It is recommended that range vessels maintain a log of cetacean use of the range. 2. CFMETR should provide compensation in the event clean-up responsibilities in the public education and awareness Forces Maritime 3. Helicopter flights to Winchelsea should respect the pinniped haulouts and fly high that a foreign warship, weapon, or mooring buoy event that the WG or WN license programs in accommodating vessels Experimental and Test enough to avoid causing the seals and sealions to leave their haulouts. damages a small Canadian craft or its operators. of occupation expires or either transiting the range. Ranges, Nanoose, British 3. CFMETR should ensure that the ranges are safe to party to the agreement decides to 3. A log of interactions with boaters Columbia (1996) and EA transit in poor visibility and at night either by suitably terminate its range operations. should be maintained recording Update (2005) marking/lighting mooring buoys and any other hazards 2. The further development and cooperative and uncooperative to navigation or by removing them when the range is not use of REXTORP and HOTTORP situations. active. dummy torpedoes is encouraged. 3. Records of spills are being kept and should be maintained.
4. To protect the Peregrine Falcons nesting on Ballenas Island, it is recommended that 4. A report should be 4. US personnel should receive the island not be subjected to low jet overflights during the period 1 March through 30 commissioned on the engineering briefings on the history of the range June. feasibility and cost/benefit of and the principal concerns expressed 5. To protect the Pelagic Cormorant nesting sites on Ballenas Island, it is reducing or eliminating the debris by the community. recommended that low jet overflights of these islands be restricted between 1 April and from each of the three aspects of 5. A U.S. representative should 15 June. range operations; participate in the regular stakeholder 6. It is recommended that some helicopters be made available for bird surveys of the 5. The Canadian and U.S. Navy meetings which are proposed. range areas. should investigate moving to 7. Sonar should be monitored and minimized where possible. entirely non-ballasted HOTTORPs and REXTORPs, if necessary by using a floatation collar to provide buoyancy for recovery; 6. CFMETR should maintain internal records of the debris generated by range activities.
B-4 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6)
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats Airborne Noise 3. Seaplane Base Demolition training will not occur when marine mammals are present on the haul-out 1. Modeling indicates that increasing the explosives Detonation Training Range rocks located just off shore from the proposed site. from .5 lbs to 5.0 lbs NEW explosives could, under - Environmental certain atmospheric conditions, create potentially Assessment: Relocation of significant impacts to nearby residents. To greatly the Explosive Ordnance reduce the potential for noise complaints and to Disposal Demolition eliminate the potential for damage, detonations should Training Range (2000) only be conducted during specific meteorological conditions that take into account the temperature gradient, wind direction and speed, and the amount of explosive to be detonated. The DTR was to adopt a table of these meteorological conditions into their new Standard Operating Procedures.
2. Conduct an open-house by EODMU ELEVEN to inform, educate and establish correspondence with the residents affected by high noise levels and the expected frequency of occurrence of the detonations, as well as what they may experience (e.g., rattling of windows).
B-5 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6)
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats Range Transients 4. Puget Sound EOD 1. Surveying (via boat) within a 500 m radius of the detonation site to determine In order to avoid possible conflicts with tribal fishing, the Training Areas (Crescent whether marine mammals are present. acting EOD unit will contact Navy Region Northwest at Harbor, Floral Point, and 2. The charge is not detonated if marine mammals or birds are within distances where (360) 315-5006 prior to operations at the Crescent NAVMAG Indian Island) - injury could potentially occur. The charge is detonated once the birds and mammals Harbor Underwater EOD Range. Navy Region Biological Assessment for clear the vicinity. Northwest will then notify designated point of contact for EOD Operations in the 3. At the Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend Bay (aka Indian Island) sites, during the the Skagit System Cooperative (currently Ms. Lisa Puget Sound, Washington juvenile migration season (March 15 to July 1 for salmon and bull trout), charges larger Turpin, Swinomish Tribal Affairs at (360) 466-7228)). If and COMNAVREGNW than 5 lb. should not be used. If it is necessary to use charges larger than 5 lb., and up at all possible, EOD unit shall give at least 10 days prior INSTRUCTION 8027(2000) to 20 lb., these charges should be detonated at least 1000 m from the nearest notice. shoreline. 4. Maximum Net Explosive Weight (NEW) for any underwater detonation in the U.S. Navy EOD Puget Sound Training Ranges of Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend will be 20 pounds NEW.
5. Maximum NEW for any underwater detonation in the U.S. Navy EOD Puget Sound Training Ranges of Hood Canal will be 5 pounds NEW. 6. At the Hood Canal site (aka Bangor/Floral Point), charges larger than one pound will not be used during the juvenile migration season (March 15 to July 1 for salmon and bull trout). 7. Thirty minutes prior to any underwater detonation, a minimum of one EOD work boat will patrol the training range for potential presence of marine mammals. a. Pay particular attention for any Harbor Seal or California Sea Lions known to occasionally haul out on the “haul out rocks” along the eastern shoreline of Crescent Harbor (approximately 48°17’15”N / 122°34’00”W) and off Forbes Point (approximately 48° 16’22”N / 122°37’50”W. b. Per the Biological Assessment Addendum (2001), for Crescent Harbor and Port Townsend any sightings of marine mammals within a 600M radius of the underwater detonation site will cause underwater detonations to be cancelled and rescheduled. For Hood Canal site, any sightings of marine mammals within a 345M radius of the underwater detonation site will cause underwater detonations to be cancelled and rescheduled.
8. Following an underwater detonation the site will be monitored for a minimum of fifteen minutes and the EOD Detonation Supervisor will fill out an Environmental Historical Monitoring Sheet. Once completed, the Sheet will be maintained for a historical record by each unit conducting underwater demolition operations.
B-6 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6)
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats Airspace Restrictions Cultural Resources Range Transients 5. Dabob Bay Range To ensure the protection of nesting bald eagles and foraging marbled murrelets from General flight rules for helicopters and fixed-wing When weapon recovery or the Consultation with the representatives Complex - Environmental disturbance by helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, flight rules have been formalized for aircraft include: replacement or installation of from the affected Tribes and Point Assessment for Ongoing the DBRC and adopted in the OMP. a. Flights over land must be at a minimum elevation of acoustical monitoring equipment No Point Treaty Council resulted in and Future Operations at The Navy will continue to conduct marine mammal surveys prior to operations and 1,000 ft (305 m); or related cabling will require an agreement to exchange U.S. Navy Dabob Bay and postpone operations until marine mammals leave the project area. The Navy will b. Flights over water must be at a minimum elevation of bottom disturbing activities within information. The Navy will provide Hood Canal Military continue to train range vessel operators as marine mammal observers. 500 ft (152 m); one mile (1.6 km) of a known tribal points of contact an email of the Operating Areas (2002) If cetaceans are present and expected to be within the ensonified area, no testing c. Flights must maintain a 656 foot (200m) lateral no-fly shipwreck site, the Navy will weekly scheduled range activities in would occur. buffer around bald eagle nests; and conduct reconnaissance of the the Dabob Bay Range Complex, d. Flights within 500 yards (457m) of the shoreline must area to determine if the shipwreck including estimates of range usage be at a minimum elevation of 1,000 ft (305 m). is located within the area to be time (half day/all day). disturbed.
Immediately before each test, marine mammal surveys are conducted by trained Navy In the event that the shipwreck is The Navy will continue to meet with observers as a standard operating procedure. If harbor seals are present within 100 within the area to be affected by the Tribal representatives as yards (91m) of the expected system path, the test will be postponed. the proposed operation, the Navy requested. will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine if the action may proceed as planned, or what modifications to the action may be needed. Fleet sonar has limited application within the Dabob Bay Range Complex, and because of its potential effect would not be used at high power levels without further analysis and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
B-7 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6)
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats UXO / Munitions Airborne Noise Cultural Resources 6. NAVMAG Indian Island - JLOTS is scheduled after the peak juvenile salmon and bull trout migration period, All blank firing will be limited to the North end of the Explosive ordnance will occur Historic and cultural resource sites Environmental which occurs between February 15 and July 15. Furthermore, JLOTS is scheduled Island and will be directed away from environmentally periodically at designated times identified on an enclosed map will be Assessment for Joint after the Bald Eagle breeding season (1 January through 15 August). sensitive areas, and will be cleaned up. away from environmentally briefed to the participating units and Logistics Over-the-Shore Exercise personnel have been directed to watch for harbor seals and to avoid them. sensitive areas. Aircraft will only designated as off limits to exercise 2005 (JLOTS 2005), Naval An exercise time out may be taken to make sure exercise personnel can avoid marine be flown during the daylight hours play. Magazine, Indian Island mammals. and will comply with FAA Should a historic or cultural property (2005) regulations. or site be found or damaged, the exercise activity in the vicinity shall be suspended and the NAVMAG historic and Cultural Resources Officer will be immediately notified.
Wetlands Range Transients
Eelgrass beds are off limits to exercise personnel and care is being taken to prevent Because some tribes use the island beaches for contaminants from entering the water. subsistence, JLOTS 05 will not use any beaches on the island for exercise play. Furthermore, exercise personnel will be prohibited from hunting and fishing either while on duty or off duty while on the Island.
B-8 Vol II, Appendix B Environmental Issues 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Appendix B - Encroachment Issues Based on Existing Environmental Documents in the Northwest Training Range Complex Note: Only applicable encroachment issues are shown below. Available list of encroachment categories includes: 1) Endangered Species-Critical Habitat; 2) UXO/ Munitions; 3) Frequency Encroachment; 4) Maritime Sustainability; 5) Airspace Restrictions; 6)
Location-Document Encroachment Issue Endangered Species-Critical Habitats 7. Pacific Northwest 1. All weapons firings shall be conducted during daylight hours, defined as official OPAREA - OEA for Sinking sunrise to official sunset. Exercise (SINKEX) July 2. Sea surface temperature shall be reviewed prior to the exercise. The SINKEX shall 2005 (2005) not be conducted within or in the vicinity of warm and cold core rings where strong temperature discontinuities are present indicating the existence of oceanographic fronts. Concentrations of some listed species are known to be associated with these oceanographic features. 3. An exclusion zone with a radius of 2.0 nmi will be established around each target. This exclusion zone is based on calculations using a 1055 lb. NEW detonated in water, which yields a distance of 2.0 nmi beyond which the receive level is below the 182dB re: 1μPa² sec threshold established for the shock trial of the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81). Additionally, a larger safety zone will be established around the entire exercise area. This safety zone is dependent upon the safety range of the weapon being fired. 4. A series of surveillance over flights shall be conducted prior to the SINKEX to ensure that no marine species are present in the exclusion zone. Survey protocol will be as follo
5. Beginning at sunrise each day of the exercise, aerial surveillance of the exclusion, survey (if feasible), and safety zones (if feasible) shall commence at least one hour prior to the first firing. The aircraft will fly at the lowest safe altitude and slowest possible safe speed to facilitate observation of the exclusion zone around the target. Track spacing will be based on the environmental conditions of the day and will be determined using the Navy’s Search And Rescue (SAR) Tactical Aid (TACAID). The Navy’s SAR TACAID provides the best search altitude, ground speed and track spacing for a search of small, possibly dark objects in the water based on the current environmental conditions of the day.
6. If marine species are observed in the exclusion zone or the larger safety zone, the observing aircraft will track them. If marine species are detected within the exclusion zone at any time during the exercise, firing will be suspended until the area is clear. If a marine species is observed diving within either the exclusion or safety zones, an attempt will be made to re-sight the animal. If an animal within the exclusion zone is observed diving, firing will be delayed until the animal is re-sighted outside the exclusion zone, or 30 minutes have elapsed. After 30 minutes, if the animal has not been re-sighted, it is assumed that the animal has left the area and firing may resume. This time is based on a typical dive time of 30 minutes.
7. The exclusion zone and will again be surveyed during any break in the exercise. The results of all visual and aural searches shall be reported to the Officer Conducting the Exercise (OCE). No weapon launches shall commence until the OCE declares the range free of marine species. 8. Upon sinking of the hulk, a final surveillance of the exclusion zone will be conducted to mark the location of the sunken hulk and to verify no marine species were harmed.
B-9 APPENDIX CENCROACHMENT SUMMARY MATRICES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 APPENDIX C 2 ENCROACHMENT SUMMARY MATRICES
C-1 APPENDIX CENCROACHMENT SUMMARY MATRICES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
C-2 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matricies 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Minimal/No Impact (Min) Moderate Impact (Mod) Severe Impact (Svr) Whidbey Island Range Complex Encroachment Summary
t t a d t n y s d i t e e / s y e i s s d e i e n e l s z t r s b n c e i m b c o y n h a r y d n e e a n n i t e n r c t r i o h m a a t i r r e i n e g H a i e i r l s a t l o i c t c t n p c i o i wt u u a RANGE / SUA n l i u i i i a b t a a l h s e O a r s r A b o r o l o t t a a n q a t u r r u n p o a t r i N u s e u d c X u e r i s U W a i r s Q G C e Q a r n S t U c M A e A W i M F u R n T E r n R S U C E
Seismic monitors by civilian organizations Restrictions on Link-16, PacNorWest Surf impact SSBN training SPY-1, SPS-49, IFF Active sonar mitigation / Sub Surf No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact and transit tracks in No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Transponder Mode 4 measures. Northwest part of OpArea near the coast. PACNORTHWEST Ocean OPAREA.
OCNMS minimum flight Expeditionary sqdns that Restrictions on Link-16, altitude of 2000ft within 1 deploy with USAF, must SPY-1, SPS-49, IFF NM of the coast, impacts travel to Pt Mugu to W-237 No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Transponder Mode 4 low level (below cloads) launch live fire AGM- near the coast. reccee traning of coast line 88/HARM , one per sqdn and ships. annually.
W-570 & W-93 No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact
C-3 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matricies 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Minimal/No Impact (Min) Moderate Impact (Mod) Severe Impact (Svr) Whidbey Island Range Complex Encroachment Summary
s t t t a n t n y s d i t e e / s y e i s i d e i e n e l s r s b n c e s m b c o y n h a r y d e e a n n i t e n r c t n i o h m a a t i r r e i n g H a i e i r l s a t l a c t c t n p c i o i wt u u a RANGE / SUA n l i u i i i a b t a a l r e O a r s r A b o r o l o t a a n q a t u r r u T p o a t r i N u s e d c X u e r i s U W i r s Q G C e Q e n S t U c M A e A W i M F u g r n R E S R n C E a R
The Joint Restricted Bird migrations in MOAs, Frequency List (JRFL) cause avoidance areas, No Observed Impact imposes restrictstions. No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Civil aircraft in MOAs. Olympic MOA avg 10 impact events per Elaboration exceeds month. UNCLAS.
* No jamming authorized in Okanogan & Roosevelt MOAs due to Bird migrations in MOAs, presence of a satellite cause avoidance areas, comm station. Okanogan MOA No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Civil aircraft in MOAs. avg 10 impact events per *The Joint Restricted month. Frequency List (JRFL) imposes restrictions. Elaboration exceeds UNCLAS.
* No jamming authorized in Okanogan & Roosevelt MOAs due to Bird migrations in MOAs, presence of a satellite cause avoidance areas, comm station. No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Civil aircraft in MOAs. Roosevelt MOA avg 10 impact events per *The Joint Restricted month. Frequency List (JRFL) imposes restrictions. Elaboration exceeds UNCLAS.
C-4 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matricies 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Minimal/No Impact (Min) Moderate Impact (Mod) Severe Impact (Svr) Whidbey Island Range Complex Encroachment Summary
t t a n y d t t s i y e i s s e / s i n l s t r b d c e e e e s n m b o y h a r y d n e a n n c i t n e n t c t e e o m a t i r r i i a i e h i a r l s a r e l n g e g H t t i i w u t i RANGE / SUA c c i n p c a o t u a a n n l i u i i b l a l s e O a r s r A b o r o o t a a a n q a r t u r r u n p X o a t i i N u s W e d c u e r s Q U Q R a i r s G C e r n S t U c M A e A W i M F u T r n R E S R C E
Due to environmental pressure by the public, * Native indians fishing NUWC self-imposed use for clams & shrimp, go of biodegradable wherever they want, When Orcas are present, preservatives on whever they choose. NUWC has a self imposed shipboard equipment They cross ranges in use stand-off range of at least does not adequately sometimes interfering DBRC No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact 500 yds with a guard boat. No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact protect metal from No Observed Impact with events. Interferes with SSBN Sea corrosion. Metal cables * Shrimp Season ( 2-3 Trial ops. must be replaced days/week, 4 hours/day, frequently, machinery April-June) civilian boats repaired and replaced (up to 200) shrimp more often. fishing, interferes with Sea Trials on DBRC.
Due to environmental pressure by the public, NUWC self-imposed use Pacific Right Grey Whales of biodegradable migrate on Keyport site, preservatives on their presence interferes shipboard equipment with range ops and creates Keyport Site No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact does not adequately No Observed Impact No Observed Impact more work for NUWC protect metal from personnel in guard boats marine environment. enforceing stand-off Metal cables must be distances. replaced frequently, machinery repaired and replaced more often.
When Orcas are present, NUWC has a self imposed CFMETR stand-off range of at least No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact 500 yds with aguard boat. No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact (Nanoose) Orca pods have remained in Dabob for up to 3 months.
Quinault Site No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact
C-5 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matricies 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Minimal/No Impact (Min) Moderate Impact (Mod) Severe Impact (Svr) Whidbey Island Range Complex Encroachment Summary
t t a n y d t t s i y e i s s e / s i n l s t r b d c e e e e s n m b o y h a y d e a n n c i t n e n t c r t e n e o m a t i r r r i i a i e h i a r l s a e l n g e g H t i i w u t i RANGE / SUA c t c i n p c o t u a n n l i u i i a b l a a l s e O a r s r A b o r o o t a a a n q a r t u r r u n p o a t i i N u s W e d c X u e r s U R a i r s Q G C e Q r n S t U c M A e A W i M F u T r n R E S R C E
* Indian tribes set many crab traps,"pots," tethered to a small buoy floating on the surface. This multitude of lines and crab pots impacts Environmental protection * Local Indian tribes Urban Growth will EOD underwater training of Marine mammals (Orca apply political pressure to probably become a as swimmers search for NASWI SAR helo crews pods), Salmon migration CNRNW, to stop severe impact on EOD training shapes. must be careful when and other fish in summer EODMU-11 from Crescent Harbor training in Crescent training in the Crescent months, restricts EOD detonationing underwater EOD No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Harbor, due to noise, No Observed Impact No Observed Impact * Indian tribes complain Harbor Survival Training underwater NEW. Seals underwater training recreational and small the explosive events range area, to stay away from occasionally rest on haul shots. commercial boats for disrupt the muscle beds Eagle nests in trees. out rocks , EOD personnel fishing and SCUBA and kill dungenous crab. must delay underwater * EOD units travel out of diving. (Minimal Impact) detonations. area to train. * Civilian pleasure boats and fishermen foul the range for underwater charges. (Minimal Impact)
Seaplane Base EOD Demo Trng No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Range
NAVMAG Indian Environmental Protection Island of Marine mammals, No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact salmon and bird species, No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact underwater EOD restricts EOD underwater range NEW.
Environmental Protection Floral Point of Marine mammals, Underwater EOD No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact salmon and bird species, No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Range restricts EOD underwater NEW.
EOD limits size of training demolition events to a maximum of Bangor EOD 3 lbs NEW, to limit noise Demo Trng No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact complaints from civilian No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Range residents near the base. This limits training on procedures and tools for larger IED.
C-6 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matricies 08/20/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Minimal/No Impact (Min) Moderate Impact (Mod) Severe Impact (Svr) Whidbey Island Range Complex Encroachment Summary
/ s e i t t c a n y d e t t s i y e i s e s p s i n s b d c e e e l e z t n m b o y h a y d i S a n n c i t n e n c r t r n o h m a a t i r r r e i n e d H a i e i r l s a l o i t c t n p c i o i wt u u t a RANGE / SUA e l i u i i i a b t a l h s O a r s r A b o o l o a t t r a n q a u r r u n o a t r t r u e c X u e i i N U s W e u a i r s Q G Q g r M s A C e a r t U M c A e W n i F u R n T r n R a S U E d C n E
NSW Advanced Training, No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact Detachment Kodiak Is.
NSW at NUWC No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact No Observed Impact sites
C-7 APPENDIX DRCDGAP ANALYSIS MATRICES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 APPENDIX D 2 REQUIRED CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS MATRICES
D-1 APPENDIX DRCDGAP ANALYSIS MATRICES FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
D-2 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Common Range Attributes Priority 1 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
System of Systems Web-enabled database; Pre-Event Module: Support unit-level queries on platform name and training event; Identify and notify of competing requests; Support late cancellations flexibly and The lack of capabilities of the scheduling system to The schedule is not web based and does not allow for Invest in and further develop the NAVAIR developed responsively. Real-time-Event Module: Allow meet RCD requirements has little impact on the N/A N/A Scheduling System real-time and post-event module requirements. NAVSKED software to meet RCD requirements. range controller to enter all event-related data accomplishment of training events within the complex. (prior, during, after the event). Post-Event Module: Generate automatic post-event message/email to user. Collect meteorological data; Report The MET system meets all the RCD requirements with meteorological information (Objective - Report the exception of reporting sea state and sound velocity None None N/A N/A MET System current sea state and sound velocity profile where profile information. applicable)
D-3 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Anti-Air Warfare (AAW Training) Basic Priority 2 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements Aircraft Events: 45 minute range period; 50NM x The limited amount of AAW conducted in the offshore 80NM; Surface to 60K' AGL; Some SUA should Offshore airspace is not entirely cleared for supersonic operations; areas and in the overland areas is not impacted overlay Land mass with a littoral component (with Some special use airspace (SUA) is not cleared from the surface to significantly by these shortfalls. EA-6B aircraft are the Airspace significant topographical features); Cleared for None N/A N/A 60,000 feet AGL. All dedicated airspace in the NWTRC is available primary participants in these exercises in the NWTRC supersonic flight.Surface Combatant Events: 3 24/7. and conduct AAW as a secondary role. These aircraft hour range window; 75NM x 75 NM; Surface to are incapable of supersonic flight. 60K' AGL. Some portion overlies a land mass. 3 hour range period; 75nm x 75nm Operating Area (Sea Space is required for surface Sea Space The Sea Space meets the full RCD requirement No Impact None N/A N/A combatant training - Sea Space directly beneath the required airspace is preferred) Aircraft Events: No requirements The land beneath the Olympic MOA includes significant topographical features, contains a littoral component, and meets the Surface Combatant Events: size requirements. However, the land is not controlled by the Navy. AAW training requires a 2-hour window on a Land Area The 6 nm x 12 nm land area associated with the Naval Weapons No Impact None N/A N/A 20NM x 20NM land area with a littoral component System Training Facility (NWSTF) at Boardman, Oregon is Navy for overland detection and tracking. (requires the owned, but falls short of the size requirements. Boardman is also Land Area underlie Airspace that is authorized for completely landlocked. This land area is available 24/7. use by manned and unmanned aircraft or drones)
System of Systems Two dedicated EC&C circuits; 1 EC&C circuit dedicated to secure communications Secure EC&C ship-to-shore communications; At The limited amount of AAW conducted in the NWTRC is There are no communications systems in the NWTRC which reach least 3 dedicated OC circuits not impacted significantly by this communications None N/A N/A Communications System the offshore areas of the complex to support AAW. 1 OC circuit dedicated to secure communications; shortfall Secure OC communications to airborne and surface combatants Towed targets (e.g., banners and darts); Subsonic The lack of towed targets within the complex limits the and supersonic drones ability of surface combatants to conduct Surface-to-Air Surface to 50K'; Drones with size, spectral There are no inherent drone capabilities residing within the Recommend acquiring a S-A towed target capability Target System training in target detection, tracking, and engagement. Requirements will be fully met None signature, threat aircraft/anti-ship CM replication; complex. (Commercial Air Services). This shortfall has no effect on the accomplishment of Drones with active jamming; Drones with AAW training for EA-6B aircraft. simulated CM launch capabilities
o TSPI: The range complex lacks TSPI coverage for the off shore operating areas. areas nor does it have any EC&C, M&S or scoring Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 10 (At least 4 Blue, capability 5 OPFOR aircraft/drones); Low Fidelity 2 (Single o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training Capability The lack of instrumentation within the complex limits the AEW aircraft and/or single surface AAW-capable (JNTC) context: The Range Complex has no inherent radar tracking ability of surface combatants and aircraft to conduct Recommend acquiring instrumentation systems that Instrumentation System ship). EC&C: 2-D, 3-D. M&S: A-A, A-S, S-S, S-A. system (no 2-D or 3-D) for all overland and offshore areas. Surface-to-Air and Air-to-Air training in AAW. Requirements will be fully met None meet the RCD requirements. Scoring: manual or auto; real-time feedback; o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S capability for However, this shortfall has little effect on the voice RTKN. Debriefing: Local and remote PC AAW. accomplishment of AAW training for EA-6B aircraft. compatibility o Scoring: No scoring system available for AAW events. o Debrief: The complex lacks any debrief capabilities for AAW events.
Up to 2 live rotary-wing threat aircraft w/ A-A The AAW training operations which occur in the missile capability; Up to 4 live fixed-wing, The NWTRC does not have any dedicated rotary wing OPFOR complex use other aircraft from Naval Air Station (NAS) OPFOR System supersonic-capable aircraft with A-A gun and None N/A N/A aircraft; fixed wing through contract air services (CAS) only. Whidbey Island to perform as OPFOR for their basic active A-A missile capability; Fixed-wing capability training requirements or use CAS. to top of SUA; EC threat level 1
D-4 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Anti-Air Warfare (AAW Training) Intermediate Priority 3 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements Aircraft Events: 2 hour range period; 50NM x The limited amount of AAW conducted in the offshore 80NM; Surface to 60K' AGL; Some SUA should Offshore airspace is not entirely cleared for supersonic areas and in the overland areas is not impacted overlay Land mass with a littoral component (with operations; Some special use airspace (SUA) is not significantly by these shortfalls. EA-6B aircraft are the significant topographical features); Cleared for None N/A N/A Airspace cleared from the surface to 60,000 feet AGL. All primary participants in these exercises in the NWTRC supersonic flight. Surface Combatant Events: 5 dedicated airspace in the NWTRC is available 24/7. and conduct AAW as a secondary role. These aircraft hour range window; 75NM x 75NM; Surface to are incapable of supersonic flight. 60K 5 hour range period; 75nm x 75nm Operating Area (Sea Space is required for surface The Sea Space meets the full RCD requirement No Impact None N/A N/A Sea Space combatant training - Sea Space directly beneath the required airspace is preferred)
Aircraft Events: 2-hour range window on a The land beneath the Olympic MOA includes significant 20NM x 20NM land area with some Airspace over topographical features, contains a littoral component, a Land Area with signifigant topographical and meets the size requirements. However, the land is features for opposed strike scenarios. not controlled by the Navy. The 6 nm x 12 nm land area Surface Combatant Events: associated with the Naval Weapons System Training No Impact None N/A N/A Land Area AAW training requires a 2-hour window on a Facility (NWSTF) at Boardman, Oregon is Navy owned, 20NM x 20NM land area with a littoral component but falls short of the size requirements. Boardman is for overland detection and tracking. (requires the also completely landlocked. This land area is available Land Area underlie Airspace that is authorized for 24/7. use by manned and unmanned aircraft or drones)
System of Systems
Two dedicated EC&C circuits; 1 EC&C circuit must support secure communications, including ship-to-shore; At least 4 dedicated OC circuits; 2 There are no communications systems in the NWTRC The limited amount of AAW conducted in the NWTRC Communications System of which must support secure A-G and ship-to- which reach the offshore areas of the complex to is not impacted significantly by this communications None N/A N/A shore communications; At least 2 D/L circuits, at support AAW. shortfall least one of which must support theater-level D/L connectivity and relay requirements Unmanned subsonic and supersonic drones that can operate from the surface to 50K'; Drones The lack of towed targets within the complex limits the should be capable of being augmented and ability of surface combatants to conduct Surface-to-Air There are no inherent drone capabilities residing within Recommend acquiring a S-A towed target capability controlled to replicate size, spectral signature training in target detection, tracking, and engagement. Requirements will be fully met None Target System the complex. (Commercial Air Services). (including jamming), and in-flight performance of This shortfall has no effect on the accomplishment of anticipated threat aircarft and anti-ship cruise AAW training for EA-6B aircraft. missiles. o TSPI: The range complex lacks TSPI coverage for the off shore operating areas. areas nor does it have Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 24 (up to 10 Blue, any EC&C, M&S or scoring capability 12 OPFOR aircraft, and 2 drones replicating o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training ASMs); Low Fidelity 10 (Includes Blue air support Capability (JNTC) context: The Range Complex has no The lack of instrumentation within the complex limits the aircraft and surface platforms). EC&C: 2-D, 3-D, inherent radar tracking system (no 2-D or 3-D) for all ability of surface combatants and aircraft to conduct JNTC (Presumes Navy may have to nominate overland and offshore areas. Recommend acquiring instrumentation systems that Surface-to-Air and Air-to-Air training in AAW. Requirements will be fully met None Instrumentation System some intermediate level training events for JNTC o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S meet the RCD requirements. However, this shortfall has little effect on the accreditation to meet T2 joint training reqs). M&S: capability for AAW. accomplishment of AAW training for EA-6B aircraft. A-A, A-S, S-S, S-A. Scoring: manual or auto; o Scoring: No scoring system available for AAW feedback - both; RTKN - Voice or Auto. Debrief: events. Both. o Debrief: The complex lacks any debrief capabilities for AAW events.
At least 2 live rotary-wing threat aircraft w/ A-A missile capability; Live or Virtual fixed-wing threat aircraft equal in numbers to 1.5 times the number of friendly aircraft, up to a total of 16 aircraft per The AAW training operations which occur in the engagement. All L threat aircraft must be The NWTRC does not have any dedicated rotary wing complex use other aircraft from Naval Air Station (NAS) supersonic-capable with A-A gun and active A-A OPFOR aircraft; fixed wing through contract air services None N/A N/A OPFOR System Whidbey Island to perform as OPFOR for their missile capability; All fixed-wing threat aircraft (CAS) only. intermediate training requirements or use CAS. must be able to operate from surface to the upper limit of the airspace (# of L threat aircraft must be equal or greater than # of friendly aircraft; EC threat level 2
D-5 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW Training) Basic Priority 2 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The at-sea warning areas associated with the Pacific 8 hour window; 30NM x 75NM; Surface to 35K' Northwest OPAREA meets the full requirements of the No Impact None N/A N/A Airspace AGL RCD for airspace. The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the Sea Space 8 hour window; 50NM x 75NM; Operating Area No Impact None N/A N/A requirements of the RCD for sea space. 8 hour window; 50NM x 75NM; Sufficient The undersea space of the Pacific Northwest OPAREA Undersea Space undersea space to use submarine-launched anti- more than meets the requirements of the RCD for No Impact None N/A N/A ship weapons. UTR is preferred, but not required. undersea space. System of Systems 2 dedicated EC&C circuits; At least 1 EC&C circuit to support secure communications including ship-to-shore; At least 3 dedicated OC There are no communications systems in the NWTRC The limited amount of ASUW conducted in the NWTRC Communications System circuits; At least 1 OC circuit to support secure which serve the offshore areas of the complex to is not impacted significantly by this communications None N/A N/A communications; OC circuits must support support ASUW shortfall. airborne, surface combatant, and submarine communications. The lack of targets prevents some basic and The NWTRC does not have any inherent ASUW At least 1 stationary and 1 towed or self-propelled intermediate training events from occurring in the targets in the complex. Surface ships have the ability to target; Remotely-controlled or programmable complex. Surface ships conduct basic and intermediate launch a floating at-sea target which meets the Recommend acquiring towed or remote-controlled target with threat spectral signature replication; ASUW against the floating at sea targets, while aircraft Requirements will be fully met None Target System stationary requirement but these do not replicate the surface targets for ASUW training. Target must be cleared for engagement with live and submarines conducting ASUW do so against spectral signature of threat platforms. The NWTRC anti-ship ordnance targets of opportunity without conducting live fire also lacks towed or self propelled targets. training. o TSPI: The range complex lacks the ability for TSPI in the offshore areas. o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) context. The Range complex has no inherent radar tracking system to cover all overland and Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 4 (2 Blue and 2 offshore areas. There is no instrumentation in the OPFOR air assets); Low Fidelity 5 (2 Blue, 1 OPAREAs other than the inactive systems of the OPFOR surface track, and 2 submarines); Quinalt Range which would not support ASUW The lack of instrumentation has very little impact on the Instrumentation System EC&C: 2-D, 3-D; M&S: A-S, A-G, S-S, Sub-S; None N/A N/A operations in the complex. limited ASUW operations that occur in the NWTRC Scoring: manual or auto; real-time and post- o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S to mission feedback; voice RTKN; Debriefing: support ASUW operations. Local and remote PC compatibility o Scoring: The complex lacks any scoring for ASUW events. o Debrief: The complex lacks a debrief capability for ASUW events.
The OPFOR for ASUW events in the NWTRC is usually At least 1 live surface combatant; 1 live fixed- or The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated provided by other Fleet or foreign (Canadian Forces) None N/A N/A OPFOR System rotary-wing aircraft; EC threat level 1 OPFOR surface combatants or aircraft. assets or through liaison with Flight International for OPFOR aircraft.
D-6 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW Training) Intermediate Priority 2 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The at-sea warning areas associated with the Pacific 24 hour window; 100NM x 100NM; Surface to Northwest OPAREA meets the full requirements of the No Impact None N/A N/A Airspace 60K' AGL RCD for airspace. The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the Sea Space 24 hour window; 75NM x 75NM OPAREA No Impact None N/A N/A requirements of the RCD for sea space. 24 hour window; 50NM x 150NM OPAREA with sufficient undersea space to use submarine- The undersea space of the Pacific Northwest OPAREA Undersea Space launched anti-ship weapons. UTR is preferred, more than meets the requirements of the RCD for No Impact None N/A N/A but not required for all ASUW events involving undersea space. submarine assets System of Systems 2 dedicated EC&C circuits; At least 1 EC&C circuit to support secure communications including ship-to-shore; At least 3 dedicated OC There are no communications systems in the NWTRC The limited amount of ASUW conducted in the NWTRC Communications System circuits; At least 1 OC circuit to support secure A- which serve the offshore areas of the complex to is not impacted significantly by this communications None N/A N/A G and ship-to-shorecommunications; OC circuits support ASUW shortfall. must support airborne, surface combatant, and submarine jparticipants; At least 2 D/L circuits The lack of targets prevents some basic and The NWTRC does not have any inherent ASUW At least 1 stationary and 1 towed or self-propelled intermediate training events from occurring in the targets in the complex. Surface ships have the ability to target; Remotely-controlled or programmable complex. Surface ships conduct basic and intermediate launch a floating at-sea target which meets the Recommend acquiring towed or remote-controlled target with threat spectral signature replication; ASUW against the floating at sea targets, while aircraft Requirements will be fully met None Target System stationary requirement but these do not replicate the surface targets for ASUW training. Target must be cleared for engagement with live and submarines conducting ASUW do so against spectral signature of threat platforms. The NWTRC anti-ship ordnance targets of opportunity without conducting live fire also lacks towed or self propelled targets. training. o TSPI: The range complex lacks the ability for TSPI in the offshore areas. o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) context. The Range complex has no inherent radar tracking system to cover all overland and Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 12 (8 Blue and 4 offshore areas. There is no instrumentation in the OPFOR aircraft); Low Fidelity 14 (up to a OPAREAs other than the inactive systems of the combined total of 12 Blue and OPFOR surface Quinalt Range which would not support ASUW The lack of instrumentation has very little impact on the Instrumentation System platforms and 2 submarines); EC&C: 2-D, 3-D; None N/A N/A operations in the complex. limited ASUW operations that occur in the NWTRC M&S: A-A, A-S, A-G, S-S, S-A, Sub-S; Scoring: o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S to manual or auto; real-time and post-mission support ASUW operations. feedback; voice RTKN; Debrief: Both o Scoring: The complex lacks any scoring for ASUW events. o Debrief: The complex lacks a debrief capability for ASUW events.
At least 2 live, Virtual, or Constructive surface The OPFOR for ASUW events in the NWTRC is usually combatants; At least 2 L, V, or C fixed- or rotary- The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated provided by other Fleet or foreign (Canadian Forces) None N/A N/A OPFOR System wing aircraft (at least one-half of the OPFOR OPFOR surface combatants or aircraft. assets or through liaison with Flight International for must be live); EC threat level 2 OPFOR aircraft.
D-7 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW Training) Basic Priority 1 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The at-sea warning areas associated with the Pacific 6 hour window; 50NM²; Surface to 10K' AGL; Northwest OPAREA meets the requirements of the Airspace Airspace to overlie an underwater tracking range RCD except that there is no UTR beneath the airspace. No Impact None N/A N/A (UTR) A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of supporting basic level training. The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the 6 hour window; 50NM²; Operating Area; UTR requirements of the RCD for sea space although it does Sea Space preferred; not have a fully functional UTR (a desired but not No Impact None N/A N/A Cleared for sonobuoy expenditure and EXTORPs required capability). A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of supporting basic level training. The undersea space associated with the Pacific Northwest OPAREA meets all the requirements of the RCD except the requirement for a UTR. The instrumentation associated with the Quinault Range is 6 hour window; 50NM² range with a UTR No Impact None N/A N/A Undersea Space portable in nature and requires placement in the area in which the exercises will be conducted. A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of supporting basic level training System of Systems 2 dedicated EC&C circuits; EC&C circuits must support secure communications including ship-to- shore; Only 2 OC circuits required (Objective - 3); At least 1 OC circuit must support secure There is no communications system in the NWTRC that The lack of ASW communications coverage for the Communications System communications; OC circuits must support serves the offshore areas of the complex in support of OPAREAs has little effect on basic level events which None N/A N/A airborne, surface combatant, and submarine ASW operations. occur within the NWTRC. voice communications; No requirement for acoustic data transfer network (Objective - 1 acoustic data transfer network) 1 L recoverable or expendable underwater maneuvering target w/ magnetic signature and Mk-39 Expendable Mobile ASW Training Targets acoustic signal threat replication in both broad (EMATTs), MK 30 targets and live submarines are Target System and narrow bands; L target must be full-scale readily available to support this requirement. All have No Impact None N/A N/A manned submarine or augmented autonomous the capability to reproduce the acoustic signature of target capable of varying speed, course, and current and anticipated threat submarines. depth o TSPI: The range complex lacks any TSPI in the offshore operating areas other than the inactive Quinalt Range, which only covers a portion of the OPAREA. With the exception of the instrumentation capabilities associated with the Dabob, and Nanoose RDT&E Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 11 (2 aircraft, 4 ranges, there is no other TSPI available. subsurface, 4 surface, and 1 instrumented o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training exercise torpedo tracks); Low Fidelity 2 (Up to 2 The lack of instrumentation has little impact on the Capability (JNTC) context. The complex has no inherent surface tracks); EC&C: 2-D, 3-D; M&S: A-G, S- submarines, surface ships, and aircraft which conduct None N/A N/A Instrumentation System radar tracking system for full overland and offshore area Sub, Sub-S, Sub-Sub; Scoring: auto; real-time ASW events in the complex. coverage. and post-mission feedback; voice RTKN; o M&S not available for: There is no M&S available for Debriefing: Local and remote PC compatibility the offshore areas in support of ASW. o Scoring: No scoring system exists to support ASW in the offshore areas. o Debrief: The complex lacks a debrief capability for ASW events offshore. 1 L threat submarine; One live ASW surface threat required (Objective - 2 live ASW surface The OPFOR for ASW events in the NWTRC is usually The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated threats); 1 L ASW threat aircraft; Threats for provided by other Fleet or foreign (Canadian Forces) None N/A N/A OPFOR System OPFOR surface combatants, submarines or aircraft. subsurface and surface exercises; EC threat assets or through CAS for OPFOR aircraft. level 1
D-8 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW Training) Intermediate Priority 2 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The at-sea warning areas associated with the Pacific 12 hour window in a 500NM² area; Surface to Northwest OPAREA meets the requirements of the 10K' AGL; (preferred, but not required, that some RCD except that there is no UTR beneath the airspace. No Impact None N/A N/A Airspace portion of SUA overlie an underwater tracking A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of range (UTR)) supporting intermediate level training. The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the 12 hour window on a 500NM² ocean OPAREA; requirements of the RCD for sea space although it does Sea Space (UTR preferred, but not required, must be cleared not have a fully functional UTR (a desired but not No Impact None N/A N/A for expenditure of sonobuoys and/or EXTORPs) required capability). A UTR exists at Nanoose Range and is capable of supporting intermediate level training.
The undersea space associated with the Pacific 12 hour window on a 500NM² range with a UTR Northwest OPAREA meets all the requirements of the with some water depths less than 600 feet (UTR RCD except the requirement for a UTR. The preferred, but not required, Preferably, UTR instrumentation associated with the Quinault Range is should encompass water as shallow as 300 feet No Impact None N/A N/A Undersea Space portable in nature and requires placement in the area in to replicate littoral operating environments, Must which the exercises will be conducted. A UTR exists at be cleared for use of LFA high dB active sensors Nanoose Range and is capable of supporting and expenditure of at least EXTORP and EER) intermediate level training
System of Systems 2 dedicated EC&C circuits; EC&C circuits must support secure communications including ship-to- shore; At least 4 dedicated OC circuits, at least 2 of which must support secure communications; OC circuits must support voice communications There is no communications system in the NWTRC that The lack of ASW communications coverage for the Communications System with airborne, surface, and subsurface serves the offshore areas of the complex in support of OPAREAs has little effect on intermediate level events None N/A N/A participants. At least 1 acoustic data transfer ASW operations. which occur within the NWTRC. network (To facilitate the transmission of real or near-real time TSPI and wpns performance information to submarine particpants that are not connected to RF D/L) At least 2 L, V, or C underwater maneuvering targets. At least one of the targets must be a L recoverable or expendable target capable of Mk-39 Expendable Mobile ASW Training Targets generating or replicating the magnetic signature (EMATTs), MK 30 targets and live submarines are and acoustic signal signature of current and readily available to support this requirement. All have No Impact None N/A N/A Target System anticipated threats in both broad and narrow the capability to reproduce the acoustic signature of band. (L target must be full-scale manned current and anticipated threat submarines. submarine or augmented autonomous target capable of various speed, course, and depth profiles) o TSPI: The range complex lacks any TSPI in the offshore operating areas other than the inactive Quinalt Range, which only covers a portion of the OPAREA. Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 34 (up to 6 aircraft - With the exception of the instrumentation capabilities 4 blue and 2 Opfor, 6 subsurface tracks - 2 blue associated with the Dabob, and Nanoose RDT&E subs + 2 tails and 2 OPFOR subs, 20 surface ranges, there is no other TSPI available. tracks - 8 blue surface combatants + 8 tails and 2 o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training OPFOR surface combatants + 2 tails, and 2 The lack of instrumentation has little impact on the Capability (JNTC) context. The complex has no inherent EXTORPs); Low Fidelity 5 (Applies only for ops submarines, surface ships, and aircraft which conduct None N/A N/A Instrumentation System radar tracking system for full overland and offshore area on a UTR, and includes at least 4 surface tracks ASW events in the complex. coverage. and 1 UUV); EC&C: 2-D, 3-D; M&S: A-S, A-G, o M&S not available for: There is no M&S available for S-Sub, Sub-S, Sub-Sub; Scoring: auto; real- the offshore areas in support of ASW. time and post-mission feed; RTKN - voice or o Scoring: No scoring system exists to support ASW in auto; Debrief - both the offshore areas. o Debrief: The complex lacks a debrief capability for ASW events offshore. At least 4 L or V threat submarines, at least 2 of which must be L. Up to 4 L or V threat surface The OPFOR for ASW events in the NWTRC is usually The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated combatants, at least 2 of which must be L. At provided by other Fleet or foreign (Canadian Forces) None N/A N/A OPFOR System OPFOR surface combatants, submarines or aircraft. least 3 L or V ASW threat aircraft, at least 2 of assets or through CAS for OPFOR aircraft. which must be L. EC threat level 2
D-9 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Mine Warfare Northwest Training Range Complex (MIW Training) (Includes EOD) Basic Range Complex Management Plan Priority 1
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The Admiralty Bay restricted area (R-6701) of the NWTRC which supports aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for area. R-6701 has 21nm² of area vice the 50nm² requirement. Other airspace over Airspace 6 hour window; 50NM²; Surface to 5K' AGL. No Impact None N/A N/A water in the complex meets the RCD requirement. However, should the requirement emerge, the Admiralty Bay Mining Range should be considered for development of a mine target system The Admiralty Bay area of the NWTRC which supports aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for The complex has historically been used only for aerial 6 hour window; 50NM²; Operating Area; Must area (21nm² of area vice the 50nm² requirement). mining and mine neutralization operations. The sea allow mine-laying; Adjacent or close to prominent Open ocean sea space in the complex meets the RCD None N/A N/A Sea Space space capabilities inherent in the range are more than land formations for aircrew geo-references requirement but will not allow for scored mining. MCM adequate to meet training requirements. training is conducted in various smaller areas throughout Puget Sound. The Admiralty Bay area of the NWTRC which supports 6 hour window; 50NM²; Varying bottom types; aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for Varying depths from surf zone to 600 feet; UTR The complex has historically been used only for aerial area (21nm² of area vice the 50nm² requirement). preferred; Must allow mine laying. Some portion mining and mine neutralization operations. The Open ocean sea space in the complex meets the RCD None N/A N/A Undersea Space of the range must allow live firing of existing and undersea space capabilities inherent in the range are requirement but will not allow for scored mining. MCM projected MCM systems, EOD ordnance, and more than adequate to meet training requirements. training is conducted in various smaller areas mechanical cutters. throughout Puget Sound. System of Systems 2 dedicated EC&C circuits; EC&C circuits must NAS Whidbey Island has communications systems support secure communications including ship-to- which allow NAS Whidbey Operations personnel to shore; At least 3 dedicated OC circuits Due to the limited nature of aerial mining, the lack of communicate constantly with airborne aircraft operating (objective), or 2 OC circuits (threshold); at least 1 communications has little effect on operations within the None N/A N/A Communications System in the vicinity of Admiralty Bay for aerial mining OC circuit must support secure communications; complex. operations. The complex lacks the number (five in OC circuits must support airborne, surface total) of circuits required for MIW operations combatant, and submarine voice communications
Only 15 non-instrumented target shapes required (Objective - 30 non-instrumented target shapes); The NWTRC has very few mine target shapes and it Only 10 instrumented target shapes required does not have a mine avoidance range. Mine Target he complex has historically been used only for aerial (Objective - minimum 20 instrumented target shapes are used in mine neutralization operations. The mining and mine neutralization operations. The targets shapes); Target shapes include bottom mines, NWTRC lacks the instrumented mine shapes required None N/A N/A Target System inherent in the range are more than adequate to meet moored mines, and false targets; Must include to support MCM operations by Aviation or Surface training requirements. non-mine shapes that require MCM operator Based platforms, which is not an area required for the shape classification; Must include mine shapes complex to support on a mine avoidance range.
o TSPI: The NWTRC lacks the instrumented mine shapes or TSPI instrumentation required to support MCM operations by Aviation or Surface Based Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 5; Low Fidelity 10 platforms, which is not an area required for the complex (Objective - High Fidelity 10 (fixed or rotary wing), to support. Low Fidelity 20 (20 instrumented mines and up to o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training he complex has historically been used only for aerial 2 surface/subsurface participants)); EC&C: 2-D, Capability (JNTC) context: The range complex has no mining and mine neutralization operations. The lack of None N/A N/A Instrumentation System 3-D; M&S: A-G, S-Sub, Sub-Sub; Scoring: inherent radar tracking system for the offshore areas. capabilities in the instrumentation system has little manual or auto; real-time and post-mission o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S effect on the accomplishment of these operations. feedback; voice or auto RTKN; Debriefing: capabilities to support MIW operations. Local and remote PC compatibility. o Scoring: Scoring for aerial mining is limited to visual sighting by operating personnel. o Debrief: The complex lacks the capability for debrief of aerial mining events.
OPFOR System N/A
D-10 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Mine Warfare Northwest Training Range Complex (MIW Training) (Includes EOD) Intermediate Range Complex Management Plan Priority 2
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The Admiralty Bay restricted area (R-6701) of the NWTRC which supports aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for area. R-6701 has 21nm² of 12 hour window in a 100NM² area from surface to area vice the 50nm² requirement. Other airspace over Airspace No Impact None N/A N/A 5K' AGL. water in the complex meets the RCD requirement. However, should the requirement emerge, the Admiralty Bay Mining Range should be considered for development of a mine target system The Admiralty Bay area of the NWTRC which supports 12 hour window period on a 100NM² OPAREA aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for (Must allow mine-laying; Sea Space should be The complex currently supports only aerial mining and area (21nm² of area vice the 100nm2 requirement). adjacent to or in close proximity to 1 or more mine neutralization operations and the sea space Open ocean sea space in the complex meets the RCD None N/A N/A Sea Space prominent land formations that can be used by capabilities inherent in the range are more than requirement but will not allow for scored mining. MCM aircrews for a geo-reference point for mine-laying adequate to meet training requirements. training is conducted in various smaller areas exercises) throughout Puget Sound. The Admiralty Bay area of the NWTRC which supports 12 hour window on a 100NM² range with various aerial mining, does not meet the RCD requirement for bottom types and depths from surf zone to 1200 The complex currently supports only aerial mining and area (21nm² of area vice the 100nm2 requirement). feet; (UTR is desired, but not required; Must allow mine neutralization operations. The undersea space Open ocean sea space in the complex meets the RCD None N/A N/A Undersea Space mine laying; Should also include a dedicated area capabilities inherent in the range are more than requirement but will not allow for scored mining. MCM (approx 1 NM x 2 NM) for SWAG operations and adequate to meet training requirements. training is conducted in various smaller areas mine avoidance training) throughout Puget Sound. System of Systems 2 dedicated EC&C circuits, at least 1 of which must support secure communications including NAS Whidbey Island has communications systems ship-to-shore; At least 4 dedicated OC circuits which allow NAS Whidbey Operations personnel to (objective), or 2 OC circuits (threshold); at least 2 Due to the limited nature of aerial mining, the lack of communicate constantly with airborne aircraft operating of which must support secure A-G and ship-to- communications has little effect on operations within the None N/A N/A Communications System in the vicinity of Admiralty Bay for aerial mining shore communications. OC circuits must support complex. operations. The complex lacks the number (five in communications with airborne, surface, total) of circuits required for MIW operations. submarine, and NSW participants; At least 1 D/L circuit A minimum of 30 non-instrumented and 20 instrumented target shapes, to include a The NWTRC has very few mine target shapes and it combination of bottom mines, moored mines, and does not have a mine avoidance range. Mine Target false targets. (must include non-mine shapes that The complex currently supports only aerial mining and shapes are used in mine neutralization operations. The require MCM operators to classify shapes as mine neutralization operations and the targets inherent NWTRC lacks the instrumented mine shapes required None N/A N/A Target System mines or non-mines, Must include mine shapes in the range are more than adequate to meet training to support MCM operations by Aviation or Surface on a dedicated mine avoidance range, Must requirements. Based platforms, which is not an area required for the include targets for SWAG operations, Mine complex to support shapes and false targets must be mobile and relocatable) o TSPI: The NWTRC lacks the instrumented mine shapes or TSPI instrumentation required to support MCM operations by Aviation or Surface Based Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 20 (Represents the platforms, which is not an area required for the complex typical reqs associated with an aviation MRCI; to support. reqs for MCM could be as low as 10); Low o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training The complex currently supports only aerial mining and Fidelity 30 (Will accomodate a typical MIW Capability (JNTC) context: The range complex has no mine neutralization operations at the intermediate level, Instrumentation System scenario of one or more subs, 2 or mor surface inherent radar tracking system for the offshore areas. however, the lack of capabilities in the instrumentation None N/A N/A ships, up to 2 UUVs, and up to 20 instrumented o M&S not available for: The complex lacks any M&S system has little effect on the accomplishment of these mines); EC&C: 2-D, 3-D; M&S: A-G, S-Sub, capabilities to support MIW operations. operations. Sub-Sub; Scoring: Auto; Feedback - both; o Scoring: Scoring for aerial mining is limited to visual RTKN - Voice or Auto; Debrief - Both sighting by operating personnel. o Debrief: The complex lacks the capability for debrief of aerial mining events.
The NWTRC does not contain any live dedicated OPFOR submarines; a diesel OPFOR submarine is At least 2 L fixed-or rotary-wing threat aircraft; At Opposed MIW events are not a requirement of the available in San Diego for deployment to the complex None N/A N/A OPFOR System least 1 L submarine threat; EC threat level 2 complex. for OPFOR role; fixed wing aircraft available through CAS only.
D-11 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Electronic Combat (EC Training) Basic Priority 1 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements The offshore airspace associated with W-237 meets the RCD Requirement. The Okanogan and Roosevelt MOAs, when combined with their associated high altitude Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) meet the airspace requirement. The area which 45 minute range period; 30NM x 60NM; Surface predominately supports EC operations in the NWTRC, No Impact N/A N/A N/A Airspace to 30K' AGL; Chaff and flares the Darrington OPAREA. Altitude limits are not clearly specified, but can be expected from 10,000 feet MSL to FL230. Chaff and flare expenditure is allowed in all offshore areas. Flare expenditure is allowed overland but only in designated SUA and above 500 feet (700 for helicopters).
The sea space associated with the NWTRC meets the 1 hour range period; 20NM x 30NM; Operating RCD requirement in terms of dimension and availability. Acquire an EW emitter to be located along the coast so Ships must travel to other ranges to complete EW Area; Land/airborne EW emitters against However, the sea space is not situated such that that ships underway can receive simulated electronic No Impact None Sea Space training. surface/subsurface assets existing land-based EW emitters can stimulate surface signals. and subsurface combatants’ onboard equipment. 1 hour range period; 20NM x 30NM; Operating The undersea space associated with the NWTRC Undersea Space No Impact N/A N/A N/A area meets the full RCD requirement. The NWTRC does not have any dedicated land area within the complex with the exception of the Naval The lack of dedicated land area has little effect on the 45 minute range period; 10NM x 10NM (Objective Weapons Training Facility at Boardman (approximately EC operations conducted by EA-6B and P-3 aircraft in None N/A N/A Land Area - 20nm x 20 nm) 6 x 12 nm), which does not meet the RCD requirement the NWTRC. for 20 x 20 nm dimensions. The Boardman area does not routinely support EC operations. System of Systems Two dedicated EC&C circuits; At least 1 EC&C circuit dedicated to secure communications; The EC Operations which occur in the NWTRC are Secure EC&C ship-to-shore communications; At NAS Whidbey Island lacks a secure communications predominantly by EA-6B aircraft and are affected little least 2 dedicated OC circuits; 1 OC circuit circuit capable of communications with airborne, None N/A N/A Communications System by the communications shortfall in the completing of dedicated to secure communications; Secure OC surface and subsurface participants required training. communications with airborne, surface, and subsurface participants Multiple, geographically separated sites arrayed There is one AN/FSQ-T22 Remote Emitter Signal Acquire Smart targets and mobile emitters for use at per OPFOR employment; Visually significant, Simulator located at Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville. Aircrews are unable to see threats from multiple axes NWSTF Boardman. replicating EOB equipment and employment VAQ, VP and VQ aircrew conduct electronic and conduct much of their training at remote locations, No Impact N/A Target System visual cues; Live target not required at every surveillance measure (ESM) and Electronic Attack (EA) including Fallon and SOCAL. Acquire another emitter to be located along the coast of location (Objective - at least 1 target for live training in the Darrington OPAREA, using this FSQ the Pacific ocean. weapons including ARM) emitter. o TSPI: The NWTRC lacks TSPI for portions of overland SUA in the complex. M&S or scoring capability o EC&C in 2-D, 3-D and in the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) context: The range complex has no Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 5 (Up to 4 friendly inherent radar tracking system for all overland and a/c plus 1 captive training ARM); Low Fidelity 1 (1 offshore areas. surface or subsurface platform); EC&C: 2-D, 3- o M&S not available for: Simulation for EC is only RCSD shortfalls have little impact on overall EC D; M&S: A-S, A-G, S-S, S-A, S-Sub; Scoring: available for aircraft operations via the AN/FSQ-T22 None N/A N/A Instrumentation System operation completion by EA-6B aircraft. Auto; real-time and post-mission feedback; voice Electronic Combat Trainer. No other M&S is available RTKN; Debriefing: Local and remote PC for EC operations. compatibility o Scoring: The AN/FSQ-T22 trainer automatically scores EC events. o Debrief: The AN/FSQ-T22 has a debrief capability for EC operations.
There is one AN/FSQ-T22 Remote Emitter Signal Simulator located at Outlying Field (OLF) Coupeville. VAQ, VP and VQ aircrew conduct electronic OPFOR System EC threat level 1 surveillance measure (ESM) and Electronic Attack (EA) No Impact None N/A N/A training in the Darrington OPAREA, using this FSQ emitter. This EC system meets the OPFOR requirements for EC threat level 1.
D-12 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Electronic Combat (EC Training) Intermediate Priority 3 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements N/A (Intermediate and Advanced Level EC training isconducted in conjunction with Intermediate and Airspace Advanced Levels of training in the other PRMAR range functions) N/A (Intermediate and Advanced Level EC training isconducted in conjunction with Intermediate and Sea Space Advanced Levels of training in the other PRMAR range functions) N/A (Intermediate and Advanced Level EC training isconducted in conjunction with Intermediate and Undersea Space Advanced Levels of training in the other PRMAR range functions) N/A (Intermediate and Advanced Level EC training isconducted in conjunction with Intermediate and Land Area Advanced Levels of training in the other PRMAR range functions) System of Systems N/A (Intermediate and Advanced Level EC training isconducted in conjunction with Intermediate and Communications System Advanced Levels of training in the other PRMAR range functions) N/A (Intermediate and Advanced Level EC training isconducted in conjunction with Intermediate and Target System Advanced Levels of training in the other PRMAR range functions) All Intermediate Level EC training requirements are Instrumentation System reflected in the Intermediate Level Instrumentation requirements for all other range functions All Intermediate Level EC training requirements are OPFOR System reflected in the Intermediate Level OPFOR requirements for all other range functions
D-13 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Strike Warfare (STW Training) Basic Priority 2 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements 1 hour range period; 20 nm x 50 nm (Objective- Ranges do not meet RCD requirements for area or Due to the limited nature of strike warfare, the lack of 20 nm x 100 nm); Surface to 23K' AGL; Cleared altitude at basic or intermediate levels. Boardman is sufficient range dimensions and quantity of ranges has for multiple separate and concurrent racetrack the only A-G target in the NWTRC. Its airspace is little effect on current operations within the complex. None. Airspace limitations will not be solved with events against separate targets; Cleared for approximately 30 nm x 20 nm and has a ceiling of However, the EA-18G will be based at Whidbey Island, N/A N/A Airspace investments. stand-off A-G, NSFS, and LACM tactics; A-G 20,000 feet. The range lacks multiple geographically and when the aircraft gains an A-G capability (expected gunnery, guided and free-fall bombing, naval separated targets. Supersonic operations are not in later models), aircrews will require a fully capable gunnery; Laser designation. allowed. backyard STW range. 1 hour range window; 75 nm x 75 nm; Operating The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the Area; 2 simultaneous surface and subsurface No impact None N/A N/A Sea Space requirements of the RCD for sea space. events. 1 hour range window; 75 nm x 75 nm; Surface to The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the Undersea Space No impact None N/A N/A 300 ft. requirements of the RCD for undersea space.
1 hour range window; 10 nm x 10 nm (Objective- The only A-G range in the complex is NWSTF 20 nm x 20 nm); Cleared for live and inert A-G Boardman. Boardman is a 48,000 acre range, with gunnery; Cleared for up to 2,000 lb inert A-G and Although less than the RCD requirements, the area is approximate dimensions of 6 nm x 12 nm. It’s size LACM munitions; up to 1,000 lb live and inert sufficient for multiple simultaneous events when the None N/A N/A Land Area does not allow simultaneous events. The range is munitions; Cleared for laser targeting and targets are reconfigured. cleared for inert ordnance only. The range can support designation devices. Support 2 simultaneous laser targeting systems. surface and subsurface events. System of Systems Two dedicated EC&C circuits; At least 1 EC&C circuit dedicated to secure communications; Impact is minimal because there are no units that Secure EC&C ship-to-shore communications; Range communications at Boardman consists of 1 UHF currently rely on Boardman to achieve local Basic level Only 2 OC circuits required (Objective-at least 3 and 1 VHF radio for aircraft communication and 1 FM Communications System A-G STW training. Impact could become Moderate None N/A N/A dedicated OC circuits); At least 1 OC circuit radio for ground communications on the range. There when the EA-18G arrives in Whidbey with an A-G dedicated to secure communications; Secure OC are no secure communications at NWSTF Boardman. capability. communications with airborne, surface, submarine, and NSW. Only 1 target site required (Objective-at least 2 live/inert target sites); Raked, strafe, structural, The bombing range has several targets and run-in lines. revetted, and moving targets; At least 1 target Throughout the target area are radar reflectors and site for inert 2,000 lb and live 1,000 lb weapons; Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G Relocate targets within the range to allow for multiple tactical targets of wood and metal construction Capability would meet requirements N/A Target System Minimum 4 DMPIs at each site, except raked and arrives in Whidbey with an A-G capability. simultaenous events (simulated AAA sites). An Army tank is located at the strafe targets; All targets with visual and infrared center of the main bull. There are no structural targets. signatures representative of AOR threat; Some targets should allow laser designation.
o TSPI: The range complex lacks TSPI coverage for Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 10 (At least 4 Blue the ranges, nor does it have any EC&C or M&S aircraft and four LACM); Low Fidelity 4 capability Develop instrumentation in conjunction with ORNG (Surface/subsurface land-attack or NSFS assets o Scoring: Scoring systems once present at NWSTF Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G capabilities and equipment to ensure compatibility and AEW aircraft); EC&C: 2-D, 3-D; M&S: A-S, A- Instrumentation capability would meet requirements. N/A Instrumentation System Boardman are no longer usable. Scoring towers arrives in Whidbey with an A-G capability. between ORNG installed instrumentation and potential G, S-S, S-A, Sub-S; Scoring: Manual or auto; remain, but all scoring equipment has been removed. future Navy or joint add-ons for air-to-ground scoring. real-time feedback; voice or auto RTKN; o Debrief: The complex lacks any debrief capabilities for Debriefing: Local and remote PC compatibility. STW events.
The NWTRC has no dedicated rotary wing OPFOR Impact could become Moderate when the EA 18G Acquire EW emitters. Include mobile emitters and EC capability would meet requirements. Would provide Lack of OPFOR would still pose a shortfall when EA-18G aircraft begin air-to- EC threat level 1. aircraft; or fixed wing through contract air services. OPFOR System begins A-G training from Whidbey Island. Smart targets. fully capable threat scenario for A-G STW training ground training at Boardman There is no EC capability at Boardman.
D-14 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Strike Warfare (STW Training) Intermediate Priority 3 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements 4 hour range period; 40 nm x 80 nm (Objective- Ranges do not meet RCD requirements for area or Due to the limited nature of strike warfare, the lack of 50 nm x 100 nm); Surface to 40K' AGL (Objective- altitude at basic or intermediate levels. Boardman is sufficient range dimensions and quantity of ranges has surface to 50k" AGL); Cleared for stand-off A-G, the only A-G target in the NWTRC. Its airspace is little effect on current operations within the complex. NSFS, and LACM tactics; Allows two, separate, approximately 30 nm x 20 nm and has a ceiling of However, the EA-18G will be based at Whidbey Island, Airspace concurrent large-scale tactical strikes against 20,000 feet. The range lacks multiple geographically and when the aircraft gains an A-G capability (expected separate targets.; Supersonic operations; A-G separated targets. Supersonic operations are not in later models), aircrews will require a fully capable gunnery, guided and free-fall bombing, naval allowed. backyard STW range. gunnery; Laser designation; Chaff and flares. 4 hour range window; 75 nm x 75 nm; Operating The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the Area; 2 simultaneous surface and subsurface No impact None N/A N/A Sea Space requirements of the RCD for sea space. events. 4 hour range window; 75 nm x 75 nm; Surface to The Pacific Northwest OPAREA more than meets the Undersea Space No impact None N/A N/A 300 ft. requirements of the RCD for undersea space.
The only A-G range in the complex is NWSTF 4 hour range window; Two geographically- Boardman. Boardman is a 48,000 acre range, with separated 20 nm x 20 nm ranges; Cleared for live Although less than the RCD requirements, the area is approximate dimensions of 6 nm x 12 nm. It’s size and inert A-G gunnery; Cleared for up to 2,000 lb sufficient for multiple simultaneous events when the None N/A N/A Land Area does not allow simultaneous events. The range is live and inert A-G and LACM munitions; Cleared targets are reconfigured. cleared for inert ordnance only. The range can support for laser targeting and designation devices. laser targeting systems.
System of Systems Two dedicated EC&C circuits; At least 1 EC&C circuit dedicated to secure communications; Impact is minimal because there are no units that Secure EC&C ship-to-shore communications; Range communications at Boardman consists of 1 UHF currently rely on Boardman to achieve local Basic level Only 3 OC circuits required (Objective-at least 4 and 1 VHF radio for aircraft communication and 1 FM A-G STW training. Impact could become Moderate None N/A N/A Communications System dedicated OC circuits); At least 2 OC circuits radio for ground communications on the range. There when the EA-18G arrives in Whidbey with an A-G dedicated to secure communications; Secure OC are no secure communications at NWSTF Boardman. capability. communications with airborne, surface, submarine, and NSW; at least 2 D/L circuits. Only 2 target sites required (Objective-at least 4 live/inert target sites); Structural, revetted, moving, and time-critical targets; Targets sites The bombing range has several targets and run-in lines. may be L or V, but at least one-half must be L; At Throughout the target area are radar reflectors and least 1 target site for up to 2,000 lb live and inert Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G Relocate targets within the range to allow for multiple tactical targets of wood and metal construction Capability would meet requirements N/A Target System weapons; Minimum 4 DMPIs at each site; All arrives in Whidbey with an A-G capability. simultaenous events (simulated AAA sites). An Army tank is located at the targets with visual and infrared signatures center of the main bull. There are no structural targets. representative of AOR threat; Some targets should replicate urban terrain; Some targets should allow laser designation. Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity 26 (Up to 12 Blue o TSPI: The range complex lacks TSPI coverage for and 12 OPFOR aircraft and two UAV); Low the ranges, nor does it have any EC&C or M&S Fidelity 12 (At least 3 surface/subsurface NSFS capability Develop instrumentation in conjunction with ORNG and land-attack missile platforms; at least 8 o Scoring: Scoring systems once present at NWSTF Impact could become Moderate when the EA-18G capabilities and equipment to ensure compatibility support aircraft ); EC&C: 2-D, 3-D, JNTC; M&S: Instrumentation capability would meet requirements. N/A Instrumentation System Boardman are no longer usable. Scoring towers arrives in Whidbey with an A-G capability. between ORNG installed instrumentation and potential A-A, A-S, A-G, S-S, S-A, Sub-S; Scoring: remain, but all scoring equipment has been removed. future Navy or joint add-ons for air-to-ground scoring. Manual or auto; real-time and post-mission o Debrief: The complex lacks any debrief capabilities for feedback; voice or auto RTKN; Debriefing: Local STW events. and remote PC compatibility.
At least 2 L or V rotary-wing threat aircraft with A- A missile capability; At least 1 rotary-wing threat aircraft must be L; L or V fixed-wing threat aircraft The NWTRC has no dedicated rotary wing OPFOR Impact could become Moderate when the EA 18G Acquire EW emitters. Include mobile emitters and EC capability would meet requirements. Would provide Lack of OPFOR would still pose a shortfall when EA-18G aircraft begin air-to- equal to 1.5 times friendly aircraft; up to 12 total; aircraft; or fixed wing through contract air services. OPFOR System begins A-G training from Whidbey Island. Smart targets. fully capable threat scenario for A-G STW training ground training at Boardman Total threat aircraft may include L, V, and C There is no EC capability at Boardman. threats; Four L threat aircraft are sufficient; EC threat level 3.
D-15 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Naval Special Warfare (NSW Training) PRODEV Priority 1 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/Objective Range AttributesRCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Assessment
Operational Elements Airspace Normally not required Sea Space Normally not required Undersea Space Normally not required Small Arms Ranges capbale of accommodating NWTRC meets RCD defined capabilities No Impact None N/A N/A Land Area MK-46 and MK-48 machine guns System of Systems The preponderance of NSW training is either 1 EC&C circuits; At least 3 OC circuits to support The lack of obstacles and defenses has little impact on underwater or at the Kodiak Cold Weather Training communications with ground, airborne and the NSW training operations which occur in the None N/A N/A Communications System facility. Lack of these communications systems has surface participants NWTRC. little impact on NSW training. Target System N/A Instrumentation System Not normally required
Individual Free Option Simulator (Rules of Not required No Impact None N/A N/A OPFOR System Engagement simulator)
D-16 Vol II, Appendix D RCD Gap Analysis Matrices 04/02/2007 Theater Assessment and Planning Northwest Training Range Complex Management Plan
Northwest Training Range Complex Naval Special Warfare (NSW Training) ULT Priority 2 Range Complex Management Plan
Post Investment Plan Threshold/ Range Attributes RCD Defined Capability Threshold/Objective Assessment Shortfall Impact Investment Plan Outstanding Shortfall Impacts Objective Assessment
Operational Elements
W-237 starts 3 nm from the shoreline, extending seaward. The Olympic MOA covers a portion of the Olympic Peninsula and extends to the border of W-237 A/B, 3 nm beyond the shoreline. When combined, W-237 A/B and the Olympic MOA meet most of the airspace requirements. (The Olympic MOA The positioning of the airspace to the land area has Day/night period; Surface to 6K' AGL; Surface to 25K' AGL for HALO and does not extend below 6,000 feet and, although over land, the MOA is not little effect on those NSW operations which occur in Acquire higher ATCAA ceiling as required for HAHO jump training; Horizontal limits of 5 miles either side of the land over a land range. Airspace at NWSTF Boardman is restricted up to 20,000 the NWTRC. Raising the altitude of the restricted N/A N/A Airspace NSW HALO/HAHO jumps area (Objective - horizontal limits of 8nm either side of the land area) feet and it is possible to NOTAM the extra 5,000 feet to meet the 25,000 foot area associated with NWSTF Boardman to FL250 requirement. High Altitude Low Opening (HALO) and High Altitude High should be considered. Opening (HAHO) parachute operations are currently conducted at the OLF Drop Zone at OLF Coupeville, however due to airspace limitations maximum altitude is restricted to 13,000 feet
The at sea areas meet the dimension and area requirements of the RCD but do not start until 3nm from the beachfront. Crescent Harbor has over 4 square 40NM² (Objective - 50NM²); At least 4NM wide centered on and miles of sea space backed by the 782 acre Survival Area at NAS Whidbey The sea space positioning with respect to the contiguous to the beachfront (Objective - at least 5NM wide centered on Island Seaplane Base with 2.5nm of beach front and has been used for Joint beachfront has little effect on those NSW operations None N/A N/A Sea Space and contiguous to the beachfront); Extends seaward to the staging and Army Special Operations exercises in the past. Ault Field has 4.2nm of which occur in the NWTRC. platforms beach front that has been used in places for small unit Special Forces over the beach operations.
The undersea space meets the area requirements of the RCD but does not start until 3nm from the beachfront. The water area of Crescent Harbor near 20NM² (Objective - 30NM²); At least 4NM wide centered on and The undersea space positioning with respect to the the Whidbey Island Seaplane Base is cleared for use of MCM weapons, Incorporate Biological Assessment (BA) and contiguous to the beachfront (Objective - at least 5NM wide centered on beachfront has little effect on those NSW operations Still will lack positioning with respect to the explosive, and clearing devices but use of explosive charges is not Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for EOD Obtaining better N.E.W. capabilities will and contiguous to the beachfront); Extends seaward to the staging which occur in the NWTRC. The lack of ability to beachfront, but with little impact to operations that Undersea Space recommended in near shore areas (less than 40 feet). Explosive charges are operations in Crescent Harbor into future improve Crescent Harbor training capabilities. platforms; Some portion of undersea space should be cleared for use higher N.E.W. in EOD/MCM operations has an occur at Crescent Harbor authorized with N.E.W. up to 20 pounds (lbs) in off shore areas deeper than NWTRC NEPA studies. NSW/EOD explosive operations impact on the realism of these operations. 40 feet, but a recommended normal N.E.W. usage of 2.5lbs has been requested by Commander, Navy Region Northwest (CNRNW).
24 hour day/night period on land area dedicated to maneuver, live-fire, and MOUT training; Maneuver: 15NM² (Objective - 20NM²); Dedicated 1000yd beachfront (Objective - 2000yd dedicted beachfront); Total Discuss with ORNG any need for a MOUT horizontal beachfront of 5000yd; Live-Fire and Maneuver: 15NM² facility they have that could be jointly (Objective - 20NM²); Dedicated 500yd beachfront (Objective - 1000yd developed at NWSTF Boardman. dedicted beachfront); Total horizontal beachfront of 5000yd; Some portion NWTRC lacks any dedicated land area associated with a beachfront and does Development of a MOUT at Boardman and a live cleared for live fire; MOUT Facility: Central urban area (at least .5 square The lack of land area, maneuver area, firing range, Pursue a live fire capability that would allow the not have a MOUT. The NWTRC lacks any beach obstacles or fortified beach fire capability near the Puget Sound, and another miles) and an outlying area (.1 mile beyond urban area) ; Urban and and a MOUT has a moderate impact on NSW SEALs to conduct live fire training as the No significant shortfalls would remain. Land Area or near-shore defenses. There are no live firing ranges either in the Puget live fire range at Kodiak Island would reduce impact outlying areas should support live-fire, direct and indirect weapons training events that occur in the NWTRC culmination of an over-the-beach exercise. Sound area or at Kodiak Island. to minimal. training; MOUT should include SUA for approach; MOUT should include roads connecting urban and outlying areas; Outlying area should replicate Pursue a live fire capability at Kodiak Island local resident habitat; MOUT should be cleared for virtual and live-fire that would allow firing 7.62mm and 5.56mm small arms, breaching, indirect fire, and CAS; Live-Fire Training Area: At weapons. least 6 square miles SDZ for direct and indirect weapons Some portion for NSFS, A-G, and NSW weapons; Laser designation
System of Systems
At least 2 EC&C circuits; EC&C to support A-G and ship-to-shore secure communications; Only 2 OC circuits required (Objective - At least 3 The preponderance of NSW training is either underwater or at the Kodiak Cold Communications System dedicated OC circuits); 1 OC circuit to support A-G and ship-to-shore Weather Training facility. Lack of these communications systems has little No Impact None N/A N/A secure communications; Secure OC communications with ground, impact on NSW training. airborne and surface participants Pursue a live fire capability that would allow the SEALs to conduct live fire training as the Exposed beach obstacles and fortified beach or near-shore defenses; The NWTRC lacks any beach obstacles or fortified beach or near-shore culmination of an over-the-beach exercise. Development of a live fire capability near the Puget The lack of a firing range has a moderate impact on Some obstacles and defenses cleared for inert A-G weapons and live defenses. There are no live firing ranges either in the Puget Sound area or at Sound and another at Kodiak Island would reduce No significant shortfalls would remain. Target System NSW training events that occur in the NWTRC. NSW weapons/explosives; Dedicated targets for live NSFS ordnance Kodiak Island. Pursue a live fire capability at Kodiak Island impact to minimal. that would allow firing 7.62mm and 5.56mm weapons. Tracking TSPI: High Fidelity No; Low Fidelity 5; EC&C: 2-D; M&S: A-A, NUWC Systems (Dabob Bay, SWIFT) meet underwater tracking capability A-G, G-G, S-S, S-A, Sub-S; Scoring: Auto; real-time feedback; auto Minimal impact None N/A N/A Instrumentation System requirements. All other requirements are unmet. RTKN; Debriefing: Local
A, L, V, or C company-sized ground force; A, L, V, or C platoon-sized The lack of an OPFOR has little impact on the types The NWTRC lacks any dedicated NSW opposition forces and lacks the ability armored and/or mechanized vehicle force; L, V, or C personnel or single of NSW training operations which occur in the None N/A N/A OPFOR System to create these forces virtually. vehicles; EC threat level 2 complex.
D-17 APPENDIX ERANGE PERSONNEL DIRECTORY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 APPENDIX E 2 PERSONNEL DIRECTORY
3 COMPACFLT 4 Fleet Environmental 5 Pacific Northwest Liaison (360) 315-5092 6 Commander, Navy Region Northwest 7 Range Support (360) 257-3315
8 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest 9 Environmental 10 TAP Navy Technical Representative (360) 396-0927
11 NAS Whidbey Island 12 Commanding Officer (360) 257-2345 13 Executive Officer (360) 257-2345 14 Operations 15 Operations Officer (360) 257-6655 16 Schedules Officer (360) 257-2133 17 Environmental 18 Ranges (360) 257-4025 19 Navy Region NW Range Environmental (360) 257-5320
20 Naval Special Warfare Center 21 Advanced Training Command (July 2006) 22 Commanding Officer (619) 628-1967
23 Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport 24 Operations 25 Test and Evaluation (360) 315-2272 26 Special Projects (360) 396-1420 27 Range Scheduling (360) 396-2313 28 Range Manager (360) 396-2893 29 Environmental 30 Environmental Planner (360) 315-2268 31 NEPA (360) 396-5430
E-1 APPENDIX ERANGE PERSONNEL DIRECTORY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
E-2 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 APPENDIX F
2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 3 4 Air Combat Command, 1992. Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. 5 Final Environmental Assessment for the A/0A-10 Beddown 6 McChord AFB, Washington. August 1992. 7 8 Bering Sea Eccotech. 2005. Closeout Report for Range Clearance 9 on Boardman Naval Bombing Range, Oregon. Contract #FA4890- 10 04-D-0002, Lot #XXII. 29 September 2005. 11 12 Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, 1992. Environmental Baseline 13 Study Volume I. Approach, Regulations and Site Setting. Prepared by 14 GCG Dillon. September 1992. 15 16 Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges, 1996. 17 Environmental Assessment of the Operational Testing Exercises at 18 the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges, 19 Nanoose, British Columbia. Prepared by Pacific Marine Technology 20 Centre. Final Report. March 1996. 21 22 COMFLTFORCOM/COMPACFLT. 2005. Enhanced Readiness 23 Team (ERT) Charter. 08 June 2005. 24 25 Commander, Naval Beach Group ONE, 2005. Environmental 26 Assessment for Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore 2005 (JLOTS 2005), 27 Naval Magazine, Indian Island. April 2005. 28 29 Commander Navy Region Northwest. 2001. Enhanced Readiness 30 Team (ERT) Charter, Commander Navy Region, Northwest. 09 31 January 2001. 32 33 Crecelius, Eric, 2001. Concentrations of Metals in Sediment and 34 Water of Dabob Bay. Prepared for NAVSEA Undersea Warfare 35 Center Division. March 2001. 36 37 Department of Defense, 1996. DoD Instruction Number 4715.2, 38 DoD Regional Environmental Coordination. 3 May 1996. 39 40 Department of Defense, 2002. Strategic Plan for Transforming DoD 41 Training. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 42 Readiness. Washington, DC. March 1, 2002. 43 44 Department of Defense, 2003. DoD Directive 3200.15, Sustainment 45 of Ranges and Operating Areas. 10 January 2003.
F-1 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Department of Defense, 2004. Department of Defense Training 2 Transformation Implementation Plan. Office of the Under Secretary 3 of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Washington, DC. June 9, 4 2004. 5 6 Department of Defense, 2006. Training Transformation (DoD web 7 site). www.T2net.org. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 8 Personnel and Readiness. Washington, DC. February 2006. 9 10 Department of the Air Force, Air Mobility Command, 1997. 11 Environmental Assessment: Proposed C-17 Beddown McChord Air 12 Force Base, Washington. January 1997. 13 14 Department of the Navy, 1974. Environmental Impact Statement: 15 Boardman Target Range, Oregon. 1974. 16 17 Department of the Navy, 1977. Naval Submarine Base Bangor, 18 Washington. Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Statement 19 (TRIDENT). February 1977. 20 21 Department of the Navy, 1984, Western Division Engineering 22 Department. Final Draft Environmental Assessment: Proposed 23 Tideflat Impoundment NUWES, Keyport, Washington. Prepared by 24 Parametrix, Inc. July 1984. 25 26 Department of the Navy, 1985. Final Environmental Impact 27 Statement for Carrier Battle Group Puget Sound Region Ship 28 Homeporting Project. Prepared by Western Division, Naval 29 Facilities Engineering Command. June 1985. 30 31 Department of the Navy, 1987. Western Division, Naval Facilities 32 Engineering Command, San Bruno, California. Range Air 33 Installation Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) Study. Naval Weapons 34 Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon. Prepared by Reid, 35 Middleton & Associates, Inc. 1987. 36 37 Department of the Navy, 1988. Cooperative Management Agreement 38 between U.S. Department of the Navy, Boardman, Oregon and the 39 Nature Conservancy. 1988. 40 41 Department of the Navy, 1989. Environmental Assessment: Trident 42 D-5 Facilities Upgrade Program. Naval Submarine Base Bangor, 43 Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared by Vitro Corporation for 44 Strategic Systems Programs. August 1989. 45 46 Department of the Navy, 1992a. Final Programmatic Environmental 47 Impact Statement for Fast Combat Support Ship (AOE-6 CLASS) 48 U.S. West Coast Homeporting Program. 1992.
F-2 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Department of the Navy, 1992b. Supplemental Biological 2 Assessment: Element II Carrier Group Homeporting Everett, 3 Washington (Species of Concern: Marbled Murrelet) Prepared for 4 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Engineering Field Activity, 5 Northwest by Parametrix, Inc. September 1992. 6 7 Department of the Navy, 1997. Environmental Assessment and 8 Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Test Facility 9 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport, Keyport, 10 Washington. August 1997. 11 12 Department of the Navy, 1999a. Integrated Natural Resources 13 Management Plan: Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility 14 Boardman, Oregon. 24 June 1999. 15 16 Department of the Navy, 1999b. Final Environmental Impact 17 Statement for Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ- 18 Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet 19 (Coronado, CA, Bremerton, WA, Everett, WA, Pearl Harbor, HI). 20 Volume I – Chapters 1-10. July 1999. 21 22 Department of the Navy, 2001a. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 23 Oak Harbor, Washington. NASWHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 5090.10A. 24 BIRD AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD (BASH) PLAN. December 4, 25 2001. 26 27 Department of the Navy, 2001b. COMPACFLT/COMLANTFLT 28 Ranges to Readiness (R2R) Study. Commander Atlantic 29 Fleet/Commander Pacific Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia. September 2001. 30 31 Department of the Navy, 2001c. Protective Measures Assessment 32 Protocol (CD), Fleet Forces Command. Version 1.1, November 33 2001. 34 35 Department of the Navy, 2002. NASWHIDBEY INSTRUCTION 36 3770.1B: PACIFIC NORTHWEST OPERATIONS AREA 37 (PACNORWEST OPAREA) MANUAL. 27 March 2002. 38 39 Department of the Navy, 2003a. Fleet Readiness Training Plan. 40 Commander Fleet Forces Command Instruction 41 (COMFLTFORCOMINST) 3501.3A. Commander, Fleet Forces 42 Command, Norfolk, Virginia. December 2003. 43 44 Department of the Navy, 2003b. Fleet Response Plan 45 Implementation. Commander Fleet Forces Command [CFFC] 46 message Date-Time-Group 231400Z May 03. CFFC, Norfolk, 47 Virginia. May 23, 2003.
F-3 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Department of the Navy, 2003c. Standard Carrier Strike Group 2 (CSG)/Staff Inter-Deployment Training Cycle (IDTC). CFFC 3 message Date-Time-Group (DTG) 012113Z Jul 03. Commander 4 Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia. July1, 2003. 5 6 Department of the Navy, 2004a. Operational Range Clearance 7 Policy for Navy Ranges. Ser N34/4U741226. 2 April 2004. 8 9 Department of the Navy, 2004b. Testimony of Rear Admiral David T. 10 Hart, Jr., U.S. Navy, Director Fleet Readiness Division, Before the 11 Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 12 Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, House Armed Services 13 Committee, United States House of Representative regarding Joint 14 National Training Capability. Office of the Chief of Naval 15 Operations, Washington, DC. March 18, 2004. 16 17 Department of the Navy, 2004c. Overseas Environmental 18 Assessment for Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) System 19 Training Operations. 2001. 20 21 Department of the Navy, 2005a. Fleet Forces Command Integrated 22 Training and Test Range Strategic Study. Commander, Fleet Forces 23 Command, Norfolk, Virginia. July 2005. 24 25 Department of the Navy, 2005b. Final Draft Navy Ranges Required 26 Capabilities Document, Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia. 27 September 2005. 28 29 Department of the Navy, 2005c. Environmental Assessment for 30 Replacement of EA-6B Aircraft with EA-18G Aircraft at Naval Air 31 Station Whidbey Island, Washington. January 2005. Finding of No 32 Significant Impact dated July 19, 2005. 33 34 Department of the Navy, 2005d. Correspondence from Officer in 35 Charge, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eleven, 36 Detachment Northwest to Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station 37 Whidbey Island (N4450). Annual Conventional Ordnance Disposal 38 Report. January 12, 2005. 39 40 Department of the Navy, 2005e. Overseas Environmental 41 Assessment: Sinking Exercise (SINKEX). July 2005. 42 43 Department of the Navy, date unknown. Commander Second Fleet 44 Operations Order 201 (COMSECONDFLT OPORD 201). 45 Commander Second Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia. Date unknown.
F-4 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard. 2000. Permit for 2 the Use of Real Property by Other Federal Agencies. Lease of 3 Kodiak Cold Weather Training Facility by U.S. Coast Guard to 4 Naval Special Warfare Center (c/o US Navy EFA NW). Permit 5 Number DTCGZ7113301RP005P. December 7, 2000. 6 7 Dye, David C, 2000. Thesis: High Frequency Sonar Components of 8 Normal and Hearing Impaired Dolphins. Naval Post Graduate 9 School. Monterey, California. September 2000. 10 11 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 12 Command, 1994a. Environmental Assessment for Project 13 Development Along the East Waterway Naval Station Everett, 14 Everett, Washington. May 1994. 15 16 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 17 Command, 1994b. Wyle Research Report WR 94-13 Aircraft Noise 18 Study for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington. Prepared 19 by Wyle Research. Arlington, Virginia. May 1994. 20 21 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 22 Command, 1994c. Environmental Assessment for Naval Reserve 23 Center at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor. September 1994. 24 25 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 26 Command, 1994d. Historic and Archaeological Resources 27 Protection Plan for the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 28 Washington. Prepared by Dames & Moore. November 1994. 29 30 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 31 Command, 1996a. Final Site Visit/Record Search Technical 32 Memorandum Dabob Range Site. Prepared by URS Consultants, 33 Science Applications International Corp., and Shannon & Wilson, 34 Inc. September 1996. 35 36 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 37 Command, 1996b. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Bald Eagle 38 Management Plan. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. September 1996. 39 40 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 41 Command, 1996c. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan - 42 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Prepared by EA Engineering, 43 Science and Technology. November 1996. 44 45 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 46 Command, 1997a. Archaeological Resources Assessment and 47 Protection Plan for the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Island 48 County, Washington. Prepared by Historical Research Associates, 49 Inc. May 1997.
F-5 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 2 Command, 1997d. Environmental Assessment for Electronic Combat 3 Training Facility at OLF Coupeville, Naval Air Station, Whidbey 4 Island, Washington. June 1997. 5 6 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 7 Command, 1999a. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan - 8 Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon. 9 Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. February 1999. 10 11 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 12 Command, 1999b. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 13 for Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Oregon. 14 Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. June 1999. 15 16 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 17 Command, 2000a. Environmental Assessment: Relocation of the 18 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Demolition Training Range. Prepared 19 by EDAW, Inc. July 2000. 20 21 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) Eleven, 22 Detachment Bangor, 2004. EODMUELEVENDETBANGORINST 23 3120.4D, Standard Operating Procedures for Non-Emergency 24 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Operations on EODMU Eleven 25 Detachment Bangor’s Demolition Range. 26 27 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 28 Command, 2000b. Final Biological Assessment for U.S. Navy 29 Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Operations, Puget Sound, 30 Washington. Prepared by Science Application. 28 December, 2000. 31 32 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 33 Command, 2002. Environmental Assessment for Ongoing and Future 34 Operations at U.S. Navy Dabob Bay and Hood Canal Military 35 Operating Areas. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. Seattle, Washington. 36 May 2002. 37 38 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 39 Command, 2003. Environmental Assessment: Autonomous 40 Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Fest, Keyport Range, WA. Prepared for 41 Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Keyport. July 2003. 42 43 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 44 Command, 2004a. NAS Whidbey Island Activity Overview Plan. 45 Prepared by Makers, Inc. September 2004. 46 47 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 48 Command, 2004b. Host-Tenant Real Estate Agreement, Naval 49 Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, Morrow County, 50 Oregon. 8 September 2004.
F-6 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 2 Command, 2004c. Comprehensive Range Evaluation: Range 3 Condition Assessment. Phase II and Phase III Synopsis. September 4 2004. 5 6 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 7 Command, 2005a. Final Close Out Report - Naval Magazine Indian 8 Island Port Hadlock, Washington. Prepared by URS Group, Inc. 9 January 11, 2005. 10 11 Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 12 Command, 2005b. Comprehensive Range Evaluation: 13 Environmental Protection Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Quality 14 Assurance Project Plan, and Sampling and Analysis Plan. May 15 2005. 16 17 Engineering Field Activity, Southwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 18 Command, 2005c. AICUZ Study Update for Naval Air Station 19 Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Landing Field Coupeville, 20 Washington. Final Submission. Prepared by The ONYX Group. 21 March 2005. 22 23 Engineering Field Activity, Southwest, Naval Facilities Engineering 24 Command, 2006. Comprehensive Range Evaluation NWSTF 25 Boardman. Feb. 2006. 26 27 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) Eleven, 28 Detachment Bangor, 2004. EODMUELEVENDETBANGORINST 29 3120.4D, Standard Operating Procedures for Non-Emergency 30 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Operations on EODMU Eleven 31 Detachment Bangor’s Demolition Range. 32 33 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) Eleven, 34 Detachment Bangor, 2005. EODMUELEVENINST 3120.1G, 35 Standard Operating Procedures for Explosive Ordnance Disposal 36 Demolition Training. September, 6, 2005 37 38 Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, 1999. Navy Review 39 Draft Biological Assessment Nearshore Confined Aquatic Disposal 40 Operable Unit B. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton, 41 Washington. RACII/Delivery Order No. 0067. October 15, 1999. 42 43 Gila Recyclers. 2005. Letter from Bill Hollowell of Gila Recylers 44 to Dean Hughes of Bering Sea Eccotech. 3 June 2005. 45 46 Holmes, Aaron L. and Geupel, Geoffrey R., 1998. Avian Population 47 Studies at Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, 48 Oregon. A Report of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Final Report 49 to the Department of Navy and Oregon Department of Fish and 50 Wildlife. December 1998.
F-7 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group, 2 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire 3 Management Policy. 4 5 Kastak, David, Schusterman, Ronald J., Southall, Brandon L., and 6 Reichmuth, Colleen J., 1999. Underwater Temporary Threshold Shift 7 Induced by Octave-band Noise in Three Species of Pinniped. Journal 8 of Acoustic Society of America 106 (2). August 1999. Pages 1142- 9 1148. 10 11 Kuenzi, Amy Jo, and Ellison, Laura, 1992. Comprehensive Report: 12 Avian-Agricultural Field Relationships on Selected Naval and 13 Marine Corps Installations with Aircraft Operations. University of 14 California, Berkeley. Department of Forestry and Resource 15 Management. 1992. 16 17 Liberty Bay / Miller Bay Watershed Management Committee, 1994. 18 Liberty Bay / Miller Bay Watershed Area Kitsap County, 19 Washington. Prepared by Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin 20 Team. June 1994. 21 22 London, Josh W., Lance, Monique M., and Jeffries, Steven J., 2002. 23 Observations of Harbor Seal Predation on Hood Canal Salmonids 24 from 1998 to 2000. Final Report: Study of Expanding Pinniped 25 Populations. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. 26 27 Morrow County, Oregon, 2006. Community Wildfire Protection 28 Plan. Adopted by Morrow County Court on March 22, 2006. 29 30 National Guard Bureau, 2005. Draft Environmental Assessment: 31 Boardman Bombing Range Complex New Weapons Training 32 Ranges. Prepared by the Oregon Military Department and C2 33 Environmental Consulting, LLC. March 2005. 34 35 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), 1995. 36 Environmental Assessment on Protecting Winter-Run Wild 37 Steelhead from Predation by California Sea Lions in the Lake 38 Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, Washington. January 1995. 39 40 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), 1996. 41 Environmental Assessment on Conditions for Lethal Removal of 42 California Sea Lions at the Ballard Locks to Protect Winter 43 Steelhead. Supplement to the Environmental Assessment on 44 Protecting Winter-Run Wild Steelhead from Predation by California 45 Sea Lions in the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, Washington 46 (January 1995). March 1996. 47 48 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993. Olympic 49 Coast National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact 50 Statement / Management Plan Volumes 1&2. November 1993.
F-8 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 1993. Environmental Assessment 2 for Detonation Training Range (at Seaplane Base). Oak Harbor, 3 Washington. July 7, 1993. 4 5 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 2002. NAS Whidbey Island 6 Instruction 3710.1S, Air Operations Manual. 14 August 2002. 7 8 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 2002. NAS Whidbey Island 9 Instruction 3770.1B, Pacific Northwest Operations Area 10 (PACNORWEST OPAREA) Manual. 27 March 2002. 11 12 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 2004. Special Use Airspace 13 (SUA) Annual Utilization Report. 18 November 2004. 14 15 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, 2005. Annual Military Training 16 Route (MTR) Record Data, MTR Utilization Report, CY 2004. 11 17 January 2005. 18 19 Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor, 2005. Environmental Assessment: 20 Installation and Operation of Underwater Surveillance System (USS) 21 at Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor Silverdale, Washington. January 22 2005. 23 24 Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Keyport, 1999. Shipboard 25 Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility (SESEF) Shipboard Test 26 Execution Manual (STEM). 1 March 1999. 27 28 Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Keyport, 2003. Shipboard 29 Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility. December 2003. 30 31 Naval Warfare Assessment Division, 1997. Fleet Training 32 Area/Range Directory. February 1996, with Change 1 of 17 March 33 1997. 34 35 Naval Sea Systems Command, 2001. NAVSEA Ranges and Test 36 Sites: Theater Assessment Planning. October 2001. 37 38 Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Silverdale, Washington, 2001. 39 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. March 2001. 40 41 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport, 1996. Range 42 Management Plan: Baseline Environmental Characterization of 43 NUWC Keyport Pacific Northwest Range Sites. May 1996. 44 45 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport, 2000. 46 Environmental Assessment: Pier Replacement (at the Keyport range 47 site). November 2000.
F-9 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport, 2006. Northwest 2 Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 3 Environmental Impact Statement. TBD 2006. 4 5 Navy Region Northwest, 2004. Regional Overview Plan and 6 Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan. September 2004. 7 8 Nelson, Leslie, 2005. Telephone conversation between Mr. Devin 9 Kennemore and Ms. Leslie Nelson, The Nature Conservancy, The 10 Dalles, Oregon, February 8, 2005. 11 12 Northwest Air Pollution Authority, 1994. Naval Air Station Whidbey 13 Island Permit for Burning of Mk-25/58 Marine Markers. 1994. 14 15 Oregon, Director of Emergency Management , 2001. Emergency 16 Management Plan. Volume II: Emergency Operations Plan. 1 17 January 2001. 18 19 Oregon Military Department, Oregon National Guard, 2004. Oregon 20 National Guard (ORNG) Utilization of Naval Weapons Systems 21 Training Facility (NWSTF) Boardman. 4 May 2004. 22 23 Souders, Kathy A., 1992. Memorandum Re: Construction of a 24 Strafing Pit and Target at NWSTF Boardman. 18 November 1992. 25 26 Southall, Brandon L., Schusterman, Ronald J., and Kastak, David, 27 2000. Masking in Three Pinnipeds: Underwater Low-Frequency 28 Critical Ratios. Journal of Acoustic Society of America 108(3) Part 29 1. September 2000. Pages 1322-1326. 30 31 Street, Hayden. 2005. Brief entitled, “Northwest Regional Update” 32 Presented at the Fleet Enhanced Readiness Team Meeting held at 33 SUBASE Bangor, WA. 14 June 2005. 34 35 Street, Hayden, 2005. Personal communication between Jeffery 36 Butts (Parsons) and Hayden Street (CNRNW). 37 38 U.S. Air Force, 1976. Environmental Assessment for the Okanagan 39 Military Operating Area. November 1976. 40 41 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, WA, 2000. 42 Programmatic Biological Evaluation: Marbled Murrelet and Bull 43 Trout: Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Non- 44 Dispersive Disposal Sites. April 2000. 45 46 U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, 1989. Natural Resources 47 Management Plan – Outlying Field Coupeville. NAS Whidbey 48 Island, Whidbey Island, Washington. September 1989.
F-10 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991. Minerals Management 2 Service. Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals. Prepared by LGL 3 Ecological Research Associates, Inc. OCS Study. February 1991. 4 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. Declaration of the 6 Final Record of Decision Naval Submarine Base Bangor Site A 7 (Operable Unit 1), Kitsap County, Washington. Selected Remedy 8 under the CERCLA of 1980, as amended by SARA of 1986. 9 December 10, 1991. 10 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Final Record of 12 Decision Naval Submarine Base Bangor Operable Unit 8, Kitsap 13 County, Washington. Selected Remedy under the CERCLA of 1980, 14 as amended by SARA of 1986. September 2000. 15 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, Oregon 17 Department of Environmental Quality, Washington Department of 18 Ecology, Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security, 2005. Northwest 19 Area Contingency Plan. Change 7. February 28, 2005. 20 21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 1986. Pacific Bald 22 Eagle Recovery Plan. August 25, 1986. 23 24 U.S. Pacific Fleet, 2004. Environmental Assessment / Overseas 25 Environmental Assessment for Northern Edge 2004 – Fleet Training 26 Exercise in the Gulf of Alaska. May 2004. 27 28 Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 1997. 29 Endangered, Threatened & Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington 30 – with Working List of Rare Non-Vascular Species. August 1997.
F-11 VOL II, APPENDIX FBIBLIOGRAPHY FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
F-12 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 G SUPPLEMENTAL OUTREACH INFORMATION
2 G.1 LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
3 This section provides a list of the key stakeholders for the WIRC. 4 This is not a comprehensive list of all elected officials, government 5 agencies, and community, environmental, and Tribal groups in 6 Washington. The information below is meant to be illustrative of 7 those groups that are interested and active in military affairs and 8 operations with respect to economic, safety, environmental, and 9 encroachment issues or Tribal concerns.
10 G.1 Elected Officials
11 Federal – Washington 12 • Washington Senators 13 http://www.senate.gov/ 173 Russell Senate Office Building 14 717 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 15 Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2621 16 (202) 224-3441 and 17 and 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 903 18 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 9B Everett, WA 98201 19 Everett, WA 98201 (425) 259-6515 20 (425) 303-0114 21 • Washington U.S. Representatives 22 http://www.house.gov/ 23 o District 1 o District 5 24 403 Cannon House Office 1708 Longworth House Office 25 Building Building 26 Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, DC 20515 27 (202) 225-6311 (202) 225-2006 28 and and 29 21905 64th Avenue West, Suite 10 North Post, 6th Floor 30 101 Spokane, WA 99201 31 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 (509) 353-2374 32 (425) 640-0233 or 555 South Main Street 33 o District 2 Colville, WA 99114 34 107 Cannon House Office (509) 684-3481 35 Building or 36 Washington, D.C. 20515 29 S. Palouse Street 37 (202) 225-2605 Walla Walla, WA 99362 38 and (509) 529-9358 39 2930 Wetmore Ave, Suite 9F 40 Everett, WA 98201 41 (425) 252-3188
G-1 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o District 6 o District 8 2 2467 Rayburn House Office 1035 Longworth House Office 3 Building Building 4 Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 5 (202) 225-5916 (202) 225-7761 6 and and 7 332 East 5th Street 2737 78th Ave., S.E. 8 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Suite 202, Second Floor 9 (360) 452-3370 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (877) 920-9208 10 o District 7 11 1035 Longworth House Office o District 9 12 Building 227 Cannon Office Building 13 Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington D.C. 20515 14 (202) 225-3106 (202) 225-8901 15 and and 16 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1212 3600 Port of Tacoma Road, Ste. 17 Seattle, WA 98101 106 18 (206) 553-7170 Tacoma, Washington 98424 (253) 896-3775 19 20 State of Washington 21 • Governor of Washington 22 Office of the Governor • Executive Policy Advisor 23 P.O. Box 40002 Governor’s Executive Policy Office 24 Olympia, WA 98504-0002 P.O. Box 43113 25 (360) 902-4111 Olympia, WA 98504 26 http://www.governor.wa.gov/ 27 28 Washington State Senator 29 o District 7 o District 24 30 115D Irv Newhouse Building 411 Legislative Building 31 P.O. Box 40407 P.O. Box 40424 32 Olympia, WA 98504-0407 Olympia, WA 98504-0424 33 (360) 786-7612 (360) 786-7646 and 34 o District 10 Hoquiam Dev. Assn. Building 35 407 Legislative Building 311 7th 36 P.O. Box 40410 Hoquiam, WA 98550 37 Olympia, WA 98504-0410 (360) 533-9477 38 (360) 786-7618 o District 35 39 o District 19 422 John A. Cherberg Building 40 405 John A Cherberg Building P.O. Box 40435 41 P.O. Box 40419 Olympia, WA 98504 42 Olympia, WA 98504
G-2 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Washington State Representatives 2 District 7- Position 1 District 10 – Position 2 3 406 John L. O’Brien Building 405 John L. O'Brien Building 4 P.O. Box 40600 P.O. Box 40600 5 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 6 (360) 786-7908 (360) 786-7914 7 District 7- Position 2 District 19 8 439 John L. O’Brien Building P.O. Box 40600 9 P.O. Box 40600 Mod 1 Building Room 105 10 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 Olympia, WA 98504 11 (360) 786-7988 District 24 – Position 1 12 and 425B Legislative Building 13 665 #1 South Clark P.O. Box 40600 14 Suite A Olympia, WA 98504-0600 15 Republic, WA 99107 (360) 786-7916 16 (509) 775-0137 District 24 – Position 2 17 District 10 – Position 1 339A Legislative Building 18 323 John L. O'Brien Building P.O. Box 40600 19 P.O. Box 40600 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 20 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 (360) 786-7904 21 (360) 786-7884 and 22 and 630-E East Front Street 23 3157 N. Goldie Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 24 Suite 108 (360) 457-2520 25 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 26 (360) 279-1365 District 35 P.O. Box 40600 27 Mod 1 Building Room 104 28 Olympia, WA 98504 29 30 31 Clallam County 32 • Clallam County Commissioners • Marine Resources Committee 33 223 East 4th Street, Suite 4 223 East 4th Street 34 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Port Angeles, WA 98362 35 (360) 417-2233 (360) 417-2361 36 http://www.clallam.net/ http://www.clallammrc.or 37 g/CCMRC/ 38 39 Jefferson County 40 • Jefferson County Commissioners • Commissioner District No. 1 41 P.O. Box 1220 Jefferson County Board of 42 Port Angeles, WA 98368 Commissioners 43 (360) 385-9100 P.O. Box 1220 44 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ Port Townsend, WA 98368
G-3 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
• Mayor 1 • Commissioner District No. 2 City of Quilcene 2 Jefferson County Board of Quilcene, WA 98376 3 Commissioners 4 P.O. Box 1220 • County Clerk 5 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County Superior Court 1820 Jefferson St. 6 • Commissioner District 3 P.O. Box 1220 7 Jefferson County Board of Port Townsend, WA 98368 8 Commissioners 9 P.O. Box 1220 • Port Townsend City Counselor 10 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Port Townsend City Council 11 • Marine Resources Committee • Brinnon Commissioner 12 201 West Patison P.O. Box 62 13 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Brinnon, WA 98320 14 http://jefferson.wsu.edu/mrc/index.html 15 16 Grays Harbor County 17 • Commissioner District No. 1 • Mayor 18 Grays Harbor County Board of City of Montesano 19 Commissioners 112 North Main Street 20 100 W. Broadway, Suite 1 Montesano, WA 98563 21 Montesano, WA 98563 • City Manager 22 • Commissioner District No. 2 City of Ocean Shores 23 Grays Harbor County Board of P.O. Box 909 24 Commissioners Or 25 101 W. Broadway, Suite 1 765 Pt. Brown Ave. NW 26 Montesano, WA 98563 Ocean Shores, WA 98569 27 • Commissioner District No. 3 • Mayor 28 Grays Harbor County Board of City of Ocean Shores 29 Commissioners P.O. Box 909 30 101 W. Broadway, Suite 1 Or 31 Montesano, WA 98563 765 Pt. Brown Ave. NW Ocean Shores, WA 98569 32 • County Clerk 33 Grays Harbor Superior Court • Mayor 34 102 W. Broadway, Suite 203 City of Westport 35 Montesano, WA 98563 West Port City Hall 740 North Montesano Street 36 • Mayor Westport, WA 98595 37 City of Aberdeen 38 200 E. Market Street • Executive Director 39 Aberdeen, WA 98520 Grays Harbor Council of Governments 115 South Wooding Street 40 • Mayor Aberdeen, WA 98520 41 City of Hoquiam 42 711 Hill Avenue 44 43 Hoquiam, WA 98550
G-4 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 San Juan County 2 • County Council • Marine Resources Committee 3 350 Court St. #1 P.O. Box 947 4 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 5 (360) 378-2898 (360) 378-1095 6 http://www.co.san- http://www.sjcmrc.org/ 7 juan.wa.us/default.asp 8 9 Island County 10 • Board of Island County Commissioners • Marine Resources Committee 11 P.O. Box 5000 101 NE 6th Street 12 Coupeville, WA 98239 POB 5000 13 (360) 679-7354 Coupeville, WA 98239 14 (360) 679-7327 15 http://www.islandcountymrc.org/ 16 17 Kitsap County 18 • Kitsap County Commissioners • Mayor 19 614 Division Street City of Bremerton 20 Port Orchard, WA 98366 City Hall 21 (360) 337-7146 239 Fourth Street 22 http://www.kitsapgov.com/boc/ Bremerton, WA 98337 23 • Commissioner District No. 1 • Mayor 24 Kitsap County Board of Commissioners City of Port Orchard 25 614 Division Street 216 Prospect Street 26 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Port Orchard, WA 98366 27 • Commissioner District No. 2 • Mayor 28 Kitsap County Board of Commissioners City of Poulsbo 29 614 Division Street City Hall 30 Port Orchard, WA 98366 19050 Jensen Way NE Poulsbo, WA 98370 31 • Commissioner District No. 3 32 Kitsap County Board of Commissioners • County Clerk 33 614 Division Street Kitsap County Superior Court 34 Port Orchard, WA 98366 614 Division Street, MS 34 Port Orchard, WA 98366 35 • Kitsap Nearshore Coordination Group 36 Washington Sea Grant • Councilmember 37 (360) 337-7170 Puget Sound Regional Council – Kitsap 38 http://www.psat.wa.gov/About_Sound/ County Cities/Towns 39 kitsapgen.htm 1011 Western Avenue, Unit 500 Seattle, WA 98104 40 • Mayor 41 City of Bainbridge Island 42 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
G-5 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Mason County 2 • Commissioner District No. 1 • Mayor 3 Mason County – Port of Shelton Board City of Belfair 4 of Commissioners Belfair, WA 98528 5 511 Grant Ave. • Mayor 6 Shelton, WA 98584 City of Shelton 7 • Commissioner District No. 2 Shelton Civic Center 8 Mason County – Port of Shelton Board 525 West Cota Street 9 of Commissioners Shelton, WA 98584 10 E 2180 Island Lake Drive • County Clerk 11 Shelton, WA 98584 Mason County Superior Court 12 • Commissioner District No. 3 419 N. 4th Street 13 Mason County – Port of Shelton Board P.O. Box 340 14 of Commissioners Shelton, WA 98584 15 308 W. Seattle Ave. 16 Shelton, WA 98584 17 18 Whatcom County 19 • Whatcom County Executive 20 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 21 Bellingham, WA 98225 22 (360) 676-6717 23 http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/executive/index.jsp 24 • Whatcom County Council 25 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 105 26 Bellingham, WA 98225 27 (360) 676-6690 28 http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council/index.jsp 29 • Marine Resources Committee 30 C/O Whatcom County Public Works - Stormwater 31 322 North Commercial Street, Suite 110 32 Bellingham, WA 98225 33 (360) 676-6876 34 http://whatcom-mrc.wsu.edu/index.htm 35 36 Skagit County 37 • Skagit County Commissioners 38 1800 Continental Place 39 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 40 (360) 336-9300 41 http://www.skagitcounty.net/common/asp/default.asp?d=Home&c=General&p=main.htm 42 • Marine Resources Committee 43 1800 Continental Place 44 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 45 (360) 336-9400 ext.3184 46 http://www.skagitcounty.net/Common/Asp/Default.asp?d=PublicWorksMRC&c=General&p=sm 47 rcmain.htm
G-6 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Snohomish County 3 • Snohomish County Commissioners 4 3000 Rockefeller Avenue 5 Everett, WA 98201 6 • Marine Resources Committee 7 3000 Rockefeller Avenue 8 Administration Building – West, 3rd Floor 9 Everett, WA 98201-4046 10 (425) 388-6466 11 http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Public_Works/Divisions/SWM/Work_Areas/Habi 12 tat/Marine/MRC.htm 13 Pierce County 14 • Pierce County Council 15 930 Tacoma Avenue South 16 County-City Building, Room 1046 17 Tacoma, WA 98402 18 (253) 798-7777 19 http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/PC/default_noflash.htm 20 Okanogan County 21 • Okanogan County Commissioners 22 123 Fifth Avenue, Room 150 23 Okanogan, WA 98840 24 (509) 422-7100 25 http://www.okanogancounty.org/ 26 Ferry County 27 • Ferry County Commissioners 28 290 East Tessie Ave. 29 Republic, WA 99166 30 (509) 775-5229 31 http://www.ferry-county.com/index.htm 32 Stevens County 33 • Stevens County Commissioners 34 215 S. Oak Street 35 Colville, WA 99114 36 (509) 684-3751 37 http://www.co.stevens.wa.us/ 38 Pend Oreille County 39 • Pend Oreille County Commissioners 40 P.O. Box 5025 41 Newport, WA 99156 42 (509) 447-4119 43 http://www.co.pend-oreille.wa.us/Default.htm
G-7 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Federal – Oregon 230 Dirksen Senate Office Building 2 • Oregon Senators Washington, D.C. 20510 3 404 Russell Building (202) 224-5244 4 Washington, D.C. 20510 and 5 (202) 224-3753 151 West 7th Avenue, Suite 435 6 and Eugene, OR 97401 7 Federal Building (541) 431-0229 8 211 East 7th Avenue, Room 202 9 Eugene, OR 97401 10 (541) 465-6750 11 12 • Oregon U.S. Representatives 13 13 District 2 District 4 14 1210 Longworth House Office Building 2134 Rayburn H.O.B. 15 Washington, DC 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 16 (202) 225-6730 (202) 225-6416 17 and and 18 843 East Main Street, Ste 400 151 West 7th, Suite 400 19 Medford, OR 97504 Eugene, OR 97401 20 (541) 776-4646 (541) 465-6732 21 or or 22 131 NW Hawthorne, Ste 201 125 Central, Suite 250 23 Bend, OR 97701 Coos Bay, OR 97420 24 (541) 389-4408 (541) 269-2609 or 25 612 S.E. Jackson Street, Room 9 26 Roseburg, OR 97470 27 (541) 440-3523 28 29 District 5 30 or 30 2430 Rayburn H.O.B. 21570 Willamette Drive 31 Washington, D.C. 20515 West Linn, OR 97068 32 (202) 225-5711 (503) 557-1324 33 or 34 315 Mission Street SE #101 35 Salem, OR 97302 36 (503) 588-9100 37 State of Oregon 38 • Governor of Oregon 39 160 State Capitol 40 900 Court Street 41 Salem, Oregon 97301-4047 42 (503) 378-3111 43 http://governor.oregon.gov/
G-8 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Oregon State Senators and 2 District 1 Senator 2285 N. 13th Ct. 3 900 Court Street N.E., S-211 Coos Bay, OR 97420 4 Salem, OR 97301 (541) 267-7611 5 (503) 986-1701 6 and District 29 Senator 7 636 Wild Iris Lane 900 Court Street N.E., S-206 8 Roseburg, OR 97470 Salem, OR 97301 9 (541) 673-7201 (503) 986-1729 and 10 District 5 Senator 1407 NW Horn Ave. 11 900 Court Street, N.E. S-301 Pendleton, OR 97801 12 Salem, OR 97301 (541) 278-2332 13 (503) 986-1705 14 Oregon State Representative 15 District 1 District 57 16 900 Court Street N.E., H-378 900 Court Street N.E., H-280 17 Salem, OR 97301 Salem, OR 97301 18 (503) 986-1401 (503) 986-1457 and 19 District 9 P.O. Box 219 20 900 Court Street N.E., H-292 Heppner, OR 97836 21 Salem, OR 97301 (541) 676-5154 22 (503) 986-1409 23 and 24 P.O. Box 1410 25 Coos Bay, OR 97420 26 (541) 267-6843 Curry County 27 Morrow County • Curry County Courthouse 28 • Morrow County Seat P O Box 746 29 100 Court Street Gold Beach, OR 97444 30 Heppner, OR 97836 (541) 247-6440 31 (541) 676-9061 32 http://morrowcountyoregon.com/ Douglas County 33 Lincoln County • Douglas County 1036 S.E. Douglas Street 34 • Lincoln County Seat Roseburg, OR 97470 35 225 W. Olive Street (541) 440-4323 36 Newport, OR 97365 http://www.co.douglas.or.us/ 37 (541) 265-6611 38 www.co.lincoln.or.us 39 Coos County 40 • Coos County 41 250 N. Baxter 42 Coquille, OR 97423 43 (541) 396-6551 44 http://www.co.coos.or.us/ 45
G-9 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Federal – California 2 • California Senator • California U.S. Representatives 3 112 Hart Senate Office Building District 1 Mike Thompson 4 Washington, D.C. 20510 231 Cannon Office Building 5 (202) 224-3553 Washington, D.C. 20515 6 and (202) 225-3311 7 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 240 and 8 San Francisco, CA 94111 317 3rd Street, Suite 1 9 (415) 403-0100 Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 269-9595 10 California Senator 11 331 Hart Senate Office Building 12 Washington, D.C. 20510 13 (202) 224-3841 14 And 15 One Post Street, Suite 2450 16 San Francisco, CA 94104 17 (415) 393-0707 18 http://www.senate.gov/ 19 State of California 200 Providence Mine 20 • Governor of California Nevada City, CA 95959 21 State Capitol Building (530) 470-1846 22 Sacramento, CA 95814 23 (916) 445-2841 California State Assembly 24 http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsit Representative 25 e/gov_homepage.jsp District 1 State Capitol 26 California State P.O. Box 942849 27 District 2 Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 28 State Capitol, Room 4081 (916) 319-2101 29 Sacramento, CA 95814 and 30 (916) 651-4002 235 Fourth Street, Suite C 31 and Eureka, CA 95501 32 710 E Street, #150 (707) 445-7014 33 Eureka, CA 95501 34 (707) 445-6508 35 District 4 36 State Capitol, Room 2054 37 Sacramento, CA 95814 38 (916) 651-4004 39 and 40 Del Norte County Humboldt County 41 • Del Norte County Board of Supervisors • Humboldt County Board of Supervisors 42 981 H Street, Suite 200 825 Fifth Street, Room 111 43 Crescent City, CA 95531 Eureka, CA 95501 44 (707) 464-7204 (707) 476-2384 45 http://www.co.del-norte.ca.us/ http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/ 46
G-10 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Federal – Alaska 522 Hart Senate Office Building 2 • Alaska Senators Washington, D.C. 20510 3 709 Hart Senate Building (202) 224-3004 4 Washington, D.C. 20510 and 5 (202) 224-6665 Box 020149 6 and Federal Building, Rm. 965 7 P.O. Box 21247 Juneau, AK 99802 8 709 West 9th Street, Room 971 (907) 586-7400 9 Juneau, AK 99802 http://www.senate.gov/ 10 (907) 586-7400 11 Federal Building, Room 971 12 • U.S. Representatives P.O. Box 21247 13 2111 Rayburn H.O.B. Juneau, AK 99802-1247 14 Washington, D.C. 20515 (907) 586-7400 15 (202) 225-5765 16 and 17 18 State of Alaska 19 • Governor of Alaska 20 P.O. Box 110001 • Alaska State Representative 21 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 District 36 22 (907) 465-3500 State Capitol, Room 412 23 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ Juneau, AK 99801-1182 24 • Alaska State Senator (907) 465-2487 25 District R and 26 State Capitol, Room 103 112 Mill Bay Rd. 27 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Kodiak, AK 99615 28 (907) 465-4925 (907) 486-8872 29 and 30 112 Mill Bay Rd. 31 Kodiak, AK 99615 32 (907) 486-4925 33 34 Kodiak Island Borough 35 • Kodiak Island Borough 36 Jerome Selby, Mayor 37 P.O. Box 1962 38 Kodiak, AK 99615 39 http://www.kib.co.kodiak.ak.us/index.php 40 41 Federal – Nevada 42 Nevada U. S. Senator 43 528 Hart Senate Office Building 44 Washington, D.C. 20510 45 (202) 224-3542 46 and 47 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South Suite 8016
G-11 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Las Vegas, NV 89101 2 (702) 388-5020 3 Nevada U. S. Senator 4 356 Russell Senate Office Building 5 Washington, DC 20510 6 (202) 224-6244 7 and 8 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South Suite 8203 9 Las Vegas, NV 89101 10 • Nevada U.S. Representative, District 2 11 1023 Longworth House Office Building 12 Washington, D.C. 20515 13 (202) 225-6155 14 15 State of Nevada 16 • Governor of Nevada 17 Capitol Building 101 North Carson Street 18 Carson City, NV 89701 19 (775) 684-5670 20 • Nevada State Senator, Central Nevada Senatorial District 21 Nevada Senate 22 401 S. Carson Street 23 Carson City, NV 89701-4747 24 (775) 684-1442 25 • Nevada State Assemblyman, District 35 26 Nevada Assembly 27 401 S. Carson Street 28 Carson City, NV 89701-4747 29 (775) 237-7383 30 31 Churchill County 32 • County Manager • Planning Department 33 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 153 155 N. Taylor, Suite 194 34 Fallon, NV 89406 Fallon, NV 89406 35 (775) 423-5136 (775) 423-7627 36 37 City of Fallon 38 • Mayor 39 City Hall 40 55 W. Williams Avenue 41 Fallon, NV 89406 42 (775) 423-0167 43 • Public Works Department 44 City Hall 45 55 W. Williams Avenue 46 Fallon, NV 89406 47 (775) 423-0145
G-12 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
G-13 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 G.2 Regulatory and Government Agencies
2 Federal 3 • Federal Aviation Administration 4 Western Pacific Region 5 P. O. Box 92007 6 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 7 15000 Aviation Boulevard 8 Lawndale, CA 90261 9 (310) 725-3943 10 http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/military 11 The FAA manages surplus property transfers for airports, military base conversions, and the 12 promotion of joint-use of existing military air bases. It also administers the Military Airport 13 Program (MAP). 14 • Marine Environmental Support Office 15 Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center D3621 16 53475 Strothe Road 17 San Diego, CA 92152-6326 18 • Marine Mammal Commission 19 4340 East West Highway, Suite 905 20 Bethesda, MD 20814 21 (301) 504-0087 22 http://www.mmc.gov/ 23 The Marine Mammal Commission is an independent agency of the U.S. Government created to 24 provide independent oversight of the marine mammal conservation policies and programs being 25 carried out by the federal regulatory agencies. 26 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 27 o NOAA Fisheries – Marine Mammals 28 Northwest Regional Office 29 7600 Sand Point Way NE 30 Seattle, WA 98115-0070 31 (206) 526-6150 32 o Regional Administrator 33 National Marine Fisheries Service 34 Northwest Regional Office 35 7600 Sand Point Way NE 36 Seattle, WA 98115-0070 37 (206) 526-6150 38 http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 39 The National Marine Fisheries Service’s mission is to provide stewardship of living marine 40 resources through science-based conservation and management and the promotion of healthy 41 ecosystems. 42 o NOAA Fisheries, Washington Habitat Branch 43 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103 44 Lacey, WA 98503 45 (360) 753-7761
G-14 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 o Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 2 NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Division 3 115 East Railroad Ave. 4 Port Angeles, WA 98362 5 (360) 457-6622 6 o Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council 7 115 East Railroad Ave. East, Suite 301 address corrected 8 Port Angeles, WA 98362 9 (360) 457-6622 10 http://www.ocnms.nos.noaa.gov/ 11 http://www.ocnms.nos.noaa.gov/AboutUs/sac/welcome.html 12 The Sanctuary’s purpose is to protect, understand and communicate the importance of marine 13 resources. The Sanctuary uses information obtained from research to enrich the American 14 public and inform decision-makers. The Sanctuary Advisory Council is dedicated to 15 balancing the diverse interests of citizens, organizations and partner agencies to make 16 informed decisions that protect resources without unfairly hurting sanctuary users and 17 stakeholders. Council members provide a service as subject experts, a sounding board for 18 potential management decisions and spokespersons for the broader community. 19 • National Park Service 20 http://www.nps.gov/olym/ 21 The National Park Service preserves the natural and cultural resources and values of the national 22 park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 23 Olympic National Park 24 o National Park Service, Pacific West Region 25 One Jackson Center Suite 700 26 1111 Jackson Street 27 Oakland, CA 94607 28 (510) 817-1300 29 o National Park Service, Olympic National Park 30 600 E. Park Ave. 31 Port Angeles, WA 98362 32 o Olympic National Park 33 600 E. Park Ave. 34 Port Angeles, WA 98362 35 • Pacific N.W. DOI Environmental Compliance Contact 36 DOI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 37 500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 356 38 Portland, OR 97232 39 (503) 231-6157 40 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 41 http://www.nww.uace.army.mil/ 42 Provides vital services to the Army and the nation through water resources development; provides 43 environmental restoration and management; building and sustainment of infrastructure; responds 44 to disasters and provides engineering and contingency support during war. 45 o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 46 Northwestern Division
G-15 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Walla Walla District 2 201 North 3rd Ave. 3 Walla Walla, WA 99362 4 (509) 527-7020 5 o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6 Seattle District 7 CENWS-OD-RG 8 P.O. Box 3755 9 Seattle, WA 98124 10 • U.S. Coast Guard – 13th District 11 915 2nd Avenue, Suite 3584 12 Seattle, WA 98174-1077 13 (206) 220-7237 14 The U. S. Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service within the Department of 15 Homeland Security. Its core role is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic 16 and security interests in any maritime region. 17 • U.S. Department of Agriculture 18 http://www.usda.gov 19 The Department of Agriculture provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and 20 related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management. 21 o U.S. Forest Service 22 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/welcome.shtml 23 The Forest Service manages public lands in national forests and grasslands. 24 Regional Forrester 25 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 26 P.O. Box 3623 27 Portland, OR 97208 28 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 29 Pacific Northwest Region 30 1835 Black Lake Blvd SW 31 Olympia, WA 98512-5623 32 (360) 956-2300 33 • U.S. Department of the Interior 34 http://www.doi.gov 35 The Department of the Interior is the nation’s principal conservation agency. 36 o Bureau of Reclamation 37 Pacific Northwest Regional Office 38 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 39 Boise, Idaho 83706-1234 40 208-378-5012 41 http://www.usbr.gov/pn/ 42 The goal of this regional office is to meet the increasing water demands of the Pacific 43 Northwest while protecting the environment and the public's investment. 44 o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 45 http://www.fws.gov
G-16 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The Fish & Wildlife Service works with others to conserve, protect, and enhance wildlife 2 habitat and fish, wildlife, and plants. 3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pacific Region 4 911 NE 11th Ave. 5 Portland, OR 97232 6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pacific Region 7 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 8 Lacey, WA 98503 9 (360) 753-9440 10 Washington Maritime Wildlife Refuge Complex 11 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 12 33 S. Barr Rd 13 Port Angeles, WA 98362 14 o U.S. Geological Survey 15 Western Region 16 345 Middlefield Road 17 Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA 18 (650) 853-8300 19 http://www.usgs.gov 20 The Geological Survey is dedicated to the timely, relevant and impartial study of the 21 landscape, natural resources and the natural hazards. 22 • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 23 www.epa.gov 24 The U.S. EPA is dedicated to protecting human health and the environment. 25 o U.S. EPA, Region 10 26 Washington Operations Office 27 300 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 28 Lacey, WA 98503 29 (260) 753-9457 30 o U.S. EPA, Region 10 Office 31 1200 Sixth Avenue 32 Code OW-135 33 Seattle, WA 98101 34 35 State of Washington 36 • Department of Agriculture 37 1111 Washington Street SE 38 P.O. Box 42560 39 Olympia, WA 98504-2560 40 (360) 902-1800 41 http://agr.wa.gov/ 42 The Department of Agriculture serves the people of Washington State by supporting the 43 agricultural community and promoting consumer and environmental protection. 44 • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 45 http://www.oahp.wa.gov/ 46 The Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation advocates the preservation of
G-17 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Washington’s irreplaceable historic, archaeological, and cultural resources – significant buildings, 2 structures, sites, objects, and districts. 3 o Acting State Historic Preservation Officer 4 Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 5 111 West 21st Avenue, Box 48343SW 6 Olympia, WA 98504 7 o Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 8 1063 South Capitol Way, Suite 106 9 Olympia WA 98501 10 (360) 586-3065 11 • Department of Ecology 12 P.O. Box 47600 13 Olympia, WA 98504 14 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ 15 The Department of Ecology’s mission is to protect, preserve and enhance the State’s 16 environment, and promote the wise management of air, land and water. 17 o Environmental Review Section 18 Washington Department of Ecology 19 P.O. Box 47703 20 Olympia, WA 98504 21 o Shorelands and Environmental Assistance 22 Washington Department of Ecology 23 P.O. Box 47600 24 Olympia, WA 98504 25 o Washington Department of Ecology 26 Bellevue Regional Office 27 3190 160th Ave. SE 28 Bellevue, WA 98008 29 • Department of Fish and Wildlife 30 1111 Washington St. SE 31 Olympia, WA 98501 32 (360) 902-2200 33 http://wdfw.wa.gov/ 34 The mission of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is to provide sound stewardship 35 of fish and wildlife. 36 o Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 37 600 Capitol Way North 38 Olympia, WA 98501-1091 39 (360) 902-2267 40 http://wdfw.wa.gov/com/comintro.htm 41 The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission consists of nine members serving six- 42 year terms. The Commission’s primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish 43 and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington. The Commission also classifies 44 wildlife and establishes the basic rules and regulations governing the time, place, manner, 45 and methods used to harvest or enjoy fish and wildlife. 46 • Department of Natural Resources
G-18 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ 2 The Department of Natural Resources provides stewardship of state lands, natural resources, and 3 the environment. 4 o Washington Department of Natural Resources 5 919 N. Township St. 6 Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284 7 o Commissioner of Public Lands 8 Washington Department of Natural Resources 9 P.O. Box 47001 10 Olympia, WA 98504-7001 11 (360) 902-1004 12 o Washington Department of Natural Resources 13 Chimacum Office 14 5310 Eaglemount Rd. 15 Chimacum, WA 98325 16 • Northwest Clean Air Agency 17 1600 South Second Street 18 Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5202 19 (800) 622-4627 20 • Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 21 7150 Cleanwater Lane 22 Tumwater, WA 98504-2669 23 http://www.parks.wa.gov/ 24 The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates, enhances and 25 protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical and natural sites. 26 27 State of Oregon 28 Department of Environmental Quality 29 811 SW Sixth Avenue 30 Portland, OR 97204-1390 31 (503) 229-5696 32 http://www.deq.state.or.us/ 33 Department of Fish and Wildlife 34 3406 Cherry Ave. N.E. 35 Salem, OR 97303 36 (503) 947-6000 37 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ 38 Department of Forestry 39 2600 State St. 40 Salem, OR 97310 41 (503) 945-7200 42 http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/index.shtml 43 Department of Land Conservation and Development 44 635 Capitol St. N.E., Suite 150 45 Salem, OR 97301-2540 46 (503) 373-0050 47 http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/index.shtml
G-19 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Department of Parks and Recreation 2 725 Summer St. N.E., Suite C 3 Salem, OR 97301 4 (800) 551-6949 5 http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/index.shtml 6 Department of State Lands 7 775 Summer St. N.E., Suite 100 8 Salem, OR 97301 9 (503) 378-3805 10 http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/index.shtml 11 Oregon Military Department 12 1776 Militia Way S.E. 13 P.O. Box 14350 14 Salem, OR 97309-5047 15 http://www.mil.state.or.us/ 16 Oregon Water Resources Department 17 725 Summer St. N.E., Suite A 18 Salem, OR 97301 19 (503) 986-0900 20 http://www.wrd.state.or.us/ 21 22 State of California 23 California Environmental Protection Agency 24 1001 I Street 25 P.O. Box 2815 26 Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 27 (916) 323-2514 28 http://www.calepa.ca.gov/ 29 Department of Fish and Game 30 1416 Ninth Street 31 Sacramento, CA 95814 32 (916) 445-0411 33 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ 34 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 35 1416 9th Street 36 P.O. Box 944246 37 Sacramento, CA 94244 38 (916) 653-5123 39 http://www.fire.ca.gov/php/index.php 40 Department of Conservation 41 801 K Street, MS 24-01 42 Sacramento, CA 95814 43 (916) 322-1080 44 http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/ 45 Department of Parks and Recreation 46 1416 9th Street
G-20 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 P. O. Box 942896 2 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 (800) 777-0369 4 State Lands Commission 5 100 Howe Ave., Suite 100 South 6 Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 7 (916) 574-1900 8 http://www.slc.ca.gov/ 9 Commerce and Economic Development Program 10 Office of Military Base Retention 11 1102 Q Street, Suite 5000 12 Sacramento, CA 95814 13 (916) 324-2566 14 http://www.commerce.ca.gov 15 Department of Water Resources 16 P. O. Box 942836 17 Sacramento, CA 94236 18 (916) 653-5791 19 http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/ 20 21 State of Alaska 22 Department of Environmental Conservation 23 410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 303 24 P.O. Box 111800 25 Juneau, AK 99811-1800 26 (907) 465-5066 27 http://www.dec.state.ak.us/ 28 Department of Fish and Game 29 1255 West 8th Street 30 P.O. Box 115525 31 Juneau, AK 99811-5525 32 (907) 465-4100 33 http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/ 34 Department of Natural Resources - Division of Forestry 35 550 W. Seventh Ave., Suite 1450 36 Anchorage, AK 99501-3566 37 (907) 269-8463 38 http://forestry.alaska.gov/ 39 Department of Natural Resources - Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 40 Director’s Office 41 550 W. 7th Street, Suite 1380 42 Anchorage, AK 99501 43 (907) 269-8700 44 or 45 Kodiak Area Office – Ft. Abercrombie SHP 46 1400 Abercrombie Dr. 47 Kodiak, AK 99615
G-21 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 (907) 486-6339 2 http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/ 3 Department of Natural Resources – Division of Mining, Land, and Water 4 550 W. 7th Street, Suite 1070 5 Anchorage, AK 99501 6 (907) 269-8600 7 http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/ 8 Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 9 P.O. Box 110800 10 Juneau, AK 99811 11 (907) 465-2500 12 http://www.dced.state.ak.us/ 13 Department of Environmental Conservation – Division of Water 14 410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 303 15 P.O. Box 111800 16 Juneau, AK 99811-1800 17 (907) 465-5066 18 http://www.dec.state.ak.us/ 19 20 State of Nevada 21 Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 22 123 W. Nye Lane, Room 230 23 Carson City, NV 89706-0818 24 (775) 687-4360 25 o Division of Environmental Protection 26 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138 27 Carson City, NV 89706-0851 28 (775) 687-4670 29 o Division of State Parks 30 1300 South Curry Street 31 Carson City, NV 89703-5202 32 (775) 687- 4384 33 o Division of Water Resources 34 123 W. Nye Lane, Room 246 35 Carson City, NV 89706-0818 36 (775) 687-4380 37 Department of Wildlife 38 380 W. B Street 39 Fallon, NV 89406 40 (775) 423-3171 41 42 International 43 • Fisheries and Oceans Canada 44 Pacific Region 45 Suite 200 - 401 Burrard Street 46 Vancouver, B.C. 47 V6C 3S4
G-22 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 (604) 666-0384 2 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ 3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada works to manage and protect the Canadian marine environment in 4 the three oceans that surround Canada.
5 G.3 Community, Business, and Recreational Groups
6 All My Relations 7 P.O. Box 1370 8 Port Townsend, WA 98368
9 Bainbridge Island Chamber of Commerce 10 590 Winslow Way East 11 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
12 Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce 13 301 Pacific Ave. 14 P.O. Box 229 15 Bremerton, WA 98337
16 Grays Harbor Chamber of Commerce 17 506 Duffy Street 18 Aberdeen, WA 98520
19 Greater Oak Harbor Chamber of Commerce 20 32630 SR 20 21 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 22 (360) 675-3755 23 http://www.oakharborchamber.org 24 The Chamber works on behalf of members and the entire business community to improve the 25 town’s economic climate and help businesses thrive.
26 Greater Poulsbo Chamber of Commerce 27 19168-C Jensen Way 28 P.O. Box 416 29 Belfair, WA 98528
30 Kitsap Diving Association 31 P.O. Box 1302 32 Bremerton, WA 98337
33 North Mason Chamber of Commerce 34 P.O. Box 114 35 Oak Harbor, WA 98277
36 North Whidbey Lions Club 37 P.O. Box 114 38 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 39 http://www.lionwap.org/northwhidbey 40 The Lions Club is an international service organization dedicated to helping local communities.
41 Northwest Sportfishing Association 42 (502) 631-8859
43 Ocean Shores Chamber of Commerce 44 P.O. Box 382
G-23 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Ocean Shores, WA 98569
2 Ocean Shores Marina 3 1098 Discovery Ave. SE 4 Ocean Shores, WA 98569
5 Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee 6 2021 Marine Drive, Suite 102 7 Astoria, OR 97103 8 (503) 325-2285
9 Oregon State Marine Board 10 P.O. Box 14145 11 435 Commercial St NE #400 12 Salem, OR 97309 13 (503) 378-8587 14 http://www.boatoregon.com/
15 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations 16 P.O. Box 11170 17 Eugene, OR 97440-3370 18 (541) 689-2000 19 http://www.pcffa.org 20 The PCFFA is the largest association of commercial fishermen on the west coast.
21 Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce 22 P.O. Box 63505 23 Port Ludlow, WA 98365
24 Port of Port Townsend Commissioners 25 P.O. Box 1180 26 Port Townsend, WA 98368
27 Port of Grays Harbor 28 P.O. Box 1500 29 Aberdeen, WA 98520
30 Port of Hoodsport 31 P.O. Box 329 32 Hoodsport, WA 98548 33 (360) 877-9350
34 Port Orchard – South Kitsap Chamber of Commerce 35 1014 Bay Street, Suite 8 36 Port Orchard, WA 98366
37 Port of Poulsbo Marina 38 P.O. Box 732 39 Poulsbo, WA 98370
40 Poulsbo Yacht Club 41 12129 Fjord Drive NE, Suite T 42 Poulsbo, WA 98370 43 http://www.poulsboyc.org/
44 Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce 45 2437 E. Sims Way
G-24 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Port Townsend, WA 98368
2 Quilcene Boat Haven 3 1731 Linger Longer Road 4 P.O. Box 98 5 Quilcene, WA 98376 6 (360) 765-3131
7 Quilcene – Brinnon Chamber of Commerce 8 P.O. Box 774 9 Quilcene, WA 98376 10 (360) 765-4999
11 Quilcene Marina 12 1731 Linger Longer Road 13 P.O. Box 396 14 Quilcene, WA 98376 15 (360) 765-3131
16 Rest-A-While Marina 17 27001 N. U.S. Hwy 101 18 Hoodsport, WA 98548 19 (360) 877-9474 20 http://www.restawhile.com/
21 Rotary Club of Oak Harbor 22 P.O. Box 442 23 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 24 (360) 675-2573 25 http://www.rotary.org 26 The Rotary Club is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders, providing 27 humanitarian service.
28 Rotary Club of Poulsbo-North Kitsap 29 P.O. Box 1334 30 Poulsbo, WA 98370 31 http://www.poulsborotary.org/ 32 The Rotary Club is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders, providing 33 humanitarian service.
34 Seabeck Marina 35 15376 Seabeck Highway 36 Seabeck, WA 98380 37 (360) 830-5179
38 Shelton Mason County Chamber of Commerce 39 P.O. Box 2389 40 Shelton, WA 98584
41 Silverdale Chamber of Commerce 42 P.O. Box 1218 43 Silverdale, WA 98383 44 (360) 692-6800 45 • Washington Kayak Club 46 P.O. Box 24264
G-25 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Seattle, WA 98124 2 http://www.washingtonkayakclub.org/ 3 • Washington Scuba Alliance 4 6758 Cascade Avenue SE 5 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 6 • Washington Troller Association 7 P.O. Box 7431 8 Bellevue, WA 98008
9 Washington Water Trails Association 10 4649 Sunnyside Avenue N, #305 11 Seattle, WA 98103 12 (206) 546-9161
13 Westport Marina 14 326 East Lamb 15 P.O. Box 1601 16 Westport, WA 98595 17 360-268-9665 18 Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 19 P.O. Box 2404 20 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 21 http://www.nwwhalewatchers.org 22 The Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest is a group of companies dedicated to 23 responsible wildlife viewing.
24 G.4 NGOs, Environmental Groups, and Research Organizations
25 Acoustic Ecology Institute 26 45 Cougar Canyon 27 Santa Fe, NM 87508 28 http://www.acousticecology.org/
29 American Cetacean Society 30 http://www.acspugetsound.org 31 The mission of the American Cetacean Society is to protect whales, dolphins, porpoises, and their 32 habitats through research, education, and conservation actions.
33 o American Cetacean Society Headquarters 34 P.O. Box 1391 35 San Pedro, CA 90733-1391
36 o American Cetacean Society, Puget Sound Chapter 37 P.O. Box 17136 38 Seattle, WA 98127 39 (206) 781-4860 40 • Audubon Society 41 The Audubon Society’s mission is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, 42 other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity.
43 o Audubon Society, Puget Sound Chapter 44 P.O. Box 1012
G-26 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 2 (360) 678-5562 3 http://www.whidbeyaudubon.org
4 o Audubon Society, Grays Harbor Chapter 5 P.O. Box 470 6 Montesano, WA 98127 7 http://www.ghas.org/
8 o Audubon Society, Washington State Office 9 P.O. Box 462 10 Olympia, WA 98507 11 (360) 786-8020
12 Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory 13 1529 West Sequim Bay Road 14 Sequim, WA 98382 15 (360) 681-4550 16 http://www.pnl.gov/
17 Beach Watchers 18 P.O. Box 5000 19 Coupeville, WA 98239-5000 20 (360) 679-7327 21 http://www.beachwatchers.wsu.edu/ 22 Administered by the Washington State University's Extension Program, Beach Watchers 23 comprises university trained volunteers dedicated to protecting Puget Sound's fragile environment 24 through education and public awareness.
25 B.C. Endangered Species Coalition 26 P.O. Box 383 27 Smithers, B.C. Canada V0J 2NO
28 Canadian Wildlife Service & Species at Risk 29 351 St. Joseph Blvd. 30 Hull, Quebec Canada K1A 0H3 31 http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/
32 Center for Biological Diversity 33 917 SW Oak St. Suite 413 34 Portland, OR 97205 35 (503) 243-6643 36 http://www.biologicaldiversity.org 37 Combining conservation biology with litigation and policy advocacy, the Center for Biological 38 Diversity is working to secure a future for animals and plants hovering on the brink of extinction.
39 Center for Whale Research 40 355 Smuggler’s Cove Rd. 41 P.O. Box 1577 42 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 43 (360) 378-5835 44 http://www.whaleresearch.com
45 Committee to Save the Kings River 46 CSKR, P.O. Box 4221
G-27 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Fresno, CA 93728 2 (559) 224-2012 3 http://www.savethekings.org/ 4 The Committee to Save the Kings River is fighting to permanently protect the Kings River 5 Watershed.
6 Defenders of Wildlife 7 www.defenders.org 8 o Northwest Office 9 1880 Willamette Falls Dr. #200 10 West Linn, OR 97068 11 (503) 697-3222 12 o California Office 13 1303 J Street, Suite 270 14 Sacramento, CA 95814 15 (916) 313-5800
16 Earth Share of Washington 17 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 525 18 Seattle, WA 98101 19 (206) 622-9840 20 http://www.esw.org 21 Earth Share of Washington promotes environmental education, volunteerism, and charitable 22 giving by partnering with businesses across Washington.
23 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 24 Communications Branch 25 200 Kent Street, 13th Floor 26 Station 13228 27 Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0E6 28 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/
29 FRIENDS of the San Juans 30 P.O. Box 1344 31 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 32 (360) 378-2319 33 http://www.sanjuans.org 34 FRIENDS of the San Juans works to preserve the beauty of the areas waters, shorelines, fields 35 and forests.
36 Georgia Strait Alliance 37 207 W. Hastings St., Suite 607 38 Vancouver, BC V6B 1H7 39 (604) 633-0530 40 http://www.georgiastrait.org 41 The mission of the Georgia Strait Alliance is to protect and restore the marine environment and 42 promote sustainability of Georgia Strait, its adjoining waters and communities.
43 Greenpeace 44 75 Arkansas Street 45 San Francisco, CA 94107 46 (415) 255-9221
G-28 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Hood Canal Coordinating Council 2 17791 Fjord Drive NE, Box HH 3 Poulsbo, WA 98370-8481 4 http://www.hccc.wa.gov/ 5 The Hood Canal Coordinating Council is a watershed-based non-profit corporation. It was 6 established in 1985 in response to community concerns about water quality problems and related 7 natural resource issues in the watershed.
8 Hood Canal Watershed Project Center 9 P.O. Box 1445 10 Belfair, WA 98528
11 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group 12 22881 NE State Route 3 13 Belfair, WA 98528 14 (360) 275-3575 15 www.hcseg.com 16 The HCSEG was legislatively established in 1990 to give voice to the community grass roots 17 organizations that had a proactive approach to saving at-risk Wild Salmon populations.
18 Institute for Fisheries Resources 19 P.O. Box 29196 20 San Francisco, CA 94129 21 http://www.ifrfish.org/
22 Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Interpretive Centre Society 23 P.O. Box 2-3 24 Telegraph Cove, B.C. Canada V0N 3J0 25 http://www.killerwhalecentre.org/
26 Kitsap County Conservation District 27 817 Sidney Avenue 28 Port Orchard, WA 98366 29 http://www.kitsapcd.org/ 30 The Kitsap Nearshore Conservation Group 31 Kitsap Nearshore Coordinating Group 32 P.O. Box 40900 33 Olympia Washington98504-0900 34 (360) 337-7170
35 Liberty Bay Foundation 36 17212 Lemolo Shore Drive NE 37 Poulsbo, WA 98370 38 http://www.libertybayfoundation.com/homepage.htm
39 Long Live the Kings 40 1326 Fifth Avenue 41 Suite 450 42 Seattle, WA 98101 43 (206) 382-9555 44 http://www.lltk.org 45 Long Live the Kings is a private, nonprofit organization committed to restoring wild salmon to 46 the waters of the Pacific Northwest.
G-29 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Marine Conservation Biology Institute 2 15805 NE 47th Court 3 Redmond, WA 98052 4 http://www.mcbi.org/
5 Mason County Conservation District 6 1051 SE Highway 3, Suite G 7 Shelton, WA 98584 8 http://www.olywa.net/mcd/index.html
9 National Wildlife Federation 10 6 Nickerson Street, Suite 200 11 Seattle, WA 98106 12 (206) 285-8707
13 Natural Resources Defense Council 14 http://www.nrdc.org 15 An environmental action organization. It uses law, science, and the support of more than one 16 million members and online activists to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and to ensure 17 a safe and healthy environment for all living things.
18 o Natural Resources Defense Council 19 40 West 20th Street 20 New York, NY 10011 21 (212) 727-2700
22 o Natural Resources Defense Council 23 1314 Second Street 24 Santa Monica, CA 90401
25 The Nature Conservancy 26 Skagit River Office 27 410 N. 4th Street 28 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 29 (360) 419-9825 30 http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/washington/ 31 The mission of the Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 32 communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth.
33 North Olympic Salmon Coalition 34 P.O. Box 699 35 Pt. Townsend, WA 98368 36 (360) 379-8051 37 http://www.nosc.org/ 38 NOSC is a non-profit community based salmon recovery organization which provides funding, 39 guidance, technical assistance, and ongoing support for salmon habitat restoration and 40 enhancement.
41 Northwest Environmental Defense Center 42 10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd. 43 Portland, OR 97219 44 (503) 768-6673 45 www.nedc.org 46 NEDC is an independent, non-profit organization working to protect the environment and natural 47 resources of the Pacific Northwest.
G-30 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Northwest Resource Information Center 2 P.O. Box 427 3 Eagle, ID 83616 4 http://www.nwric.org/
5 Northwest Straits Commission 6 10441 Bayview-Edison Rd 7 Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 8 (360) 428-1084 9 http://www.nwstraits.org/nsc.html 10 The Northwest Straits Commission provides guidance and offers resources to the marine 11 resources committees of seven counties in Washington, with the goal of mobilizing science to 12 focus on key priorities and coordinating regional priorities for the ecosystem.
13 Ocean’s Advocates 14 Ocean’s Advocates works with policy makers throughout the world to form sound global ocean 15 policies.
16 o Ocean’s Advocates 17 3004 NW 93rd Street 18 Seattle, WA 98117 19 (206) 783-6676
20 o Ocean’s Advocates 21 370 Grand Ave., Suite 5 22 Oakland, CA 94610
23 Ocean Futures Society 24 325 Chapala Street 25 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 26 http://www.oceanfutures.org/ 27 The mission of the Ocean Futures Society is to explore our global ocean, inspiring and educating 28 people throughout the world to act responsibly for its protection, documenting the critical 29 connection between humanity and nature, and celebrating the ocean’s vital importance to the 30 survival of all life on our planet.
31 Olympic Coast Alliance 32 P.O. Box 573 33 Olympia, WA 98501 34 (360) 705-1549 35 http://www.olympiccoast.org/ 36 The purpose of the Olympic Coast Alliance is to assure a healthy coastal ecosystem through 37 public education and outreach, conservation issue advocacy, Olympic Coast National Marine 38 Sanctuary support, stewardship programs, and a strong working relationship with coastal tribes.
39 Olympic Peninsula Women’s Outdoor Institute 40 97 Schoolhouse Rd. 41 Brinnon, WA 98320 42 http://www.opwomensoutdoor.org/ 43 The Olympic Peninsula Women’s Outdoor Institute is dedicated to empowering girls’ and 44 women’s lives by encouraging and facilitating their connection with nature and the community. 45 This organization strives to inspire, educate, and enrich through outdoor-based experiences, 46 community partnership, and environmental awareness.
47 Orca Conservancy
G-31 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 219 1st Avenue South #315 2 Seattle, WA 98104 3 (206) 467-6722 4 www.reuniteluna.com
5 Orca Network 6 2403 So. North Bluff Rd. 7 Greenbank, WA 98253 8 1-866-ORCANET (672-2638) 9 http://www.orcanetwork.org 10 Orca Network is a non-profit organization registered with the IRS and Washington State, 11 dedicated to raising awareness about the whales of the Pacific Northwest, and the importance of 12 providing them healthy and safe habitats.
13 Orca Relief Citizens Alliance 14 P.O. Box 1969 15 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 16 (360) 370-5554 17 http://orcarelief.org 18 Orca Relief is a non-profit organization dedicated to reversing the population decline of the 19 Southern Resident orcas.
20 Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee 21 2021 Marine Drive, Suite 102 22 Astoria, OR 97103 23 http://www.ofcc.com/index.htm 24 The Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee is composed of three fiber optic cable companies and 25 participating fishermen. The Oregon Fisherman’s Undersea Cable Committee Agreement works 26 to prevent damage to undersea fiber optic cable rather than collecting damages from fishermen in 27 the event of damage to the cable.
28 Oregon Institute of Marine Biology 29 University of Oregon 30 P.O. Box 5389 31 Charleston, OR 97420 32 (541) 888-2581 ext. 200 33 http://www.uoregon.edu/~oimb/
34 Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center 35 Lewis and Clark School 36 10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd. 37 Portland, OR 97219 38 http://law.lclark.edu/org/peac/ 39 The Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center is the environmental law clinic at Lewis & Clark 40 Law School. The Center works to advance efforts to protect the environment by serving as a 41 resource for public interest organizations that need legal representation and to train and educate 42 law students through direct involvement in complex environmental and natural resource issues.
43 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations 44 P.O. Box 29370 45 San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 46 http://www.pcffa.org/ 47 The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations is the largest and most politically 48 active trade association of commercial fishermen on the west coast. They work to assure the
G-32 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 rights of individual fishermen and fight for the long-term survival of commercial fishing as a 2 productive livelihood and way of life.
3 Pacific Fishery Management Council 4 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200 5 Portland, OR 97220-1384 6 (503) 820-2280 7 http://www.pcouncil.org 8 The Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight regional fishery management councils 9 established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 for the purpose 10 of managing fisheries 3-200 miles offshore of the United States of America coastline. The Pacific 11 Council is responsible for fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.
12 Pacific Marine Conservation Council 13 http://www.pmcc.org 14 The PMMC represents fishing communities and concerned citizens dedicated to sustaining 15 healthy and diverse marine ecosystems on the West Coast.
16 o Pacific Marine Conservation Council 17 P.O. Box 59 18 Astoria, OR 97103
19 o Pacific Marine Conservation Council 20 P.O. Box 794 21 Port Townsend, WA 98368 22 (360) 385-2746
23 Parks Canada 24 25 Eddy Street 25 Gatineau, Canada K1A 0M5 26 http://www.pc.gc.ca
27 People For Puget Sound 28 911 Western Avenue, Suite 580 29 Seattle, WA 98104 30 (206) 382-7007 31 http://pugetsound.org 32 People For Puget Sound is a non-profit citizens’ group working to protect and restore the health 33 of Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits through education and action.
34 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 35 501 Front Street 36 Norfolk, VA 23510 37 http://www.peta.org/ 38 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 1.6 million members and 39 supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. PETA focuses its attention on 40 the four areas: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment 41 industry. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, 42 legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.
43 Progressive Animal Welfare Society 44 P.O. Box 1037 45 Lynwood, WA 98046 46 (425) 787-2500 47 http://www.paws.org/
G-33 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 A Northwest leader in protecting animals since 1967, the Progressive Animal Welfare Society 2 (PAWS) shelters homeless animals, rehabilitates injured and orphaned wildlife, and empowers 3 people to demonstrate compassion and respect for animals in their daily lives. PAWS advocates 4 for animals through education, legislation and direct care.
5 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 6 P.O. Box 2618 7 Olympia, WA 98507 8 (360) 528-2110 9 http://www.peer.org/ 10 As a service organization assisting Federal and state public employees, PEER allows public 11 servants to work as "anonymous activists" so that agencies must confront the message, rather than 12 the messenger
13 Puget Sound Action Team / Puget Sound Partnership 14 P.O. Box 40900 15 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 16 (360) 725-5444 17 http://www.psat.wa.gov 18 The Puget Sound Action Team is a partnership of state agencies and tribal and local governments 19 charged with developing and coordinating conservation programs to protect and restore Puget 20 Sound.
21 Racerocks.com 22 http://www.racerocks.com/ 23 Lester B. Pearson College 24 650 Pearson College Drive 25 The islands of Race Rocks are Crown Land of the BC Government. BC Parks administers the 26 island as a Provincial Ecological Reserve. It leases to the Canadian Coast Guard, a division of the 27 Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
28 Save our Wild Salmon 29 http://www.wildsalmon.org/ 30 Save our Wild Salmon is a nationwide coalition of conservation organizations, commercial and 31 sport fishing associations, business, river groups, and taxpayer advocates – all joined in a 32 commitment to restore Pacific Northwest wild salmon and the communities that depend on them.
33 o Save our Wild Salmon 34 424 Third Ave. West, Suite 100 35 Seattle, WA 98119
36 o Save our Wild Salmon Coalition 37 975 John Street, Suite 204 38 Seattle, WA 98109
39 Shipwrite Productions 40 1780 Dean Park Road 41 Sidney B.C. Canada V8L 1C1 42 http://www.shipwrite.bc.ca/ 43 Shipwrite’s publications include books and maps about the Pacific Northwest and electronic 44 navigation. Shipwrite also offers seminars and consulting services on a wide range of marine and 45 nautical issues.
G-34 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Sierra Club Cascade Chapter 2 180 Nickerson St., Suite 202 3 Seattle, WA 98109-1631 4 (206) 378-0114 5 http://cascade.sierraclub.org 6 Sierra Club is a grassroots environmental organization dedicated to exploring, enjoying and 7 protecting the wild places of the earth while practicing and promoting the responsible use of the 8 earth's ecosystems and resources. 9 • Surfrider Foundation 10 Pacific NW Regional Office 11 151 Straits View 12 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 13 www.surfrider.org/ 14 The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the protection 15 and enjoyment of the world’s ocean, waves, and beaches for all people through conservation, 16 activism, research, and education. 17 • University of Washington School of Oceanography 18 P.O. Box 357940 19 Seattle, WA 98195 20 http://www.ocean.washington.edu/2004/ 21 The School of Oceanography is part of the College of Ocean and Fisheries Sciences at the 22 University of Washington. 23 • Veins of Life Watershed Society 24 Box 36057-1153 25 Victoria, B.C. Canada V9A 7J5 26 http://volws.bc.ca/ 27 The Veins of Life Watershed Society is a community-based environmental organization operating 28 in the Capitol Region District of Southern Vancouver Island, B.C. VOLWS focuses on a 29 watershed-based approach and initiates habitat restoration projects, stream cleanups, 30 environmental education programs, and public outreach activities. 31 • Washington Foundation for the Environment 32 P.O. Box 2123 33 Seattle, WA 98111 34 http://www.wffe.org/ 35 The Washington Foundation for the Environment is a non-profit organization that supports 36 environmental education and innovative projects focused on environmental awareness. 37 • Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 38 P.O. Box 2404 39 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 40 http://www.nwwhalewatchers.org/ 41 Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest is a group of companies dedicated to responsible 42 wildlife viewing. 43 • Whale Museum 44 P.O. Box 945 45 Friday Harbor, WA 98250 46 http://www.whale-museum.org/ 47 The Whale Museum promotes stewardship of whales and the Salish Sea ecosystem.
G-35 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 • Wild Whales, Vancouver Aquarium 2 B.C. Cetacean Sighting Network 3 Cetacean Research Lab 4 P.O. Box 3232 5 Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6B 3X8 6 http://www.wildwhales.org/ 7 The B.C. Cetacean Sighting Network’s goal is to increase public awareness of B.C. cetaceans and 8 the conservation concerns affecting them, and to encourage the public to become active stewards 9 of all cetaceans and report their sightings of cetaceans seen in B.C. waters. 10 11 International 12 • World Conservation Union [or International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural 13 Resources (IUCN)] 14 630 Connecticut Avenue NW, third floor 15 Washington, DC 20009 16 (202) 387-4826 17 http://www.iucn.org/places/usa 18 The World Conservation Union is the world’s largest conservation network, bringing together 82 19 States, 111 government agencies, and more than 800 non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 20 The Union’s mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to 21 conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is 22 equitable and ecologically sustainable. 23 • International Whaling Commission 24 The IWC is comprised of 66 nations. The purpose of the commission is to provide for the proper 25 conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling 26 industry. 27 http://www.iwcoffice.org
28 G.5 Tribal Groups
29 Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria 30 Brenda Bowie, Chairperson 31 P.O. Box 731 32 Lolita, CA 95541 33 (707) 733-1900
34 Big Lagoon Rancheria 35 Virgil Moorehead 36 P.O. Drawer 3060 37 Trinidad, CA 95570 38 (707) 826-2079
39 Blue Lake Rancheria 40 Claudia Brudin, Chairperson 41 P.O. Box 428 42 Blue Lake, CA 95525 43 (707) 668-5101
44 Colville Business Council 45 Matthew Dick, Jr., Chairman 46 P.O. Box 150 47 Nespelem, WA 99155
G-36 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 (509) 634-4711
2 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 3 Gregory A. Norton, Chairperson 4 Coos Bay, OR 97420 5 (503) 267-5454
6 Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 7 P.O. Box 549 8 Siletz, OR 97380 9 (541) 444-2532 10 http://ctsi.nsn.us/History_and_Culture.html
11 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 12 P.O. Box 638 13 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 14 (541) 276-3165 15 http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/
16 Coquille Indian Tribe 17 Ed Metcalf, Chairperson 18 P.O. Box 1435 19 Coos Bay, OR 97420 20 (503) 756-0663 21 http://www.coquilletribe.org/
22 Elk Valley Rancheria 23 John Green, Vice Chairperson 24 P.O. Box 1042 25 Crescent City, CA 95531 26 (707) 464-4680
27 Guidiville Rancheria 28 Keith R. Pike, Chairperson 29 P.O. Box 339 30 Talmadge, CA 95481 31 (707) 462-3682
32 Hoh Indian Nation 33 2464 Lower Hoh Road 34 Forks, WA 98331 35 (360) 374-6501
36 Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation 37 Dale Risling, Chairman 38 P.O. Box 1348 39 Hoopa, CA 95546 40 (916) 625-4211
41 Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe 42 1033 Old Blyn Highway 43 Sequim, WA 98382 44 (360) 683-1109 45 http://www.jamestowntribe.org
46 Kalispel Business Committee
G-37 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Glen Nenema, Chairman 2 Box 39 3 Usk, WA 99180 4 (509) 445-1147
5 Karuk Tribe of California 6 Alvis Johnson, Chairperson 7 P.O. Box 1016 8 Happy Camp, CA 96039 9 (916) 493-5305
10 Lookout Rancheria 11 Laura Craig, Chairperson 12 P.O. Drawer 1570 13 Burney, CA 96013 14 (916) 335-5421
15 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 16 2851 Lower Elwha Road 17 Port Angeles, WA 98363 18 (360) 452-8471 19 http://www.elwha.org/
20 Lummi Business Council 21 Henry Cagey, Chairman 22 2616 Kwina Road 23 Bellingham, WA 98226 24 (360) 734-8180
25 Makah Tribe 26 P.O. Box 115 27 Neah Bay, WA 98357 28 (360) 645-2201 29 http://www.makah.com
30 Nooksack Indian Tribal Council 31 Ross Cline, Chairman 32 P.O. Box 157 33 Deming, WA 98244 34 (360) 592-5176
35 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 36 http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/index.asp
37 Pit River Tribal Council 38 Loomis Jackson, Chairperson 39 P.O. Drawer 1570 40 Burney, CA 96013 41 (916) 335-5421
42 Point No Point Treaty Council 43 7999 NE Salish Lane 44 Kingston, WA 98346 45 (360) 297-3422 46 http://www.pnptc.org/
G-38 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The Treaty Council’s primary purpose is to assist member tribes in exercising their treaty- 2 reserved rights to harvest finfish and shellfish. Treaty Council staff, including biologists, fisheries 3 planners, and fisheries enforcement officers, work together to ensure that treaty rights are 4 preserved and treaty fisheries and harvests occur in a biologically sound manner.
5 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 6 31912 Little Boston Road NE 7 Kingston, WA 98346 8 (360) 297-2646 9 http://www.pgst.nsn.us
10 Quartz Valley Reservation 11 Fred A. Chase, Chairperson 12 P.O. Box 737 13 Etna, CA 96032 14 (916) 467-3307
15 Quileute Tribe 16 P.O. Box 189 17 LaPush, WA 98350 18 (360) 374-9035
19 Quinalt Indian Nation 20 P.O. Box 189 21 LaPush, WA 98350 22 (360) 374-9035 23 www.quinaultindiannation.com
24 Redding Rancheria 25 Edward R. Foreman, Chairperson 26 2000 Rancheria Rd. 27 Redding, CA 96001 28 (916) 241-8979
29 Resighini Rancheria 30 William J. Scott, Chairman 31 P.O. Box 529 32 Klamath, CA 95548 33 (707) 482-2431
34 Round Valley Reservation 35 Covelo Indian Community Center 36 Joseph A. Russ, Sr., President 37 P.O. Box 448, Highway 162 38 Covelo, CA 95428 39 (707) 983-6126
40 Skokomish Tribal Nation 41 James Gordon, Chairperson 42 N. 80 Tribal Center Rd. 43 Skokomish, WA 98584 44 (360) 426-4232 45 http://www.skokomish.org
G-39 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Smith River Rancheria 2 Marian M. Lopez, Chairperson 3 P.O. Box 239 4 Smith River, CA 95567 5 (707) 487-9255
6 Spokane Business Council 7 Warren Seyler, Chairman 8 P.O. Box 100 9 Wellpinit, WA 99040 10 (509) 258-4581
11 Squaxin Indian Tribe 12 David Lopeman, Chairperson 13 10 SE Squaxin Lane 14 Shelton WA 98584 15 (360) 426-9781 16 http://www.squaxinisland.org
17 Stewarts Point Rancheria 18 Kashia Business Committee 19 Calvin H. Smith Sr., Chairperson 20 P.O. Box 3854 21 Stewarts Point, CA 95480 22 (707) 725-0721
23 Sulphur Bank Rancheria 24 Thomas Brown, Chairperson 25 P.O. Box 618 26 Clearlake Oaks, CA 95423 27 (707) 998-3431
28 Suquamish Tribe 29 Bernie Armstrong, Chairperson 30 P.O. Box 498 31 Suquamish, WA 98392 32 (360) 598-3311 33 http://www.suquamish.nsn.us
34 Swinomish Indian Tribal Council 35 Robert Joe, Sr., Chairman 36 P.O. Box 817 37 LaConner, WA 98257 38 (360) 466-3163
39 Table Bluff Rancheria 40 Albert E. James, Chairperson 41 P.O. Box 519 42 Loleta, CA 95551 43 (707) 733-5055 44 www.wiyot.com
45 Trinidad Rancheria 46 Marian Crutchfield, Chairwoman
G-40 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 P.O. Box 630 2 Trinidad, CA 95570 3 (707) 677-0211 4 http://www.trinidad-rancheria.org/
5 Tulalip Board of Directors 6 Stanley Jones, Sr., Chairman 7 6700 Totem Beach Road 8 Marysville, WA 98271 9 (360) 651-4000 10 http://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/index.asp
11 United Lumbee Nation of NC & America 12 Eva Silver Star Reed, Chief 13 P.O. Box 512 14 Fall River Mills, CA 96028 15 (916) 336-6701
16 Upper Skagit Tribal Council 17 Floyd Williams, Chairman 18 2284 Community Plaza 19 Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 20 (360) 856-5501
21 Yurok Indian Reservation 22 Susie L. Long, Chairperson 23 517 Third Street, Suite 21 24 Eureka, CA 95501 25 (707) 444-0433
26 G.6 Joint Military and Community Organizations
27 G.7 Military or Veterans Organizations
28 G.8 Local Media
29 Washington 30 Anacortes American 31 The Anacortes American is published each Wednesday by Pioneer Publishing, Inc. The 32 Anacortes American covers local news coverage, sports and recreation, business, arts and 33 entertainment, editorials, and classifieds. It has a circulation of 5,000. 34 35 Associated Press, Seattle Bureau 36 www.ap.org 37 3131 Elliott Ave. Suite 750 38 Seattle, WA 98121-1095 39 (206) 682-1812 40 The Associated Press is an international news organization offering news, photos, graphics, 41 audio, and video for 1,700 U.S. newspapers and 6,000 broadcast outlets around the world. 42 Bainbridge Island Review 43 www.bainbridgereview.com 44 P.O. Box 10817
G-41 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 2 Bainbridge Island Review is published twice a week (Wednesday and Saturday) for the residents 3 of Bainbridge Island, WA. The newspaper covers local news, sports, arts and entertainment, and 4 community events. It is published by Sound Publishing, Inc. It has a circulation of 5,838. 5 Ballard News-Tribune 6 www.ballardnewstribune.com 7 Ballard News-Tribune is a local weekly newspaper written for Ballard, WA residents. It is 8 published every Wednesday and has a circulation of 10,000. 9 10 The Bellingham Herald 11 www.bellinghamherald.com 12 Bellingham Herald is a daily newspaper for the residents of Bellingham, WA. It covers the news 13 and events of the local community. It is owned by McClatchy Newspapers. It has a morning 14 circulation of 27,468 and a Sunday circulation of 34,151. 15 Bellevue Reporter 16 www.southcountyjournal.com 17 The Bellevue Reporter is published bi-weekly by Kind Co. Journal Newspapers. It has a 18 circulation of 28,000. 19 Bothell/Kenmore Reporter 20 The Bothell/Kenmore Reporter is a free, bi-weekly newspaper published by King Co. Journal 21 Newspapers. Its circulation is 29,471. 22 Bremerton Patriot 23 www.bremertonpatriot.com 24 9989 Silverdale Way #9 25 Silverdale, WA 98383 26 Bremerton Patriot is a local weekly newspaper that is written for Bremerton, WA. It provides its 27 readers with local news and community events. It is published every Saturday by Sound 28 Publishing, Inc. and has a circulation of 12,531. 29 The Bremerton Sun 30 www.thesunlink.com 31 545 5th Street 32 Bremerton, WA 98337 33 The Bremerton Sun is a daily newspaper serving Kitsap County. It is owned by E.W. Scripps Co. 34 and has a morning circulation of 31,588 and Sunday circulation of 35,476. 35 Business Examiner (South Sound) 36 www.businessexaminer.com 37 The Business Examiner focuses on business and development issues in Tacoma, Olympia and the 38 surrounding South Puget Sound area. It covers the real estate, construction, corporation, business 39 and financial news relevant to this region. It is published by PCBE, Inc. bi-weekly on Mondays. 40 Its circulation is 10,000. 41 Central Kitsap Reporter 42 www.centralkitsapreporter.com 43 9989 Silverdale Way NW, Suite 109 44 Silverdale, WA 98383 45 The Central Kitsap Reporter is published by Sound Publishing, Inc. every Wednesday and 46 Saturday. It has a circulation of 18,783.
G-42 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The Centralia Chronicle 2 www.chronline.com 3 The Centralia Chronicle is a daily paper owned by Lafromboise Newspapers, Inc. It has a 4 circulation of 14,083. 5 The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) 6 www.columbian.com 7 The Columbian is a daily newspaper published for residents of Clark County, Washington. 8 Coverage includes local news, sports, and general lifestyle issues. It is published by the 9 Columbian Publishing Co. It has a morning circulation of 49,726 and a Sunday circulation of 10 58,756. 11 Coupeville Examiner 12 The Coupeville Examiner is a weekly community newspaper with a circulation of 1,250. 13 The Daily World 14 www.thedailyworld.com 15 Attn: City Editor 16 P.O. Box 269 17 Aberdeen, WA 98520 18 The Daily World is a local newspaper that serves the Grays Harbor and northern Pacific counties 19 in Southwest Washington. It is published daily by the Stephens Media Group. It has an evening 20 circulation of 16,308 and a Sunday circulation of 16,301. 21 The Dispatch 22 www.dispatchnews.com 23 The Dispatch is a weekly newspaper published every Wednesday by Raintree Published. It has a 24 circulation of 9,700. 25 The Everett Herald 26 www.hearaldnet.com 27 The Herald is a daily newspaper owned by the Washington Post Co. It has a morning circulation 28 of 50,775 and a Sunday circulation of 55,988. 29 Everett Navy Dispatch 30 www.everett.navy.mil/dispatch/dispatch.html 31 The Navy Dispatch is a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 1,500. It is published by the 32 Daily Herald Co. 33 Federal Way News 34 www.federalwaynews.net 35 The Federal Way News is a weekly (Wednesday) newspaper serving residents in the heart of 36 Federway Way, WA, including homes along the water with the zip codes of 98023 and 98003. It 37 is published by Robinson Newspapers and has a circulation of 15,000. 38 The Islands’ Sounder 39 www.islandsounder.com 40 The Islands’ Sounder is a weekly community newspaper, published by Sound Publishing, with a 41 circulation of 3,021. 42 The Issaquah Press 43 www.issaquahpress.com 44 Issaquah Press, a local weekly newspaper, is published every Wednesday. It is written for 45 residents of Issaquah, WA. It is published by Issaquah Press, Inc. and has a circulation of 7,500.
G-43 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 King County Journal 2 www.kingcountyjournal.com 3 The King County Journal is a daily newspaper owned by Horvitz Newspapers, Inc. It has a 4 morning circulation of 43,300 and a Sunday circulation of 43,400. 5 Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal 6 www.kpbj.com 7 The Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal is dedicated to providing insightful and accurate coverage 8 of events and issues affecting the Kitsap County business community. It is published monthly by 9 Wet Apple, Inc. and has a circulation of 26,000. 10 Kitsap Sun 11 www.kitsapsun.com 12 The Kitsap Sun is a daily newspaper that provides news, event, and sports coverage for the 13 Bremerton area in Kitsap County. It is owned by the E.W. Scripps Co., and has morning and 14 Sunday circulations of 31,588 and 35,476 respectively. 15 Mercer Island Reporter 16 www.mi-reporter.com 17 Mercer Island Reporter's editorial mission is to provide news, information, and entertainment to 18 the community. Mercer Island Reporter is written for the population of Mercer Island, WA. It is 19 published every Wednesday by Horvitz Newspapers and has a circulation of 5,000. 20 Montesano Vidette 21 www.thevidette.com 22 109 West Marcy 23 P.O. Box 671 24 Montesano, WA 98563-0671 25 The Montesano Vidette is a local weekly paper written for residents of Montesano, WA. It is 26 published by the Stephens Media Group and has a circulation of 3,500. 27 North Kitsap Herald 28 www.northkitsapherald.com 29 P.O. Box 278 30 18887 Hwy 305, Ste 700 31 Poulsbo, WA 98370-0278 32 The North Kitsap Herald is the local newspaper for the Poulsbo, Kingston, Suquamish, Hansville, 33 Indianola, and Little Boston, WA area. It is published every Wednesday and Saturday by Sound 34 Publishing, Inc. It has a circulation of 12,800. 35 The Olympian 36 www.theolympian.com 37 The Olympian is a local daily newspaper that serves Olympia and other areas within Thurston and 38 Mason counties. The circulation for the Monday through Saturday editions is 37,968 and the 39 Sunday edition has a circulation of 45,291. It is owned by Gannett Newspapers. 40 Peninsula Daily News 41 www.peninsuladailynews.com 42 1939 E. Sims Way 43 Port Townsend, WA 98368 44 Or 45 P.O. Box 1330 46 Port Angeles, WA 98362
G-44 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The Peninsula Daily News, owned by Horvitz Newspapers, Inc., is a daily local newspaper 2 serving the residents of Washington's Olympic Peninsula. The publication covers local news, 3 sports, business, education, and community events. It has a morning circulation of 15,018 and 4 Sunday circulation of 17,085. 5 Peninsula Gateway (Gig Harbor) 6 www.gateline.com 7 Peninsula Gateway is a local newspaper serving residents of Gig Harbor, WA and the 8 surrounding area. It is published every Wednesday by Olympic Cascade Publishing and has a 9 circulation of 25,000. 10 Port Orchard Independent 11 www.portorchardindependent.com 12 P.O. Box 27 13 2950 SE Mile Hill Dr. 14 Port Orchard, WA 98368 15 The Port Orchard Independent is published every Wednesday and Saturday by Sound Publishing, 16 Inc. It has a circulation of 16,008. 17 The Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader 18 www.ptleader.com 19 P.O. Box 522 20 226 Adams Street 21 Port Townsend, WA 98368 22 The Port Townsend Leader is a weekly community newspaper with a circulation of 10,000. 23 Puget Sound Business Journal 24 www.seattle.bizjournals.com 25 The Puget Sound Business Journal is edited for members of the Seattle business community 26 interested in staying up-to-date with current regional business and financial trends. Regular issue 27 features include new product development reports, political reports, and analysis of retail and 28 wholesale trade. It is published by American City Business Journals every Friday and has a 29 circulation of 25,254. 30 San Juan Islander 31 www.sanjuanislander.com 32 San Juan Islander is an internet-only daily news site created in 1999 to provide local news and 33 information to locals and visitors of the San Juan Islands. The site features sections devoted to 34 each island through links which are named the Orcas Islander and the Lopez Island News. 35 San Juan Islands Journal 36 www.sanjuanjournal.com 37 The San Juan Islands Journal is a community newspaper published every Wednesday by Sound 38 Publishing, Inc. It has a circulation of 4,489. 39 Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce 40 www.djc.com 41 The Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce is published six days a week (not on Sundays). It serves 42 the Puget Sound region business community. 43 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 44 www.seattlepi.com
G-45 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a daily newspaper for western Washington that has a morning 2 circulation of 150,851, Saturday circulation of 218,428 and Sunday circulation of 473,715. It is 3 owned by Hearst Newspapers. 4 Seattle Times 5 www.seattletimes.com 6 The Seattle Times, owned by Seattle Times Co., covers western Washington. It is a daily 7 newspaper with a morning circulation of 231,505 and Sunday circulation of 473,715. 8 The Sequim Gazette 9 www.sequimgazette.com 10 The Sequim Gazette is a local newspaper that covers news affecting Sequim area residents. News 11 coverage includes sports, education, government, environment, healthcare, and business. It is 12 published by Olympic View Publishing every Wednesday and has a circulation of 8,100. 13 Shelton-Mason County Journal 14 www.masoncounty.com 15 P.O. Box 430 16 Shelton, WA 98584-0430 17 The Shelton-Mason County Journal is a local newspaper serving the residents of Shelton, 18 WA. It is published every Thursday and has a circulation of 9,398. 19 Snohomish County Business Journal 20 www.snohomishcountybusinessjournal.com 21 The Snohomish County Business Journal is written for the business and technology communities 22 in the Snohomish County, Washington area as a resource of business-related information. It is 23 published monthly by the Daily Herald Co. and has a circulation of 16,000. 24 South Beach Bulletin 25 P.O. Box 1395 26 South Beach, WA 98595-1395 27 South Beach Bulletin is a local weekly newspaper serving Westport, WA and the surrounding 28 area. It is published by Stephens Media and has a circulation of 5,000. 29 South Whidbey Record 30 www.southwhidbeyrecord.com 31 Sound Publishing, Inc. publishes the South Whidbey Record, a semiweekly community 32 newspaper with a circulation of 5,375. 33 The Tacoma News Tribune 34 www.tribnet.com 35 The News Tribune is a daily newspaper owned by McClatchy Newspapers. It has a morning 36 circulation of 128,937 and a Sunday circulation of 143,937. 37 The Vancouver Sun 38 www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/ 39 The Vancouver Sun, established in 1886, is a daily broadsheet newspaper serving southwestern 40 British Columbia. It has morning and Saturday circulations of 187,789 and 246,721 respectively, 41 and is owned by the CanWest Global Communications Corp. 42 Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber 43 www.vashonbeachcomber.com 44 The Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber publishes arts and entertainment, transportation, sports 45 and local news for the residents of Vashon-Maury Island, WA. It is published every Wednesday 46 by Sound Publishing, Inc. and has a circulation of 4,000.
G-46 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Whidbey News-Times 2 www.whidbeynewstimes.com 3 Sound Publishing, Inc. publishes the Whidbey New-Times, a semiweekly community newspaper 4 with a circulation of 8,174. 5 Vigilance 6 P.O. Box 95 7 Port Townsend, WA 98368 8 KCPQ-TV (FOX) 9 www.q13.com 10 KCPQ-TV is the FOX affiliate for the Seattle-Tacoma market. The station is owned by the 11 Tribune Broadcasting Company and broadcasts locally on channel 13. 12 KCTS-TV (PBS) 13 www.kcts.org 14 KCTS-TV is the PBS affiliate for the Seattle, WA market. The station is owned by KCTS 15 Television and broadcasts locally on channel 9. 16 KING-TV 17 www.king5.com 18 KING-TV is the NBC affiliate for the Seattle-Tacoma market. The station is owned by Belo 19 Corporation and broadcasts locally on channel 5. 20 KIRO-TV 21 www.kirotv.com 22 KIRO-TV is the CBS affiliate for the Seattle-Tacoma market. The station is owned by Cox 23 Broadcasting and broadcasts locally on channel 7. 24 KOMO-TV 25 www.komotv.com 26 KOMO-TV is the ABC affiliate for the Seattle, WA market. The station is owned by Fisher 27 Broadcasting and broadcasts locally on channel 4. 28 KLKI-AM 29 www.klki.com 30 KLKI-AM is a commercial station owned by Berry Entertainment. It broadcasts to Anacortes, 31 WA and its surrounding areas at 1340 AM. 32 KSER-FM 33 www.kser.org 34 KSER-FM is a non-commercial station owned by the KSER Foundation. The station broadcasts a 35 variety of news, talk, and world music in the Lynwood, WA area at 90.7 FM. 36 KWDB-AM 37 www.kwdb.com 38 KWDB-AM is a commercial radio station owned by West Beach Broadcasting. The station is 39 broadcasts in the Oak Harbor, WA area at 1110 AM. 40 Northwest Cable News, Seattle 41 www.nwcn.com 42 Northwest Cable News network provides local and regional news, weather, sports, and 43 information programming to cable subscribers throughout the Seattle/Tacoma metropolitan area, 44 Washington State, Oregon, and Idaho. It is owned by the Belo Corp. 45
G-47 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 Oregon 2 The News Guard (Lincoln City) 3 www.thenewsguard.com 4 The Lincoln City News Guard serves the residents of Lincoln City and is published every 5 Wednesday by Oregon Coast Newspapers. It has a circulation of 6,200. 6 News-Times (Lincoln County) 7 www.newportnewstimes.com 8 The News-Times is a local newspaper published twice per week, Wednesday and Friday, by Lee 9 Enterprises, Inc. It is written for residents of Lincoln County, OR. It has a circulation of 10,873. 10 Heppner Gazette-Times (Morrow County) 11 www.heppner.net 12 Heppner Gazette-Times is a local weekly newspaper written for residents in the southern part of 13 Morrow County. It is published every Wednesday and has a circulation of 2,000. 14 15 California 16 Eureka Reporter 17 www.eurekareporter.com 18 The Eureka Reporter is a free newspaper published three days a week. It has a circulation of 19 5,000. 20 21 Alaska 22 The Kodiak Daily Mirror 23 www.kodiakdailymirror.com 24 Kodiak Daily Mirror is a daily publication serving the community of Kodiak, Alaska and 25 surrounding villages. It is published by MediaNews Group and has a circulation of 3,300.
G-48 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NationalAtlas.gov 3 Figure 10-1. Washington State U.S. Congressional Districts
4
G-49 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
2 Source: Washington State Legislature www.leg.wa.gov 3 Figure 10-2. Washington State Legislative Districts
G-50 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
2 Source: NationalAtlas.gov
3 Figure 10-3. Oregon U.S. Congressional Districts
4
G-51 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: Oregon Secretary of State Election Division www.sos.state.or.us
3 Figure 10-4. Oregon State Senate Districts
4
G-52 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: Oregon Secretary of State Election Division www.sos.state.or.us
3 Figure 10-5. Oregon State House Districts
G-53 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NationalAtlas.gov
3 Figure 10-6. California U.S. Congressional Districts
G-54 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: California legislature www.legislature.ca.gov/ 3 Figure G-7. California State Senate Districts
G-55 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: California legislature www.legislature.ca.gov/ 3 Figure G-8. California State Assembly Districts 4
G-56 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 Source: NationalAtlas.gov
3 Figure 10-9. Alaska U.S. Congressional Districts
4
G-57 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 2 3 4 Source: State of Alaska www.state.ak.us/
5 Figure 10-10. Alaska State Legislative Districts
6
G-58 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
2 Source: NationalAtlas.gov
3 Figure 10-11. Nevada U.S. Congressional Districts
4
G-59 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Source: Nevada State Legislature www.leg.state.nv.us
Figure 10-12. Nevada State Senate Districts
1
G-60 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
Source: Nevada State Legislature www.leg.state.nv.us
Figure 10-13. Nevada State Assembly Districts
1
G-61 APPENDIX G FINAL DRAFT 08/20/2007 THEATER ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING NORTHWEST TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX MANAGEMENT PLAN
1 This page intentionally left blank
G-62