DOCSLIB.ORG

2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 2-1 2.1 Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area ................................2-1 2.1.1 Northeast Range Complexes .................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-5 2.1.2 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range ...................... 2-5 2.1.2.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-5 2.1.3 Virginia Capes Range Complex ............................................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.3.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-6 2.1.4 Navy Cherry Point Range Complex ........................................................................ 2-6 2.1.4.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.4.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-6 2.1.5 Jacksonville Range Complex................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.5.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-11 2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-11 2.1.6 Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range ........................................................ 2-11 2.1.6.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-11 2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-11 2.1.7 Key West Range Complex .................................................................................... 2-12 2.1.7.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12 2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12 2.1.8 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range .................. 2-12 2.1.8.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12 2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12 2.1.9 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex ............................................................................ 2-12 2.1.9.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12 2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12 2.1.10 Inshore locations .................................................................................................. 2-13 2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations ................................................................................ 2-13 i Table of Contents Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inland Waterways ................................................. 2-13 2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports ........................................................................................ 2-13 2.2 Primary Mission Areas ............................................................................................. 2-19 2.2.1 Air Warfare ........................................................................................................... 2-19 2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare ............................................................................................ 2-19 2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare ...................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.4 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.5 Expeditionary Warfare ......................................................................................... 2-21 2.2.6 Mine Warfare ....................................................................................................... 2-21 2.2.7 Surface Warfare ................................................................................................... 2-21 2.3 Proposed Activities .................................................................................................. 2-22 2.3.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-22 2.3.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................. 2-28 2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities ................................... 2-28 2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities.................................. 2-31 2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities ......................................... 2-34 2.3.3 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 2-34 2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction ................................................. 2-35 2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety ........................................................................................ 2-36 2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety ...................................................................................... 2-36 2.3.3.4 High-Powered Laser Safety .................................................................. 2-37 2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety ......................................................................... 2-37 2.3.3.6 Target Deployment Safety ................................................................... 2-38 2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety ........................................................ 2-38 2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety ......................................................................... 2-38 2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety ........................................................... 2-38 2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms ......................................................................................... 2-39 2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial, Surface, and Subsurface Vehicle Safety ................ 2-39 2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety ............................................................ 2-39 2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety ......................................................................... 2-39 2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety ................................................................................ 2-40 2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety ......................................................................... 2-40 2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone ........................................................................................ 2-40 2.3.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 2-44 2.4 Action Alternative Development .............................................................................. 2-45 2.4.1 Training ................................................................................................................ 2-46 2.4.2 Testing .................................................................................................................. 2-49 2.4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................... 2-50 ii Table of Contents Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations ......................................... 2-50 2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only ................................................... 2-51 2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar ....................... 2-52 2.5 Alternatives Carried Forward ................................................................................... 2-52 2.5.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-53 2.5.2 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 2-54 2.5.2.1 Training ................................................................................................ 2-54 2.5.2.2 Testing .................................................................................................. 2-55 2.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 2-55 2.5.3 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 2-56 2.5.3.1 Training ................................................................................................ 2-56 2.5.3.2 Testing .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pragmatism and Cooperation: Canadian-American Defence Activities in the Arctic, 1945-1951
    Pragmatism and Cooperation: Canadian-American Defence Activities in the Arctic, 1945-1951 by Peter Kikkert A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts In History Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2009 © Peter Kikkert 2009 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract During the early Cold War, as the Soviet menace placed Canada in between two hostile superpowers, the Canadian government decided to take steps to ensure that its sovereignty and national interests were not threatened by the Americans in the new strategic environment. This study examines the extent to which the Canadian government actually defended its sovereignty and rights against American intrusions in the early Cold War. At its core is an examination of the government’s policy of gradual acquisition in the Arctic between 1945 and 1951. This thesis explores the relationships that existed at the time, the essence of the negotiations, the state of international law and the potential costs and benefits of certain Canadian courses of action. It also explains how Canada’s quiet diplomacy allowed it to avoid alienating its chief ally, contribute to continental defence, and strengthen its sovereignty during this period. iii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Whitney Lackenbauer, for his insight, constant encouragement and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • X] N00178-14-D-7979-Fk01 10B
    1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT J 1 2 2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) 12 01-Apr-2019 N0006019RC017RT N/A 6. ISSUED BY CODE N00189 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE S2404A NAVSUP FLC Norfolk, Code 200 DCMA Manassas SCD: C 1968 Gilbert Street Ste 600 14501 George Carter Way, 2nd Floor Norfolk VA 23511-3392 Chantilly VA 20151 [email protected] 757-277-6441 8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO. T-Solutions, Inc. 860 Greenbrier Cir, Ste 405 Chesapeake VA 23320 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO. [X] N00178-14-D-7979-FK01 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13) CAGE FACILITY CODE 3EZR6 12-Mar-2015 CODE 11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS [ ]The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [ ] is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning one (1) copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.
    [Show full text]
  • JP 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, 30 June 2011
    Joint Publication 3-34 Joint Engineer Operations 06 January 2016 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides doctrine for the command and control, planning, and execution of joint engineer operations. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and it provides considerations for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational forces, and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs), and prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and orders. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of objectives. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the joint staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands, the Services, and combat support agencies. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting an Arctic Course: Task Force 80 and Canadian Control in the Arctic, 19481 Peter Kikkert and P
    Setting an Arctic Course: Task Force 80 and Canadian Control in the Arctic, 19481 Peter Kikkert and P. Whitney Lackenbauer Utilisant pour cette étude le cas de la Force opérationnelle 80 et la mission de réapprovisionnement dans le grand nord de 1948, les auteurs examinent de façon critique les relations Canadien-Américaines dans l'Arctique au début de la guerre froide. Les données archivistiques indiquent que, plutôt que de sacrifier la souveraineté dans l'intérêt de la sécurité continentale, le gouvernement canadien a scruté et a surveillé les activités de défense américaines dans l'Arctique pour s'assurer qu'il maintienne un niveau de contrôle approprié. Il y avait des inadvertances, des caprices et des malentendus de part et d'autre, mais les officiels ont compris des leçons importantes de la mission de 1948 qui ont été appliquées aux activités ultérieures de réapprovisionnement, prenant le cap vers un rapport opérationnel de plus en plus fonctionnel. On the afternoon of 30 July 1948, the icebreakers United States Ship (USS) Edisto and United States Coast Guard Ship (USCG) Eastwind left the anchorage at Thule, Greenland and set a course for the coast of Ellesmere Island. Along with a third vessel, the cargo ship USS Wyandot, which was on its way to Resolute Bay, the little group was called Task Force 80. Its mission seemed straightforward: resupply the joint Arctic weather stations set up the previous summer and establish a new one on the northern tip of Ellesmere.2 The voyage, however, proved anything but simple. By the next morning the ships were cautiously picking their way through loose and scattered floe ice.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Sealift Command
    The U.S. Navy’s MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND 2015IN REVIEW FAST FACTS 46 3,421 Available 170 Ready Reserve MSC SHIPS Replenishments Force Ships Patients treated by USNS Mercy and 140,276 USNS Comfort personnel during Continuing Promise 2015 and Pacific Partnership 2015 480 New Mariners Needed in FY16 MSC Area5 Commands: Norfolk, Virginia San Diego 25 Prepositioning ships supporting Naples, Italy Manama, Bahrain Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force Singapore 90,910 5,833 Civilian Mariners at MSC 8.3M Dry Cargo and Ordnance Barrels of Petroleum Pallets Moved by Moved by Combat Total MSC Personnel Logistics Force 9,561 Combat Logistics Force 2015 IN REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS Commander’s Perspective ............................................... 2 Organization Organization Chart...................................................................5 Mission Areas Combat Logistics Force ...........................................................8 Service and Command Support .............................................12 Special Mission .....................................................................16 Prepositioning ........................................................................20 Sealift ...................................................................................24 Ships of the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command ....... 28 Area Commands MSC Atlantic — Norfolk, Virginia ............................................30 MSC Pacific — San Diego .....................................................34 MSC Europe and Africa — Naples,
    [Show full text]
  • Carrier Battles: Command Decision in Harm's Way Douglas Vaughn Smith
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2005 Carrier Battles: Command Decision in Harm's Way Douglas Vaughn Smith Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES CARRIER BATTLES: COMMAND DECISION IN HARM'S WAY By DOUGLAS VAUGHN SMITH A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History, In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2005 The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Douglas Vaughn Smith defended on 27 June 2005. _____________________________________ James Pickett Jones Professor Directing Dissertation _____________________________________ William J. Tatum Outside Committee Member _____________________________________ Jonathan Grant Committee Member _____________________________________ Donald D. Horward Committee Member _____________________________________ James Sickinger Committee Member The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This work is dedicated to Professor Timothy H. Jackson, sailor, scholar, mentor, friend and to Professor James Pickett Jones, from whom I have learned so much. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Professor Timothy H. Jackson, Director, College of Distance Education, U.S. Naval War College, for his faith in me and his continuing support, without which this dissertation would not have been possible. I also wish to thank Professor James Pickett Jones of the Florida State University History Department who has encouraged and mentored me for almost a decade. Professor of Strategy and Policy and my Deputy at the Naval War College Stanley D.M. Carpenter also deserves my most grateful acknowledgement for taking on the responsibilities of my job as well as his own for over a year in order to allow me to complete this project.
    [Show full text]
  • US Navy Relations with the British, Canadian, and Australian Navies, 1945–1953 DISSERTATION Presente
    We Are Still One Fleet: U.S. Navy Relations with the British, Canadian, and Australian Navies, 1945–1953 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Corbin Williamson Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Dr. John Guilmartin, Advisor Dr. Peter Mansoor Dr. Robert McMahon Dr. John Hattendorf Copyright by Corbin Williamson 2015 Abstract In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. Navy broke with its traditional avoidance of peacetime alliances by building close ties with the British, Canadian, and Australian navies. This fundamental shift in American naval policy occurred between 1945 and 1953. Drawing upon their close connections with the U.S. Navy during the war, the British and Canadians in particular built a web of connections within the U.S. consisting of naval representatives in Washington as well as liaison and exchange officers. Beginning in late 1946 the British, Canadian, and American militaries agreed to standardize their procedures, doctrine, and equipment. However, the failed efforts to create a common sonobuoy showed that standardization of concepts would occur before standardization of weapon calibers. To that end the three navies wrote common communications and tactical publications that by 1952 allowed their ships to operate together on short notice. These publications were written by the Canada-United Kingdom-United States (CANUKUS) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Working Group, a hitherto little known organization that worked to standardize ASW doctrine and equipment between the three fleets. In addition, the British and American anti-submarine training schools, in Ireland and Key West respectively, began hosting visits by ASW ships and aircrafts from each other’s fleet beginning in 1947.
    [Show full text]
  • US Armed Forces Order of Battle
    US Armed Forces Order of Battle This is an attempt to provide a comprehensive order of battle for the US Armed Forces. Please note that this order of battle reflects wartime, operational command and control rather than peacetime administrative command and control. For example, you will find I Corps under US Army Pacific rather than US Army Forces Command. Purely training establishments have not been included. Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Neil Baumgardner Last Updated: June 5, 2008 Department of Defense (Pentagon, Washington, DC) • US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) (Offut AFB, NE) o Strategic Communications Wing 1 (STRATCOMMWING 1) (TACAMO) (E-6B) (Tinker AFB, OK) o 20th Air Force / Task Force 214 (Francis E Warren AFB, WY) . 90th Space Wing (LGM-118A, LGM-30G, UH-1N) (Francis E Warren AFB, WY) . 91st Space Wing (LGM-30G, UH-1N) (Minot AFB, ND) . 341st Space Wing (LGM-30G, UH-1N) (Malmstrom AFB, MT) o Naval Submarine Forces (NAVSUBFOR) (NB Norfolk, VA) . Submarine Force Atlantic Fleet (SUBLANT) (NB Norfolk, VA) . Submarine Group 10 (SUBGRU 10) (NSB King's Bay, GA) . Submarine Squadron 16 (SUBRON 16) (NSB King's Bay, GA) . Submarine Squadron 20 (SUBRON 20) (NSB King's Bay, GA) . Submarine Force Pacific Fleet (SUBPAC) (NB Pearl Harbor, HI) . Submarine Group 9 (SUBGRU 9) (NSB Bangor, WA) . Submarine Squadron 17 (SUBRON 17) (NSB Bangor, WA) . Submarine Squadron 19 (SUBRON 19) (NSB Bangor, WA) o Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike and Integration (JFCC- GSI) / 8th Air Force (Barksdale AFB, LA) o Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense (JFCC- IMD) / U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Custos Borealis: the Military in the Canadian North / Ken Eyre; Edited and with a Foreword and Afterword by P
    CUSTOS BOREALIS The Military in the Canadian North, 1898-1975 Lackenbauer y P. Whitne y Kenneth C. Eyre Edited b CUSTOS BOREALIS © Kenneth C. Eyre and P. Whitney Lackenbauer, 2020 North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network c/o School for the Study of Canada Trent University Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8 All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored, or transmitted electronically, without prior written consent of the copyright holder or a copyright licensing agency. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION Custos Borealis: The Military in the Canadian North / Ken Eyre; edited and with a foreword and afterword by P. Whitney Lackenbauer (NAADSN Monograph Series, no. 1) Issued in electronic and print formats ISBN: 978-1-989811-01-6 (e-book) 978-1-989811-00-9 (print) 1. Canada—Military—History. 2. Canada—Arctic—History—20th century. 3. Canada—Northern Development—History. 4. Canada—Sovereignty— History. 5. Canada, Northern—History. I. Eyre, Ken, author II. Lackenbauer, P. Whitney, author, editor. III. Title: Custos Borealis: The Military in the Canadian North IV. Series: NAADSN Monograph Series; no.1 Designer: P. Whitney Lackenbauer Cover Design: P. Whitney Lackenbauer Distributed by the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (NAADSN) CUSTOS BOREALIS The Military in the Canadian North, 1898-1975 Kenneth C. Eyre Edited with an Introduction and Afterword by P. Whitney Lackenbauer Foreword by BGen Patrick Carpentier Monograph Series 2020 This book is dedicated to the men and women of the Canadian Forces who have served in the North, and to the Northerners who have supported them.
    [Show full text]