Renewal of the Barry M. Goldwater Range Land Withdrawal Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) Frequently Referenced Information LEIS Purpose LEIS Contents This draft LEIS addresses the proposed renewal • Executive Summary —provides a concise of the military land withdrawal and reservation synopsis of the LEIS analysis and for the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). conclusions. Renewal of the land withdrawal is required by the Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1986 • Chapter 1—describes the purpose of and (Public Law 99-606) if the military proposes to need for the renewal of the land withdrawal continue military use of the lands after as well as other introductory background 6 November 2001. information. The purpose of and need for renewing the • Chapter 2—describes the proposed action, BMGR land withdrawal is to preserve a alternatives, and sub-alternatives (or component of the national defense training base scenarios). for the continued and future readiness of America’s air forces to defend the security of the • Chapter 3—describes the baseline nation and its interests. environment that may be affected by the alternatives. Lead Agency and Cooperating Agencies • Chapter 4— reports the projected The lead agency is the Department of the Air environmental consequences for the Force. Cooperating agencies are the Department proposed action, alternative action, and no- of the Navy, Bureau of Land Management, and action alternative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • Chapter 5—reports the probable environmental consequences of each of the Frequently Referenced Figures and Tables renewal sub-alternatives for military administration, withdrawal land area, and Figure Figure Title Page administration of natural and cultural 1-2 BMGR Airspace Structure and 1-17 resources. Range Facilities 1-3 Military Air Bases, Airspace, and 1-23 • Chapter 6—addresses the possible Ranges in the BMGR Region cumulative effects (additive or interactive) 2-1 Existing Military Land Use on 2-7 that would result from the incremental the BMGR impact of the proposed action when added to 2-2 Existing BMGR Airspace and 2-33 other past, present, and reasonably Land Administration foreseeable future actions. 3-8 Special Resource Recreation, 3-40 Conservation, and Protection • Appendices—provide other background Areas Within the BMGR information and supporting data. 3-19 Military Operations Areas, 3-90 Special Land Management Areas, and Access Restrictions Table Table Title Page 2-1 Existing BMGR Land and 2-34 Airspace Administrative Sections 3-6 Military Surface Uses Within the 3-29 BMGR Grouped by Associated Levels of Surface Disturbance BMGR Renewal Draft LEIS 1.1 Introduction September 1998 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED useless in the FOR ACTION face of educated bullets. Training is everything to us. General George If we can train to the point S. Patton, Jr., where we know our aircraft, Cavalry Journal. our weapons, and our tactics April 1922 (in inside-out, then we can beat Tsouras 1992). anybody. But we have to be able to train in the aircraft in [The fact that an environment that is as U.S. ground realistic as possible. We have troops have to be able to train the way we not been expect to fight. Otherwise, we attacked by will fail in combat. It’s just enemy aircraft that simple. in more than Capt. Tom 45 years]…did Abbot, U.S. Air not happen Force, F-16 pilot just by luck and Persian Gulf General Ronald War Veteran, R. Fogleman, interview in 1997, Air Force Training Chief of Staff. America’s 1994-1997, in Air Airpower. The Force Magazine Barry M. (1997b). Goldwater Range at the Forefront 1996. Video Train like you produced by 56th will fight, fight Fighter Wing like you (FW), Luke Air trained. Force Base Warrior’s maxim. (AFB). Untutored 1.1 INTRODUCTION courage is The United States Congress faces a decision that will affect the ability of the U.S. Air Force and the other armed services to train military aircrews1 how to fly, fight, and survive in combat. The 1 Aircrew refers to the crew members that operate an aircraft or its various systems. Single seat fighter or attack aircraft, such as the F-16C or A-10, have one crew member Χthe pilot. Twin seat fighter or attack aircraft Χsuch as the F-14, F-15E, or AH-64 (an attack helicopter) Χcarry a weapons system officer in addition to the pilot. Transport aircraft Χsuch as the C-130, CH-53 (a helicopter), or UH-60 (a helicopter) Χare operated by a pilot, copilot navigator, load master, and other types of crew members. All aircrew members participate in training operations. 1-2 F:\BMGR Draft LEIS\LEIS Text\inside_cover.doc BMGR Renewal LEIS 1.2 Preserving the Training Base September 1998 pending congressional decisions are whether or not to reauthorize any or all of six military reservations authorized by the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Public Law [P.L.] 99- 606). To quote P.L. 99-606, two of the affected reservations 2—the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range (BMGR) in Arizona and Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) in Nevada—are: “…reserved for use by the Secretary of the Air Force for Χ (A) an armament and high-hazard testing area; (B) training for aerial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare, and tactical maneuvering and air support; and (C) subject to the requirements of Section 3(f), other defense-related purposes consistent with the purposes specified in this paragraph.” As specified in P.L. 99-606, authority for each of the six military reservations will expire on 6 November 2001 unless Congress acts to renew the land withdrawal applicable to each reservation. P.L. 99-606 also directs that the secretary of the military department concerned shall publish a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) by 6 November 1998 addressing the proposed renewal of any portion of any of the military reservations authorized by that act for which there is a continuing military need beyond 6 November 2001. The NAFR and BMGR together represent more than 60 percent of the total range land area assigned to the Air Force. These ranges are essential to the continuing ability of the Air Force to meet its national defense responsibilities. The Air Force has stated that there is a continuing need for both of these ranges and is publishing a separate draft legislative EIS (LEIS) for the proposed renewal of each range. This draft LEIS is being submitted to Congress and is available for public review. An LEIS has been prepared (rather than an EIS) because Congress will decide which alternative will be implemented and will enact new legislation if that decision is to renew the BMGR. This draft LEIS addresses the proposed renewal of the BMGR, which is administered by the U.S. Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, through the 56th FW, 56th Range Management Office at Luke AFB, Arizona. The NAFR is administered by the U.S. Air Force, Air Combat Command, though the Air Warfare Center, 99th Air Base Wing, 99th Range Group, and 99th Range Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This chapter addresses the purpose of and need for renewing the land withdrawal and reservation. 1.2 PRESERVING THE TRAINING BASE As the twentieth century draws to a close, the United States has emerged as the world’s preeminent military power. This strength is the result of many factors; some have been fortuitous, but without a doubt the ascendancy of American military power “did not happen just 2 The other four reservations include (1) the Bravo-20 Bombing Range in Nevada reserved for use by the Secretary of the Navy and (2) the McGregor Range in New Mexico, (3) the Fort Greely Maneuver Area/Fort Greely Air Drop Area in Alaska, and (4) the Fort Wainwright Maneuver Area, also in Alaska, reserved for use by the Secretary of the Army. 1-3 F:\BMGR Draft LEIS\LEIS Text\inside_cover.doc BMGR Renewal LEIS 1.2 Preserving the Training Base September 1998 by luck” (to quote General Fogleman). Among the many contributing issues, three stand out: (1) the American military attracts quality people with an earnest commitment to service; (2) the nation has worked diligently to keep its warfighting arms technologically competitive if not superior, and (3) the U.S. military has a clear focus on the indispensable importance of training for maintaining a strong and capable force that is well prepared to respond to the nation’s defense needs. The United States ended its military draft at the close of the Vietnam War and converted to an all volunteer military force. The success of the voluntary service in attracting well-qualified men and women in sufficient numbers to field the world’s best armed forces has been well publicized. Also widely circulated are accolades about the prowess of American weapons. Far less known publicly, but well regarded among military professionals world-wide, is the emphasis that the American military places on high-quality, thorough training. Training quality has been the difference between victory and defeat countless times throughout the history of warfare. Surprisingly often, a force with superior numbers and equipment has fallen to a smaller force that had inferior weapons but was better trained for the battle at hand. Nowhere is the critical importance of training more evident than in aerial warfare. Combat in aircraft that can aggressively maneuver to destroy other aircraft, attack an enemy on the ground or at sea, ferry troops or supplies in and out of forward battle areas, or perform reconnaissance of an enemy’s position and strength is a phenomenon born of this century. By the very nature of aircraft and flying alone, it is among the most technologically advanced and tactically challenging forms of warfare.