SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us
SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us
Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and Alternativestional crowding as new facilities are constructed. Despite these limiting factors, Fort Carson possessesenough infrastructure to support the garrison operations and Soldier and Family quality of life of the2/25 th in the near term and would be able to plan additional projects in the long term.Training Range and Training Support Infrastructure Construction: Fort Carson currently possessesa majority of the training ranges and facilities required to support the live-fire training activitiesof the 2/25 th SBCT. Fort Carson training infrastructure includes the full suite of training rangesrequired to maintain the training readiness standards of the 2/25 th with the exception of the BAX, theMPMG, and the UAC. These ranges and their training function were described previously in the ProposedAction.Under Alternative C, the construction of a BAX would not be possible. The BAX, which is 2.4 km by4 km in dimension has a large surface danger zone, which when used in conjunction with the 105-mmmain gun of the MGS, could not be sited on Fort Carson. In addition, it could not be sited on thePCMS because of a constraint to conducting live-fire operations caused by a natural gas pipeline thatbisects the maneuver area (Figure 2–15). The surface danger zone of the BAX range, which is thearea where possible expended rounds and UXO could fall, along with the range footprint itself cannotbe sited in a way that does not potentially jeopardize the natural gas pipeline and compromise the maneuveroperations required to support all of Fort Carson’s units.As discussed in TC 25-8 the SBCT requires a range capable of supporting CALFEX training and theintegrated combined arms training at higher echelons within the SBCT. A DMPRC can serve as an alternaterange to the BAX for the SBCT to meet CALFEX training requirements (Table 2–1). AlthoughFort Carson has a DMPRC, that can support the 2/25 th live-fire training requirements, this solutionis limited because the DMPRC would be heavily scheduled by the three HBCTs that would bestationed at Fort Carson as part of BRAC realignments. Range scheduling would need to be tightlymanaged to allow all units to meet all of their necessary training requirements, but even then, it wouldbe difficult for all units to meet their collective live-fire training requirements.To accommodate the SBCT training requirements of the 2/25 th , an MPMG and an UAC would needto be constructed. These training range projects would not be ready to support the requirements of theSBCT until 2012, at the earliest, and the SBCT would need to use outdated ranges as an interim solutionto qualify its Soldiers in machine gun proficiency. In addition, the 2/25 th would be required to usenon-standard urban operations facilities located at PCMS to train a limited range of urban non-livefiretasks until the UAC was completed. The MPMG would be planned for construction on top of anexisting, but outdated, machine gun range. The UAC, which is a 2- to 3-acre urban training complex,would be sited on previously undisturbed land that has been previously studied as part of range planningefforts and found to be compatible with UAC range activities. Figure 2–16 shows the locationswhere the MPMG and UAC ranges would be sited in support of the stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT.Live-Fire Training Activities: The 2/25 th would conduct semi-annual individual and crew servedweapons qualifications, in accordance with Army policy for maintaining trained and ready units.Crews, squads, and platoons would also conduct collective training qualifications at least once everysix months. Almost all of these live-fire training activities would take place on Fort Carson’s trainingrange complexes. In addition to weapons qualifications, larger units at the company and battalionlevel would also conduct combined arms live-fire training to ensure proper integration and synchronizationof its different types of units in combat scenarios. As part of this alternative, the 2/25 th wouldconduct company and battalion CALFEXs at the DMPRC located at Fort Carson.The 4,105 Soldiers of the SBCT would require approximately 13 million blank and live-trainingrounds of ammunition and explosives to meet live-fire training requirements fully. The 4/4 th IBCT requiresapproximately 6.9 million munitions to execute its current training strategies. This representsFebruary 2008 2–43 2/25th SBCT Final EIS
Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and Alternativesan 88 percent increase over the IBCT in the number of ammunition rounds required for annual qualification.These rounds would be fired on approved training ranges in accordance with Army and FortCarson safety policies and procedures. A vast majority of this increase is needed for the SBCT’s increasednumbers Soldiers to qualify on small arms and crew-served weapons systems. In addition tosmall arms training, the SBCT would conduct 105-mm MGS qualification on Fort Carson’s MPTRand DMPRC. Indirect fire training on Fort Carson’s mortar range and into its impact areas would increasewhen compared to the IBCT.Figure 2–15 Siting Constraints of the Battle Area Complex at PCMS and its ProjectileSurface Danger ZoneThe overall increase in munitions and live-fire training activities would increase minimally when analyzingthe total training requirements of Fort Carson, however. Given the similar training requirementsand larger caliber and more frequent munitions firing activities of the three HBCTs that wouldbe stationed at Fort Carson, the increase in SBCT firing activities compared with the IBCTs wouldpresent negligible differences in their overall effects. Table 2–2 shows the differences in annual ammunitionauthorizations between the 2/25 th SBCT and the 4/4 th .February 2008 2–44 2/25th SBCT Final EIS
- Page 47 and 48: Chapter 1 ⎯ Purpose and NeedAt th
- Page 49 and 50: Chapter 1 ⎯ Purpose and Needclose
- Page 51 and 52: Chapter 1 ⎯ Purpose and Needpermi
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter 1 ⎯ Purpose and Need• E
- Page 55 and 56: Chapter 1 ⎯ Purpose and NeedThe r
- Page 57 and 58: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 59 and 60: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 61 and 62: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 63 and 64: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 65 and 66: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 67 and 68: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 69 and 70: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 71 and 72: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 73 and 74: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 75 and 76: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 77 and 78: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 81 and 82: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 83 and 84: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 85 and 86: !!( 3 !( 1 !( 1!(UAC!(AnchorageMPMG
- Page 87 and 88: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 89 and 90: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 91 and 92: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 93 and 94: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 95 and 96: ModelRes.OTERO CO.LAS ANIMAS CO.£
- Page 97: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 101 and 102: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 103 and 104: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 105 and 106: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 107 and 108: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 109 and 110: Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Pr
- Page 111 and 112: CHAPTER 3AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTThis c
- Page 113 and 114: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentE
- Page 115 and 116: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environments
- Page 117 and 118: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentM
- Page 119 and 120: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 121 and 122: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentR
- Page 123 and 124: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment8
- Page 125 and 126: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 127 and 128: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment1
- Page 129 and 130: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentm
- Page 131 and 132: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentS
- Page 133 and 134: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentt
- Page 135 and 136: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 137 and 138: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentL
- Page 139 and 140: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environments
- Page 141 and 142: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 143 and 144: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentF
- Page 145 and 146: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmenth
- Page 147 and 148: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment3
Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and Alternativestional crowding as new facilities are constructed. Despite these limiting factors, Fort Carson possessesenough infrastructure to support the garrison operations and Soldier and Family quality of life of the2/25 th in the near term and would be able to plan additional projects in the long term.Training Range and Training Support Infrastructure Construction: Fort Carson currently possessesa majority of the training ranges and facilities required to support the live-fire training activitiesof the 2/25 th <strong>SBCT</strong>. Fort Carson training infrastructure includes the full suite of training rangesrequired to maintain the training readiness standards of the 2/25 th with the exception of the BAX, theMPMG, and the UAC. These ranges and their training function were described previo<strong>us</strong>ly in the ProposedAction.Under Alternative C, the construction of a BAX would not be possible. The BAX, which is 2.4 km by4 km in dimension has a large surface danger zone, which when <strong>us</strong>ed in conjunction with the 105-mmmain gun of the MGS, could not be sited on Fort Carson. In addition, it could not be sited on thePCMS beca<strong>us</strong>e of a constraint to conducting live-fire operations ca<strong>us</strong>ed by a natural gas pipeline thatbisects the maneuver area (Figure 2–15). The surface danger zone of the BAX range, which is thearea where possible expended rounds and UXO could fall, along with the range footprint itself cannotbe sited in a way that does not potentially jeopardize the natural gas pipeline and compromise the maneuveroperations required to support all of Fort Carson’s units.As disc<strong>us</strong>sed in TC 25-8 the <strong>SBCT</strong> requires a range capable of supporting CALFEX training and theintegrated combined arms training at higher echelons within the <strong>SBCT</strong>. A DMPRC can serve as an alternaterange to the BAX for the <strong>SBCT</strong> to meet CALFEX training requirements (Table 2–1). AlthoughFort Carson has a DMPRC, that can support the 2/25 th live-fire training requirements, this solutionis limited beca<strong>us</strong>e the DMPRC would be heavily scheduled by the three HBCTs that would bestationed at Fort Carson as part of BRAC realignments. Range scheduling would need to be tightlymanaged to allow all units to meet all of their necessary training requirements, but even then, it wouldbe difficult for all units to meet their collective live-fire training requirements.To accommodate the <strong>SBCT</strong> training requirements of the 2/25 th , an MPMG and an UAC would needto be constructed. These training range projects would not be ready to support the requirements of the<strong>SBCT</strong> until 2012, at the earliest, and the <strong>SBCT</strong> would need to <strong>us</strong>e outdated ranges as an interim solutionto qualify its Soldiers in machine gun proficiency. In addition, the 2/25 th would be required to <strong>us</strong>enon-standard urban operations facilities located at PCMS to train a limited range of urban non-livefiretasks until the UAC was completed. The MPMG would be planned for construction on top of anexisting, but outdated, machine gun range. The UAC, which is a 2- to 3-acre urban training complex,would be sited on previo<strong>us</strong>ly undisturbed land that has been previo<strong>us</strong>ly studied as part of range planningefforts and found to be compatible with UAC range activities. Figure 2–16 shows the locationswhere the MPMG and UAC ranges would be sited in support of the stationing of the 2/25 th <strong>SBCT</strong>.Live-Fire Training Activities: The 2/25 th would conduct semi-annual individual and crew servedweapons qualifications, in accordance with Army policy for maintaining trained and ready units.Crews, squads, and platoons would also conduct collective training qualifications at least once everysix months. Almost all of these live-fire training activities would take place on Fort Carson’s trainingrange complexes. In addition to weapons qualifications, larger units at the company and battalionlevel would also conduct combined arms live-fire training to ensure proper integration and synchronizationof its different types of units in combat scenarios. As part of this alternative, the 2/25 th wouldconduct company and battalion CALFEXs at the DMPRC located at Fort Carson.The 4,105 Soldiers of the <strong>SBCT</strong> would require approximately 13 million blank and live-trainingrounds of ammunition and explosives to meet live-fire training requirements fully. The 4/4 th IBCT requiresapproximately 6.9 million munitions to execute its current training strategies. This representsFebruary 2008 2–43 2/25th <strong>SBCT</strong> <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIS</strong>