APPENDIX A TANK AND BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE GUNNERY TABLES GUNNERY TABLES Abrams M1A1 Tank Systems gunnery exercises consist of the following tank tables and in the following sequence: • Table I – Basic Gunnery Skills (Individual) o Trains the soldier in basic gunnery skills to include target acquisition, target designation, gun laying, manipulation, and direct-fire adjustment. • Table II – Basic Gunnery Skills (Individual/Crew) o Trains the individual soldier and crew to engage stationary and moving targets, placed in tactical arrays, from a stationary tank. • Table III – Basic Training Course (Crew) o Tasks the crew to refine skills developed in Tables I and II and introduces offensive engagements and Nuclear-Biological-Chemical (NBC) conditions. A minimum of one day and one night engagement will be fired in an NBC environment. • Table IV – Tank Crew Proficiency Course (Crew) o This is the basic qualification table for tanks crews and is designed to evaluate the tank crew’s ability to engage stationary and moving targets placed in tactical arrays, from a stationary and moving tank. • Table V – Preliminary Machine Gun Training (Crew) o Trains the tank crew to engage stationary and moving targets, placed in tactical arrays, from a stationary and moving tank with tank-mounted automatic weapons. One day and one night engagement will be fired in an NBC environment. • Table VI – Preliminary Main Gun Training (Crew) o Consists of eight tasks designed to train the tank crew to engage stationary and moving targets using either precision or degraded-mode gunnery techniques from a stationary or moving tank; this is the first table where main gun firing occurs. • Table VII – Intermediate Training Course (Crew) o Trains the tank crew to engage moving and stationary, air and ground targets with tank-mounted weapons; consists of six day and three night tasks with single, multiple, or multiple-weapon system engagements (to include main gun or machine gun); one day engagement will be fired with protective masks and over-pressurization. • Table VIII – Intermediate Qualification Course (Crew) o This is the individual crew qualification table testing the skills learned in the previous tables; consists of five day and five night firing tasks; one of the day and one of the night engagements will be in an NBC environment. • Table XI – Advanced Training Course (Platoon) o Trains the platoon to control and distribute platoon direct fire to destroy enemy targets in a tactical scenario; table is fired using gunnery training devices or dry against full-scale targets; constitutes the “dry run” prior to attempting Table XII tasks. • Table XII – Advanced Qualification Course (Platoon). o This is the platoon qualification course and requires the platoon leader to integrate fire and maneuver while testing the platoon’s ability to engage moving and stationary, air and ground targets with all tank-mounted weapons during daylight and periods of limited visibility (such as night); requires the platoon to fire a scenario linking day and night phases; table is fired live (full caliber) (FM 17-12-1-2). Bradley Master Gunner exercises consist of the following tank tables and in the following sequence: • Table I – Bradley Crew Defense (Crew) o This table trains crews to engage targets with training devices and introduces them to training in a gunnery environment; consists of 10 day and 10 night engagements. • Table II – Bradley Crew Proficiency Course (Crew) o This table introduces the crew to moving BFV engagements and develops the driving skills of the driver while the crew engages moving and stationary targets from a moving and stationary BFV; consists of six day and six night engagements. • Table III – Bradley Squad/Section Exercise (Squad) o This table integrates the dismounted squad with their vehicle section while conducting squad collective tasks; consists of mounted, dismounted, and crew drills. • Table IV – Bradley Platoon Proficiency Course (Crew) o This table integrates the mounted and dismounted elements of the platoon while conducting platoon collective tasks; consists of mounted and dismounted attack and defend scenarios. • Table V – Crew Practice 1 (Crew) o This table introduces the crew to a live-fire gunnery environment utilizing the 7.62mm coax machine gun against stationary and moving targets; consist of five day and five night engagements. • Table VI – Crew Practice 2 (Crew) o This table is the first to require the crew to fire with full-caliber ammunition using the 25mm gun and the 7.62mm coax burst techniques against moving and stationary targets and against point and area targets; consists of four day and three night engagements. • Table VII – Crew Practice 3 (Crew) o This table is the first to require the crew to conduct offensive engagements with full-caliber ammunition at combat ranges to engage moving and stationary targets during day and night from a stationary and moving BFV; consist of four day and four night engagements. • Table VIII – Crew Qualification (Crew) o This is a single-vehicle qualification table that evaluates the crew’s ability to acquire and engage targets during various firing conditions; consists of five day and five night engagements. • Table IX – Scout Team Training (Scout Team) o This trains and evaluates scout team tactical and gunnery skills on stationary and moving targets; may be conducted using either live-fire or laser-fire; team training table must contain, at a minimum, the nine combat critical tasks, three commander-selected tactical tasks, and the required percentage of gunnery tasks; consists of four day and three night tasks, including at least one NBC and auxiliary sight engagement. • Table X – Scout Team Qualification (Scout Team) o This evaluates the scout team’s tactical and gunnery proficiency in a realistic tactical and live-fire scenario; consists of eight day and two night tasks/engagements, including at least one NBC and auxiliary sight engagement. • Table XI – Bradley Platoon Practice (Platoon) o This table prepares the platoon for qualification and is the first time that BFV and dismounted infantry conduct live-fire at the platoon level; platoon gunnery consists overall of one day and one night engagement; a minimum of two NBC engagements are conducted by both the BFV and the dismounted infantry, with one occurring during the day and one occurring at night. • Table XII –Qualification (Platoon) o This evaluates the platoon’s ability to execute collective tasks in a tactical live-fire environment; mounted and dismounted infantry are integrated and evaluated on their ability to fight as a cohesive BFV platoon; consists of an evaluation of tasks learned during Table XI (FM 23-1). APPENDIX B PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE FORT BENNING DMPRC Digital Multi-Purpose Range Complex Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan Revised on 26 August 2003 1. PURPOSE. 1.1 Need for Project. Fort Benning proposes to construct and operate a Digital Multipurpose Range Complex (DMPRC) to enhance realistic training required to prepare Soldiers for their missions. Specifically the current range used to train Bradley Fighting Vehicle crews and Abrams tank crews for gunnery training falls short of the standard called “Table XII.” The training capability on the current range (Hastings Range) is limited by several factors including range configuration, and antiquated targetry and equipment. A DMPRC at Fort Benning would support Army Transformation by providing a state-of-the-art range for the legacy forces for decades. 1.2 Need for Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan. Construction and operation of a DMPRC at Fort Benning involves legally mandated public comment and document review periods, as well as an opportunity to distribute positive news about Fort Benning and the proposed DMPRC while proactively identifying and addressing related community concerns. In addition to the general public, stakeholders must be identified and invited to participate, as well as regulator involvement, as appropriate. This Plan presents a comprehensive means of satisfying legal requirements while enhancing community knowledge and participation in the planning for the proposed DMPRC at Fort Benning. Throughout this Plan, “public” is used to broadly describe individuals that are in communities near the project proposal area or that may be interested or affected by the DMPRC action. “Stakeholder” is used to identify those entities that have an additional relationship to Fort Benning environmental resources or regulatory ore governmental duties. Stakeholders include Federally recognized American Indian Tribes affiliated with the Fort Benning area (Tribes); Federal, state and local governmental agencies with regulatory authority over Fort Benning (e.g. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Georgia Environmental Protection Division); special interest groups with a charter involving environmental or military matters, and others. 1.2.1 Public involvement required by environmental laws and regulations. 1.2.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The primary law that drives public involvement is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires Federal agencies, such as the Army at Fort Benning, to prepare an environmental analysis of the proposed action and alternatives. Potential environmental impacts, both direct and indirect, are identified for the proposal and each alternative, and possible mitigation for any negative impacts is presented. Also, cumulative impacts (i.e. incremental impacts when considering other projects or actions in a region of affect) are identified as well as any resultant mitigation. Differing levels of NEPA analysis are available, however the proposed DMPRC is a significant Federal action that has the 2 potential to impact the environment, so Fort Benning is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS). An EIS is a comprehensive document that generally follows a specific format that can appear daunting to those other than environmental planning professions. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) has NEPA oversight for the Federal government and has published regulations and guidance for preparation of an EIS. The Army supplements NEPA and the CEQ directions with an Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions (AR 200-2), current version effective 29 March 2002. AR 200-2 provides guidelines for the contents of an EIS and the processes required for full environmental analysis with participation by public, stakeholders, and regulators. This Plan will not restate the provisions of AR 200-2, so attention to the specific requirements provided therein is required to fully comply with AR 200-2 and the Army’s guidance on public and stakeholder participation and scoping. NEPA requires several opportunities for public participation, often called public scoping, during preparation of and EIS. Public interaction is based on two-way communication that reflect the needs of the community, utilizing such methods as notices, brochures, news releases, web page information, summaries, draft documents, public meetings, comments and other methods. Fort Benning should update the community at least at each significant phase or milestone of environmental planning. This Plan will address the optimal means of meeting the NEPA requirements at each stage. More details regarding the requirements for notices, documents reviews and comment periods are provided below. 1.2.1.2. Other Laws and Regulations. There are a range of other laws and regulations that require public notices and participation during the planning phases of a Federal project, and some are relevant to the proposed DMPRC. Although NEPA may address some of the topics and issues in the EIS, Fort Benning must still satisfy the requirements of these other laws and regulations. Additional requirements for public or stakeholder involvement include laws, regulations or executive orders addressing: historic properties or cultural resources; permits for wetland disturbance; and others. Often additional planning documents will be required and available for public review and comment. 1.2.1.3. Integration of Information. Fort Benning will use information sharing, referencing, and other means to maximize the efficiency and affect of public and stakeholder involvement in the environmental planning process. Because NEPA is an umbrella-type process and produces a comprehensive document, other public participation requirements will be woven into the existing framework for the NEPA public involvement. When the Environmental Impact Computer System (ECIS) is established in approximately fiscal year (FY) 2004, i.e. the Fall of calendar year 2003, as indicated by AR 200-2, then Fort Benning will utilize the ECIS. 1.2.2. Proactive Information Opportunity. AR 200-2 encourages continuous, two-way communication to enhance public and stakeholder participation. Fort Benning should take this 3 opportunity to educate the public about Fort Benning’s mission, environmental stewardship, the proposed DMPRC, and mitigation important to the community. Various methods of communication with the public or more focused audiences are available, such as: mailings in the form of letters, brochures, information packets; electronic communications by emailing or website information; telephone calls and information lines; articles for Post and local newspapers; information presented via radio or television broadcasts; open houses or site visits; and meetings on an individual, small group or large group format. Normally, using a few communication devices that are focused and meet the communities needs will be most effective. This Plan will introduce opportunities to inform the public at various phases or milestone events. 1.2.3. Goals of Plan. Fort Benning is committed to meet the legal requirements and also take measures for more meaningful communication and involvement of the public and stakeholders in our planning of the proposed DMPRC. Limitations in resources, personnel and time impose constraints that necessitate an efficient and realistic Plan. This Plan must assist DMPRC planners and be realistic for implementation. Goals for this Plan include: i. Promote an understanding of public and stakeholder involvement requirements and opportunities for better resourcing and scheduling; ii. Specify steps needed to meet legal responsibilities for comment opportunities of public members and stakeholders; iii. List realistic time frames and responsible persons or offices for each step; iv. Coordinate activities to maximize the quality of the information, ensure the information relates to planning actions in process, and incorporate any resultant feedback into future participation or planning processes; v. Incorporate opportunities to present information to better partner with the community; and vi. Keep PAOs informed at all levels. 2. PLAN STRUCTURE. This Plan is presented chronologically, providing the anticipated steps, time frames and actions. Although this Plan is meant to serve as a foundation for public and stakeholder involvement, it will probably have to be adjusted to accommodate changes. Items in this Plan should be evaluated for suitability before engaging in the recommended actions. AR 200-2 divides the scoping process into three phases for simplification: the preliminary Phase, the Public Interaction Phase, and the Final Phase. Although the majority of public and stakeholder involvement is conducted in the Public Interaction Phase, the other two stages encompass important steps to prepare for and respond to public and stakeholder involvement. This Plan will use the three phases to organize this Plan, although the phases often overlap. 3. PRELIMINARY PHASE. 3.1. Initial Internal Scoping. This is an internal Fort Benning action that is normally very informal and may result in limited amounts of documentation. Often proponents of the proposal start this internal scoping as a natural part of planning for the proposal, rather than as a conscious 4 effort to conduct internal scoping. Internal scoping is a process of identifying project requirements, initial environmental concerns, and possibly explore options to address those concerns. Internal scoping is important because it commences the environmental analysis; however internal scoping obviously is only a precursor to public and stakeholder involvement. It is important for the proponent and all those working with the proponent to keep in mind that the decisions regarding the project are not final and are just proposals. Until the process of environmental analysis and documenting a decision is complete, the proponent should be open to modifying the project, especially to reduce environmental impacts or to incorporate comments or mitigation. 3.1.1. Identify Proponent. Initially, the proponent(s) of the proposal is identified. There is often a misunderstanding that the environmental office is the proponent because environmental analysis is involved; however that is not the case. The environmental office assists the proponent in meeting the proponent’s environmental responsibilities, but the Environmental Management Division (EMD) of Fort Benning does not get funding, personnel or resources to complete the environmental planning and documentation. Instead those are normally the proponent’s responsibility. Usually the proponent is the person or activity that has initiated the action, has initiated a funding request, and makes the important decisions or recommendations regarding the project. For the DMPRC proposal, the proponent has been identified as the Directorate of Training (DOT), Fort Benning; however, the Directorate of Facilities Engineering and Logistics (DFEL) plays a vital role for Military Construction Activity (MCA) projects. In DFEL the Real Property Master Planner and the DMPRC Environmental Project Manager will work closely with DOT and range planners and users. As the project planning progresses, other units or activities may be added to the list of proponents, but currently they should be considered stakeholders, affected or interested parties, or beneficiaries of the project. This is often a good time to identify who will be the point of contact (POC) for the proponent for routine matters. The Range Division Chief and Range Manager have been designated as the DOT POCs for the DMPRC proposal. 3.1.2. Coordinate with Environmental Planners. For actions that could have, i.e. the potential to have, a negative impact or a substantial positive impact on the environment, the proponent is required to coordinate with EMD. Early coordination is required for large or complex projects. Failure to coordinate early can lead to several problems, including failure to maintain a proper NEPA record, delay in project execution, extra expense from redesigns and incorporation of mitigation, plus other problems. Normally the proponent initiates coordination by submitting a completed Fort Benning Form 144R to EMD to determine what level of NEPA analysis is required; however the NEPA documentation for some proposals obviously requires more complex NEPA analysis and the internal scoping can begin with a kick-off meeting or other ways. Identifying the POC for the environmental office is also beneficial at this point. For the DMPRC project, the main POC is the DMPRC Environmental Project Manager. The DMPRC internal scoping commenced in 1999 in conjunction with the DOT and the Fort Benning command submitting a request for Major Construction Activity (MCA) funding for construction of the DMPRC. Obtaining funding is often a long process and often is started before intense interaction with the environmental office because at this stage very little information about the project is available and funding may never be obtained. Normally after 5 funding is reasonably certain, the proponent begins working in earnest on project design and environmental concerns. With indications that the DMPRC project was high on the list of possible projects for approval, DOT coordinated with EMD in 1999 to begin a draft Environmental Assessment. DOT and EMD initially explored possible construction locations for the DMPRC and the obvious environmental concerns. Further data gathering and analysis will be necessary during the NEPA process, but several locations were considered for feasibility based upon mission requirements and estimates of environmental impacts. The draft EA was never finalized because Fort Benning determined an EIS was required; therefore the EIS will incorporate the draft EA scoping only to the extent of the preliminary phase because the draft EA was not presented for public review and comment. One site analyzed in the draft EA was found to best meet mission requirements and minimize environmental impacts, and that site has been considered Fort Benning’s preferred site- Alternative III. A secondary site was also carried forward as an action alternative for EIS – Alternative II. Another alternative that arose as a result of internal scoping was the use of existing ranges at Fort Stewart, GA. Because Fort Stewart has a role in a couple of the currently proposed DMPRC alternatives and was analyzed as a potential alternative in its own right, coordination with Fort Stewart staff was initiated. During the processes outlined in this Plan, Fort Benning worked with Fort Stewart personnel to incorporate that community into the DMPRC public and stakeholder scoping process. This involved inclusion of Fort Stewart area affected or interested persons, information and document distribution, and possibly public meetings. Ongoing analysis of the use of existing Fort Stewart ranges as an alternative, however, determined it to be non-viable and it was eliminated from further in-depth evaluation in the DEIS. Specifically, the cost to transport all required troops and equipment (to include tanks and/or BFVs) would be prohibitive; and, although sufficient range space exists on Fort Stewart to accommodate advanced gunnery training, the time to get on the queue for this training is approximately two years, which is an unrealistic lead time for scheduling training. This alternative may be evaluated later throughout the ongoing NEPA process for this project, should more interest develop as a result of subsequent scoping meetings and public input and/or following the review of the DEIS 3.1.3. Document internal scoping efforts. NEPA compliance involves keeping records of alternatives explored, issues brought up, personnel involved, and other aspects of the internal scoping process. Preparing meeting minutes or notes or other evidence of internal scoping is helpful not only for maintaining an administrative file, but also to later recall information for environmental document preparation. Options that may have been considered informally in the internal scoping process may be a basis for an alternative to study formally in the EIS. This internal scoping does not substitute for public scoping, but it is a necessary precursor. 3.1.4. Coordinate with Public Affairs Officers (PAO). The Environmental Project Coordinator as well as EMD and DFEL will keep the Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) at Fort Benning informed regarding environmental planning and scoping for the DMPRC. The Fort Benning PAO will in turn keep the appropriate TRADOC and DA PAOs, including Fort Stewart PAO, informed through routine communication and copies of news releases and other informative documents. 3.1.5. Tentative List of Affected and Interested Parties (Mailing List). EMD maintains 6