The proposed modernization of the Fallon Ranges would address the gaps between current training capabilities and current and future training requirements. Modernization would provide the land and airspace necessary to train to tactically acceptable parameters in accordance with the Navy mission.
The Navy’s Proposed Action is to modernize the Fallon Range Training Complex. Modernization would include:
Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the Navy would use the modernized FRTC to conduct aviation and ground training of the same general types and at the same tempo as currently authorized. The Navy is not proposing to increase the number of training activities under any of the alternatives. Rather, the Navy would redistribute training activities across the expanded ranges for more efficient use of training space.
The Fallon Range Training Complex has remained relatively static, while naval aviation, aircraft capabilities, and weapons have significantly improved. Today’s technology has outpaced the current capabilities of the Fallon Ranges. The training ranges must be able to support how the Navy fights today so personnel are prepared for the conflicts of tomorrow.
The Fallon Range Training Complex has remained relatively static, while naval aviation, aircraft capabilities, and weapons have significantly improved.
Today’s technology has outpaced the current capabilities of the Fallon Ranges. The training ranges must be able to support how the Navy fights today so personnel are prepared for the conflicts of tomorrow.
Under Alternative 1, the Fallon Ranges would be expanded, except for B-19 and the Shoal Site. Specifically, under Alternative 1, the Navy would:
Alternative 1 includes the extension of B-17 over a portion of State Route 839 and part of the Paiute Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline. Implementation of Alternative 1 would require the rerouting of State Route 839 and the relocation of a portion of the Paiute Pipeline because Navy policy does not allow public land use of any kind to occur within active weapons danger zones. Follow-on, site-specific environmental analysis of the anticipated impacts associated with any potential route(s) would be required.
Except for a slight expansion beyond the current northern boundary, airspace modifications would be within existing range complex boundaries. Modifications would consist of reorganizing airspace blocks, redefining airspace ceilings and floors, and establishing new airspace. The objective of these changes is to use airspace more efficiently during large-force exercises while providing civilian aviators the maximum access possible, and maintaining priority for emergency flights through the airspace. Special use airspace would be reconfigured horizontally and would increase vertical tactical airspace by 22 percent. (For more information about proposed airspace modifications under Alternative 1, please see Final EIS Chapter 2, Section 2.3.4.7.)
Currently, the following activities are allowed on public lands requested for withdrawal:
Under Alternative 1, the Navy would limit public activity on the Bravo ranges on withdrawn or acquired lands. Public access to B-16, B-17, B-19, and B-20 would be restricted for security and to safeguard against potential hazards associated with military activities. Public access to the Dixie Valley Training Area would continue to be allowed for certain uses.
The Navy considered public comments and worked with cooperating agencies and tribal participants to develop Alternatives 2 and 3, which allow more public access than Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 2, the Navy would expand the Fallon Ranges and airspace to the same extent as described in Alternative 1 and continue to allow certain public uses within specified areas of the Fallon Ranges when they are not operational, notably:
Allowing such public access would be more complex and challenging for the Navy. However, Alternative 2 would still meet the Navy’s purpose and need to ensure the Fallon Ranges possess the present and future capabilities necessary to train deploying forces for combat.
The Navy’s Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3 because it best meets the purpose of and need for modernization while minimizing impacts on public land access and use. The Navy received public comments requesting the size of the withdrawal and acquisition be reduced as much as possible. Alternative 3 reflects the reduced the size of the proposal.
The Navy’s Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3 because it best meets the purpose of and need for modernization while minimizing impacts on public land access and use.
The Navy received public comments requesting the size of the withdrawal and acquisition be reduced as much as possible. Alternative 3 reflects the reduced the size of the proposal.
Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) is similar to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in terms of its requested land withdrawals and proposed acquisitions, except with respect to the orientation, size, and location of B-16, B-17, B-20, and the DVTA, and is similar to Alternative 2 in terms of managed access. With respect to B-16, unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, Simpson Road and the lands south of it would not be withdrawn. Additionally, currently withdrawn lands south of Simpson Road would be relinquished by the Navy back to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Alternative 3 would move B-17 farther to the southeast and rotate it slightly counterclockwise, retaining access to Rawhide Mine, entirely avoiding Fairview Peak, and retaining access to Sand Springs Range. Under Alternative 3, the Navy would not withdraw East County Road or the land east of it for B-20.
Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS, the Navy received public comments requesting that the size of the withdrawal and acquisition be reduced as much as possible. The Navy has reduced the size of the withdrawal from the proposal in the Draft EIS. The Navy would continue to evaluate range usage in order to determine if further reductions in acreage could be realized.
Under Alternative 3, the land requested for withdrawal for the DVTA north of U.S. Route 50 would remain the same as in Alternative 1. Unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, the Navy would not withdraw land south of U.S. Route 50 as DVTA. Rather, the Navy proposes Congress categorize this area as a Special Land Management Overlay created through legislation. This Special Land Management Overlay would define two areas (one east and one west of the B-17 range) as “military electromagnetic spectrum special use zones.” These two areas would be public lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM and would not be withdrawn by the Navy for land-based military training. The zones would remain open to public access and available for all BLM-allowable uses (e.g., grazing, hunting, recreation) and mining. However, prior to issuing any decisions on projects, permits, leases, studies, and other land uses, the BLM would consult with the Navy to ensure compatibility with training requirements.
In conjunction with shifting B-17 in this manner, the expanded range would leave State Route 839 in its current configuration, but would expand eastward, requiring the rerouting of State Route 361. B-17 would also expand southward, requiring the relocation of a portion of the Paiute Pipeline.
Under Alternative 3, airspace changes would be implemented largely in the same way as Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the Navy would create a new restricted area (R‐4805) south of existing restricted areas (R-4804 A/B and R‐4812) to overlay the reconfigured land withdrawal for B‐17. Alternative 3 would include implementation of all other restricted areas, military operations areas, and air traffic control assigned airspace changes in the same manner as Alternatives 1 and 2.