Attacc Handbook 1mar99

U.S.
ARMY TRAINING AND TESTING

AREA CARRYING CAPACITY
(ATTACC)
LRAM
Land Maintenance
Land Use
Land Condition
HANDBOOK FOR INSTALLATIONS

Version 1.1
Prepared by the United States Army Environmental Center

March 1999
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
PREFACE
Overview
The Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Program is the Army's formal
strategy for the sustained use of training and testing lands. The Army Training and
Testing Area Carrying Capacity (ATTACC) methodology is part of the ITAM Program,
under proponency responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
and Plans (ODCSOPS).
Definition
ATTACC is a methodology and integrated decision support system for estimating the
operations and support costs of using land at Army installations for training purposes.
The ATTACC methodology includes specific processes and algorithms to predict land
rehabilitation and maintenance (LRAM) requirements based on training load and
environmental conditions.
Objectives
The two major objectives of ATTACC are to:
Estimate training land carrying capacity to support the maintaining of lands and
optimal use of land for realistic training
Establish a model to predict LRAM cost requirements based on training usage.
History
The ATTACC initiative began in May 1995 with the tasking from Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety & Occupational Health) and the
ODCSOPS (Training Directorate) to the US Army Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA).
The tasking Terms of Reference (TOR) specified four Objectives:
Develop a methodology for estimating the operations and support costs of using
land at Army Installations for the training of ground forces
Identify the key operations and support cost drivers of using land for ground force
training by type of army unit and installation
Develop cost estimating relationships that link land usage operations and support
costs to a measure of training performance
Use the cost estimating relationship to develop land-related operations and

support costs of ground forces training for selected Army units and installations.
The TOR further specified three essential elements of analysis:
Page i
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Should the Army establish minimum standards for training land carrying
capacity? If so what should they be? What would the annual land-related
operations and support costs be in the case studies to meet these standards?
Will land-related operations and support costing for ground forces training affect
the training strategy execution?
Is the methodology transferable to other units and installations? If so how?
In response to the Tasking, the US Army Concepts Analysis Agency submitted

Study Report (CAA-SR-96-5) Evaluation of Land Value Study(ELVS) in June 1996. In
May 1996, the Chief, Training Simulations Division, ODCSOPS (DAMO-TRS) redesignated the ELVS methodology as the ATTACC methodology.
ATTACC Project Team
The ATTACC project team operates under the direction of the Headquarters
Department of the Army (HQDA) ITAM functional proponent, with specific guidance
from the Training Simulations Division (DAMO-TRS).
Development of the ATTACC theory, process, decision support tool, and handbook
was a collaborative effort that included the following Government Agencies and their
contractor teams:
The United States Army Environmental Center (USAEC), specifically the

Environmental Conservation Branch of the Environmental Quality Division (SFIMAEC-EQN)
The United States Army Training Support Center (USATSC), specifically the
Army Training Modernization Directorate (ATIC-ATMD)
United States Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Lab

(USACERL)
The Department of Energy (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).
The CALIBRE Systems, Inc contracting team supported the USAEC and USATSC
efforts.
Page ii
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE I
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ I
DEFINITION............................................................................................................................................ I
OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... I
HISTORY I
ATTACC PROJECT TEAM ..................................................................................................................... II
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ATTACC HANDBOOK.....................................................................................1-1
1.2 TARGET AUDIENCE ...................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 BASIC FUNCTIONAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................1-1
1.4 RUNNING ATTACC AT THE INSTALLATION ..................................................................................1-2
1.4.1 Automation Tools .............................................................................................................1-2
1.4.2 Data Requirements ..........................................................................................................1-2
1.4.3 Operational Hardware and Software................................................................................1-2
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK ................................................................................................1-3
SECTION 2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW..............................................................................2-1
ATTACC COMPONENTS ...........................................................................................................2-1

RELATING TRAINING LOAD AND LAND CONDITION .......................................................................2-1
ESTIMATING TRAINING LAND CARRYING CAPACITY THRESHOLDS ................................................2-2
INTEGRATING THE EFFECTS OF LAND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES .................................................2-3
SECTION 3.
TRAINING LOAD ......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 STEPS TO MEASURE TRAINING LOAD .........................................................................................3-1
3.3 STEP 1: PERFORM RFMSS SETUP OPERATIONS .......................................................................3-2
3.3.1 Cross-Walk RFMSS with ATTACC Events ......................................................................3-3
3.3.2 Specify Unit Type .............................................................................................................3-5
3.4 STEP 2: IDENTIFY MISSION ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................3-6
3.4.1 Acquire RFMSS Training Data.........................................................................................3-6
3.4.2 Acquire Training Data from Alternative Sources..............................................................3-7
3.5 STEP 3: DETERMINE VEHICLES AND MILEAGE .............................................................................3-7
3.5.1 Acquire Vehicle Data for Unit Types ................................................................................3-8
3.5.2 Override ATM Vehicle Counts .........................................................................................3-9
3.5.3 Add Vehicles to the RFMSS Vehicle List .......................................................................3-10
3.6 STEP 4: APPLY TRAINING IMPACT FACTORS .............................................................................3-10
3.6.1 Training Impact Factors .................................................................................................3-11
3.6.2 Calculate Training Load .................................................................................................3-12
3.6.3 Summary of RFMSS Training Load Calculation ............................................................3-13
3.7 CUSTOMIZED RFMSS SETUP OPERATIONS .............................................................................3-14
3.7.1 Setting Local Condition Factors .....................................................................................3-14
3.7.2 Adjusting the Vehicle Off-Road Factor...........................................................................3-15
3.7.3 Adjusting Severity Factors .............................................................................................3-16
Page iii
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 4. LAND CONDITION .......................................................................................................4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 STEP 1: ESTIMATE CURRENT LAND CONDITION .........................................................................4-2
4.2.1 Acquire and Develop Data ...............................................................................................4-4
4.2.2 Calculate Current Land Condition....................................................................................4-5
4.3 STEP 2. PREDICT FUTURE LAND CONDITION ..............................................................................4-6
4.3.1 Acquire and Develop Data ...............................................................................................4-6
4.3.2 Calculate Predicted Future Land Condition .....................................................................4-7
4.4 STEP 3. PRODUCE LAND CONDITION CURVES ...........................................................................4-8
4.5 STEP 4. SET LAND CONDITION THRESHOLDS .............................................................................4-9
SECTION 5. LAND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 STEP 1. COMPARE ES GOAL AND PREDICTED ES......................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Identify ES Delta ..............................................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Calculate Percent Shift in Land Condition Curve.............................................................5-2
5.3 STEP 2. DEVELOP LAND MAINTENANCE INVESTMENTS ...............................................................5-3
5.3.1 Identify Type Practices.....................................................................................................5-4
5.3.2 Determine LRAM Benefits ...............................................................................................5-4
5.3.3 Develop a Cost Function..................................................................................................5-5
5.4 STEP 3. CONDUCT RESOURCE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................5-6
5.4.1 Calculate Total Repair Requirement................................................................................5-6
5.4.2 Calculate Total Sustain Requirement ..............................................................................5-6
5.4.3 Calculate Total LRAM Requirement ................................................................................5-7
SECTION 6. USING ATTACC TO SUPPORT INSTALLATION LAND MANAGEMENT.................6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................6-1
6.3 STEP 1: DEVELOP/UPDATE LAND CONDITION CURVE ..................................................................6-2
6.4 STEP 2: SET THRESHOLDS AND TARGETS ..................................................................................6-3
6.5 STEP 3: MAINTAIN MIM BALANCE .............................................................................................6-4
6.6 STEP 4: SUPPORT LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ....................................................................6-5
6.6.1 Using ATTACC/RFMSS to Estimate Land Condition ........................................................6-5
6.6.2 Using ATTACC/RFMSS to Estimate Land Maintenance Requirements .........................6-8
6.6.3 Using ATTACC/RFMSS to Monitor Training Load...........................................................6-9
6.7 SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................6-10
SECTION 7. FORT ITAM -- AN EXAMPLE.......................................................................................7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................7-1
7.2 FORT ITAM ..............................................................................................................................7-1
7.3 PREPARATION...........................................................................................................................7-2
7.4 SETUP RFMSS ........................................................................................................................7-3
7.4.1 Cross-Walk RFMSS with ATTACC Events ......................................................................7-3
7.4.2 Speficy Standard Unit Type. ............................................................................................7-3
7.4.3 Adjust vehicle and event factors ......................................................................................7-4
7.4.4 Set Local Condition Factor...............................................................................................7-4
7.5 ENTER IWAM DATA ..................................................................................................................7-6
7.6 DAILY OPERATIONS.............................................................................................................7-6
7.7 SPECIAL SITUATIONS ..........................................................................................................7-6
7.8 PERIODIC ADJUSTMENT .....................................................................................................7-7
Page iv
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX A: RELATED PUBLICATIONS ..................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D: TRAINING IMPACT FACTORS (TIF)....................................................................... D-1
D.1 VEHICLE FACTORS. .................................................................................................................. D-1
D.2 EVENT SEVERITY FACTORS ...................................................................................................... D-6
APPENDIX E: DATA FOR LAND CONDITION ANALYSIS ............................................................ E-1
E.1 R FACTOR ............................................................................................................................... E-1
E.2 K FACTOR ............................................................................................................................... E-1
E.3 T FACTOR ............................................................................................................................... E-2
E.4 LS FACTOR ............................................................................................................................. E-3
E.4.1 USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM)............................................................................. E-3
E.4.2 National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) E-3
E.4.3 Contour Maps.................................................................................................................. E-4
E.4.4 Field Measurements........................................................................................................ E-4
E.4.5 Other Sources ................................................................................................................. E-4
E.4.6 Processing Elevation data .............................................................................................. E-4
E.5 C FACTOR ............................................................................................................................... E-5
E.6 P FACTOR ............................................................................................................................... E-7
E.7 AVAILABLE TRAINING LANDS MAP ............................................................................................. E-7
E.7.1 Training Area Map........................................................................................................... E-8
E.7.2 Training Impact Map (Delta C Factor Map) .................................................................... E-8
E.7.3 Vegetation Recovery Map............................................................................................... E-9
E.7.4 Training Distribution Map ................................................................................................ E-9
E.8 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. E-10
APPENDIX F: LRAM PRACTICES....................................................................................................F-1
F.1 LRAM PRACTICES AND THEIR P FACTOR ...................................................................................F-1
F.2 DESCRIPTION OF LRAM PRACTICES ..........................................................................................F-4
APPENDIX G: FUNCTIONAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT.......................................................... G-1
G.1 HOW TO GET FUNCTIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................ G-1
G.2 HOW TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT .......................................................................................... G-1
G.2.1 RFMSS............................................................................................................................ G-2
G.2.2 ATTACC Integration Module........................................................................................... G-2
G.2.3 GIS and MAGIC .............................................................................................................. G-2
Page v
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Blank page intentionally inserted.
Page vi
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose of the ATTACC Handbook
The Army Training and Testing Area Carrying Capacity (ATTACC) Handbook
describes how installation-level personnel can use the ATTACC methodology. The
handbook will:
Familiarize the user with the ATTACC methods and their application at Integrated
Training Area Management (ITAM) installations
Provide step-by-step processes to implement ATTACC
Provide an example of using ATTACC for land management decisions.
1.2
Target Audience
The target audience for this handbook includes the personnel at Army installations
who will implement and benefit from ATTACC -- primarily the installation-level ITAM
Coordinator and Range Operations Chief. Other personnel who will use this handbook
include the Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance (LRAM), Range Operations, Land
Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA), and Geographic Information System (GIS) personnel.
The handbook is primarily for those installations having the Range Facility
Management Support System (RFMSS) version 3.5, XXI, or later versions. 1
1.3
Basic Functional Principles
ITAM is the Armys program for managing

training land. One of the major objectives of
ITAM has been to develop a method for
estimating training land carrying capacity, and
then to incorporate this concept into training land
management decisions. ATTACC is a standard
ITAM methodology for estimating training land
carrying capacity. The basic functional principles
of the ATTACC methodology are as follows:
Training
land
carrying
capacity is the amount of
training that a given parcel of
land can accommodate in a
sustainable manner.
A balance of use, condition,
and maintenance.
Estimate training land carrying capacity by relating training load, land condition
(LC), and land maintenance practices
Provide decision support to the installation training land manager and the
installation staff for optimizing training land usage, while minimizing repair and
maintenance requirements
RFMSS is the main component of the Range and Training Land Program Automated System (RTLP-AS).
Therefore, the names RTLP-AS and RFMSS are sometimes used interchangeably.
Page 1-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Provide a means for estimating future LRAM costs of land-based training

requirements, by considering the costs of land maintenance practices and
expected training land usage.
The identification and measurement of training land carrying capacity provides

commanders with needed information to optimize land use decisions (based on land
condition) and make efficient use of LRAM funding in support of training.
1.4
Running ATTACC at the Installation
Implementation of ATTACC depends

on available installation data regarding
training requirements, training schedules,
and land and environmental conditions.
To make ATTACC useful for installationlevel land management, elements of
ATTACC
are
integrated
into
the
automation tools most commonly available
to ITAM and range operations staff.
ATTACC combines theory with a

specific
process
and
decision
support tool to identify training land
carrying capacity, predict LRAM
requirements, and estimate the
operations and support costs of
using land at Army installations.
1.4.1 Automation Tools

The automated tools supporting ATTACC provide training and land condition data.
Examples of these tools include the RFMSS; the Arc View GIS, for which ITAM has
developed a customized application called Military Activity GIS Interface Computer
(MAGIC); and the LCTA database. The basic functional principles of ATTACC,
supported with data from these and other automated tools, will allow ITAM managers to
support land management and scheduling decisions.
1.4.2 Data Requirements
RFMSS, GIS, and MAGIC are used widely to schedule and manage training land
and facilities. Scheduling data, training impact factors, and vehicle mileage used
for ATTACC training load calculations are available in RFMSS.
LCTA and other data sources (identified in Table 4-1) provide ATTACC with required
information about local soil, topography, precipitation, and vegetation. Much of
the LCTA data is found in the GIS data layers.
1.4.3 Operational Hardware and Software
To operate ATTACC as a module within RFMSS requires no additional hardware or
software other than that normally needed to run RFMSS. To operate the ATTACC
Integration Module, as a stand-alone application, requires the following configuration:
166 MHz microprocessor
32 MB RAM
Compact Disc (CD) reader (internal or portable).

Page 1-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
The ATTACC Integration Module uses Microsoft Accesstm for Windows95tm. The
installation disk for the stand-alone configuration provides the run-time version of
Microsoft Accesstm for Windows95tm.
1.5
Structure of the Handbook
This is the initial version of the ATTACC Handbook. The ATTACC Handbook
accompanies Army Regulation (AR) 350-4 and the ITAM How-To Manual and provides
a standard process for implementing and using ATTACC at ITAM installations. The
handbook includes seven (7) major sections, as follows:
Section 1 Introduction.
Section 1 describes the purpose of and the
requirements to implement ATTACC and identifies the installation personnel who
play a role in implementing ATTACC.
Section 2 Implementation Overview. Section 2 provides the "big picture" for

implementing ATTACC.
Section 3 Training Load. Section 3 describes the steps to measure the training
load associated with an installation in terms of maneuver impact miles (MIM) and
describes required training data.
Section 4 Land Condition. Section 4 describes the steps to estimate the

ecological state of the land in terms of erosion status (ES), describes required
land condition data and installation maps, and identifies data sources.
Section 5 Land Maintenance. Section 5 describes the steps to measure land

maintenance in terms of cost for the different types of LRAM practices.
Section 6 Using ATTACC to Support Land Management. Section 6 provides

information on how the results of ATTACC support land management and
decision making.
Section 7 Fort ITAM. Section 7 provides an example of start-up, daily, and

periodic ATTACC activities at a hypothetical ITAM installation.
Appendices supplement the content of sections two through six by providing

supporting definitions and details.
Page 1-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page 1-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 2.
2.1
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
ATTACC Components
Figure 2-1 illustrates the three components that comprise the ATTACC
methodology. The ATTACC components are as follows:
Training Load. Training load is the collective impact of all military activities that
occur on a given parcel of land. Training load is derived from Army training
doctrine. ATTACC measures training load in terms of maneuver impact miles.
Land Condition. Land condition is the ecological state of the land. ATTACC
measures land condition in terms of the erosion status.
Land Maintenance. Land maintenance is the collection of LRAM practices and

their associated costs. ATTACC measures land maintenance in terms of the
type of practice, costs, and associated effectiveness measures.
ATTACC COMPONENTS
Training Load
Step 1:
Perform
RFMSS
Setup
Operations
Step1:
Estimate
Current
Land
Condition
Step 2:
Identify
Mission
Activities
Step 2:
Predict
Future
Land
Condition
Land
Maintenance
Step 3:
Determine
Vehicles
&
Mileage
Step 3:
Produce
Land
Condition
Curve
Step 4:
Apply
Training
Impact
Factors
Step 4:
Set
Land
Condition
Thresholds
Step 1:
Compare
Erosion Status Goal
& Predicted ES
Step 2:
Develop Land
Maintenance Investments
Step 3:
Conduct Resource
Analysis
Land Condition
Figure 2-1. ATTACC Components.

When implemented, ATTACC will estimate the training load (i.e., MIMs) and the land
condition (i.e., ES) for a training area or installation. These numeric values provide the
data to establish a land condition curve.
2.2
Relating Training Load and Land Condition
Figure 2-2 provides an example of a land condition curve. The land condition curve
illustrates a relationship between MIMs (i.e., training load) and ES (i.e., land condition),
for a given parcel of land.
Page 2-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Larger MIM values indicate more impact to training areas, whereas smaller MIM
values indicate less impact to training areas. Larger ES values indicate erosion levels
that are less acceptable, whereas smaller ES values indicate erosion levels that are
more acceptable. A target land condition is the ES that corresponds with the amount of
training that a given parcel of land can accommodate in a sustainable manner. This
implies a reasonable and prudent level of maintenance and rehabilitation.
ATTACC Land Condition Curve

LAND CONDITION
(Erosion Status)
Larger
Smaller
Smaller
TRAINING LOAD
(MIM)
Larger
Figure 2-2. Land Condition Curve.

2.3
Estimating Training Land Carrying Capacity Thresholds
By corresponding training load with target land condition, the land condition curve is
used to estimate training land carrying capacity thresholds. The star in figure 2-3
illustrates the training land carrying capacity that corresponds with the target land
condition, depicted by the arrow.
Page 2-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999

LAND CONDITION
(Erosion Status)
Larger
Target
Land
Condition
Smaller
TRAINING LOAD
(MIM)
Smaller
Larger
Figure 2-3. Estimating Training Land Carrying Capacity Thresholds.

2.4
Integrating the Effects of Land Maintenance Practices
As land maintenance practices are applied, the land condition curve shifts, reflecting
improved land conditions and increased training land carrying capacity, as shown in
figure 2-4.

Larger
LAND CONDITION
(Erosion Status)
+ Land Maintenance Practices
Smaller
Smaller
TRAINING LOAD
(MIM)
Larger
Figure 2-4. Impact to Land Condition by LRAM Practices.
Page 2-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page 2-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 3.
3.1
TRAINING LOAD
Introduction
Training load is the term used to describe the collective impact of all mission
activities that occur on a given parcel of land. Mission activities include individual
training events, unit training events, testing activities, and institutional training. A few
specific examples of mission activities are an infantry company field training exercise
(FTX), combat training center rotation, individual gunnery, basic combat training, and
combat vehicle testing; each may be part of the training load at an Army installation.
ATTACC measures training load for mission activities in terms of maneuver
impact miles, or MIMs. One MIM has the equivalent impact on soil erosion as an
M1A2 tank driving one mile in an Armor battalion (BN) FTX.
3.2
Steps to Measure Training Load

Figure 3-1 illustrates the four steps to measure training load in terms of MIMs.
ATTACC Training Model
Training
Load
Step 1:
Perform
RFMSS
Setup
Operations
Unit
Event
Vehicle Type
Vehicle Count
Vehicle Miles/Day
Step 2:
Identify
Mission
Activities
Step 3:
Determine
Vehicles
&
Mileage
Step 4:
Apply
Training
Impact
Factors
Training
Impact
Factors
ESF
VSF
VCF
VOF
Training
Schedule
Utilization
Unit
Event
Facility
Days
Figure 3-1. Steps to Measure Training Load.

Page 3-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
The underlying assumption, as you read the remainder of section 3, is that RFMSS
is available and in use at the installation. The RFMSS provides automated support to
calculate MIMs for a mission activity, by using the installation training schedule, the
ATTACC Training Model (ATM), and ATTACC training impact factors (TIF). The ITAM
Coordinator and the Range Control point of contact (POC) that administer the RFMSS
share the responsibility for step one, i.e., perform RFMSS setup operations. The
RFMSS automates steps two through four, which result in calculated MIM values.
Table 3-1 provides examples of calculated MIM values. The MIM values, which
RFMSS calculates, are derived from the number and types of vehicles used, the miles
that vehicles travel, and other characteristics of the event that have an effect on erosion,
such as digging or demolition.
Table 3-1. Sample MIM values.
Unit Type
Event
MIMs
Armor
Battalion FTX
20,250
Engineer
Company FTX
1,916
Armored Cavalry NTC Rotation
2,524
Light Infantry
1,362
Battalion STX
Calculated MIM values, for a given training event, do not take into account the
specific ecological setting in which an event occurs. In other words, the Armor Unit
conducting a BN FTX in table 3-1 will have a MIM value of 20,250 regardless of where
the event occurs. This does not mean that the ecological setting is irrelevant when
estimating training land carrying capacity. ATTACC accounts for the variable impact of
MIMs in different ecological settings when the MIM values are used to develop the Land
Condition (LC) curve. (See section 4 for more on developing LC curves.)
The remainder of section three describes each step for measuring the training load
in terms of MIMs, using the RFMSS.
3.3
Step 1: Perform RFMSS Setup Operations
The ITAM Coordinator and the Range Control POC that administer the RFMSS
share the responsibility for performing RFMSS setup operations. Required setup
operations are called "standard", while advanced setup operations are referred to as
"customized".
The standard RFMSS setup operation consists of the following:
Cross-walk the training event list in RFMSS with the standard ATTACC event list
Specify the unit type for each unit at an installation.
Page 3-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
After completing the standard RFMSS setup operation, RFMSS is ready to calculate
MIMs.
The customized RFMSS setup operation requires a more in-depth understanding of
the ATTACC methodology. New users should master the basics of ATTACC before
attempting to setup RFMSS using the customized approach. The advanced setup
operation is optional and includes the following alternatives:
Set Local Condition Factors (LCF)
Adjust the Vehicle Off-Road Factor (VOF)
Adjust severity factors.
Once RFMSS is setup, the

system is ready to calculate
the MIMs for measuring the
training load at your
installation.
Section 3.7 describes customized RFMSS setup

operations.
3.3.1 Cross-Walk RFMSS with ATTACC Events
The RFMSS combines information from the training schedule, the ATM, and the
ATTACC training impact factor (TIF) database to calculate MIMs. Each information
source includes a list of valid training events. Unfortunately, the events from the
RFMSS training schedule do not match the events in the ATM.
For example, RFMSS may include an event described as Company Lanes
Training; while the ATM may have an event described as CO STX. Both refer to the
same event, but are named differently. Similarly, the RFMSS event M16 Record Fire
is the same as the ATTACC event Individual Weapons Qualification. Cross-walking is
the process of matching RFMSS events with the equivalent event found in the ATM,
regardless of how events are labeled or described.
The cross-walking of RFMSS with ATTACC events compensates for any
mismatches between RFMSS and ATTACC events and allows installations to maintain
their current event descriptions. While the precise details of cross-walking events
depend on the particular version of RFMSS in use 2 , the general process is as follows:
1. Find your RFMSS administrator or an authorized RFMSS user who is
responsible for setting up the RFMSS event list.
2. Log on to RFMSS and go to the ITAM administrative/setup section of RFMSS.
Here, you will find the standard RFMSS event list for your installation. This is a
master pick list which trainers, testers, and schedulers use in the scheduling
process. You will also find a procedure for matching each of these RFMSS
events to an event in the standard ATTACC event list.
3. Use the procedure for matching events and follow the guidance of the RFMSS
administrator to match each RFMSS event with the ATTACC event that has the
Refer to your RFMSS manual for an exact description of this process.

Page 3-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
closest match in terms of impact on training land. Generally, there will be several
RFMSS events that match each ATTACC event.
Follow this process for each event in the RFMSS event list, and for newly added
events. RFMSS events that are not cross-walked to ATTACC events will not be
included in training load calculations, and thus will equate to zero MIMs. Figure 3-2
shows a sample RFMSS to ATTACC event cross-walk. Figure 3-3 provides an example
of the RFMSS event cross-walk screen.
RFMSS EVENT
ADA BN DEPEX
AR BN FTX
RECD FIELD FIRE
LAND NAV
TABLE VIII
SCREENING
ATTACC EVENT
BN CPX/TEWT/MAPEX
BN FTX
IND WPNS QUAL
COMON MIL TRNG
CREW WPNS QUAL
CO STX
Figure 3-2. RFMSS to ATTACC Event Cross-Walk.
Figure 3-3. RFMSS Event Cross-Walk Screen.

During the cross-walking process, you may find that the RFMSS event list is very
detailed for live fire events but not very detailed for maneuver events. For example,
firing events may be as detailed as "Tank Gunnery Table VIII"; but maneuver events are
listed as "FTX." The detail in the live fire events is acceptable, but the lack of detail for
the maneuver events is not. In fact, the lack of maneuver event details makes it very
difficult to correctly cross-walk the events and calculate MIMs accurately. If event
details are unavailable, work with the schedulers and units and add more detail to the
event list; then the ATTACC MIM calculations will be more accurate.
Page 3-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
3.3.2 Specify Unit Type

Another action that facilitates training load calculations in RFMSS is unit type
specification. This is the process of assigning a standard unit type to each unit in the
RFMSS database. For example, the 1/50th is an Engineer Heavy Battalion. Therefore,
the standard unit type HVY Engineer BN must be specified in the unit setup process
for the 1/50th. Specifying a standard unit type for each unit allows RFMSS to use the
ATTACC Training Model to assign default vehicle types, counts, and mileage as each
unit schedules a training event. This is the basis of the MIMs calculation.
To specify a standard unit type for each RFMSS unit,
1. First find your RFMSS administrator or an authorized RFMSS user who is
responsible for entering unit information.
2. Then, logon to RFMSS and go to the unit administrative/setup section. (Note
that unit setup is not an ITAM responsibility, so this function will not be included
in the ITAM section.) On the unit setup screen, as illustrated in figure 3-4, there
will be a pick list of standard unit types. Some versions of RFMSS also include
the first five digits of the System Resource Code (SRC). Depending on your
version of RFMSS, the unit type list will be sorted alphabetically by branch (e.g.,
aviation, engineer), numerically by SRC, or alphabetically by unit size (e.g., CO,
BN).
3. For each unit, select a unit type and save this information to the RFMSS
database. Units which do not have a standard unit type specified will not be
linked to the ATTACC tables and will therefore not generate any MIMs.
Figure 3-4. RFMSS Unit Setup Screen.

Admittedly, it may be difficult to select a unit type because there are several unit
types with very similar descriptions. If you are unsure, you may be able to work with
Page 3-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
your DPTM or the unit administrative officer to determine the unit type. You may also
contact the ATTACC team for assistance with this task. For ATTACC team POC
information, see Appendix G.
3.4
Step 2: Identify Mission Activities
The next step in measuring the training load for a given parcel of land is to identify
the mission usage. For the purposes of ATTACC, mission usage is either historical or
projected.
Historical mission usage data is valuable
for assessing how past activities impacted
training land, while projected usage is
essential for forecasting future land condition
and land maintenance requirements. The
critical data elements related to mission usage
include the training event, the unit, the training
dates, and the training facility.
Past and projected mission

activities help ATTACC users
estimate and predict land
condition, which in turn supports
forecasting of future LRAM
projects.
The need for historical and/or projected mission usage data depends on what the
user is trying to accomplish. The sources for mission usage data include RFMSS and
"alternate" sources.
3.4.1 Acquire RFMSS Training Data
The RFMSS utilization records provide historical mission usage data. The training
schedule provides short- term (i.e., one day to one year) training projections. Generally,
RMFSS does not contain long-term (i.e., longer than one year) training projections
because installation policies and/or conventions may not allow or require scheduling
beyond a year. 3
Since the RFMSS scheduling process already dictates that units and schedulers
include in each training request the critical data elements related to mission usage, the
ITAM user can usually acquire the data for short-term projections or for capturing
historical usage. The biggest obstacle to getting the necessary data is developing the
event list, as described in paragraph 3.3.1
If ITAM users need longer-term training projections, they can work with the RFMSS
scheduler to develop some place holder events in the long term schedule. For
example, if a certain large exercise occurs every year in the same group of training
areas, then the RFMSS scheduler can develop a dummy event resembling this
exercise. Then by scheduling the "dummy" event in the out years, ATTACC can
calculate the associated MIMs.
A RFMSS planning module that allows the user to develop training and/or testing projections is not yet available.
Page 3-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
3.4.2 Acquire Training Data from Alternative Sources

Besides RFMSS, the primary sources for acquiring mission usage data (i.e.,
historical and projected training data) are as follows:
The Range Control office
The Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization (DPTM)
Unit headquarters
Schoolhouses (e.g. the Armor School)
Training brigade offices
Testing commands
Reserve component liaison offices.
Another source of information for developing long-term unit training load projections
is to refer to Army training doctrine and databases. For example, the installation Range
Development Plan (RDP) is an excellent source of training information. The RDP lists
all training facilities, all installation users, historical utilization rates, and an assessment
of the adequacy of the facilities to meet the mission, including maneuver land. Although
the RDP cannot be used directly to calculate MIMs, it can give the ITAM user a good
idea of who the installation users are and where and when they train.
Other sources of doctrinal training requirements include Training Circular (TC) 25-1,
Training Land, TC 25-8, Training Ranges, the Battalion Level Training Model (BLTM),
and the Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS). These sources identify the number,
type, and duration of events annually conducted by various unit types. When using this
information in combination with knowledge about your installation training population, it
is possible to construct a generic training requirement. Drawbacks of this approach are
that individual units do not follow the doctrinal training requirements exactly and training
areas are not specified as they would be in an actual training schedule. Because
detailed training schedules are generally not available beyond two years, this could be
the best approach for constructing long-term training load projections. In fact, this is the
method used for Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) ATTACC analyses 4 .
3.5
Step 3: Determine Vehicles and Mileage
The third step in measuring training load is to determine the vehicle types, vehicle
counts, and vehicle mileage associated with each mission activity identified during step
2.
An ATTACC Integration Model which includes this type of long term training projection is under development
and will be available in late FY99.
Page 3-7
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
3.5.1 Acquire Vehicle Data for Unit Types

To facilitate acquisition of vehicle data and provide some measure of
standardization, the ATTACC team developed a default database containing vehicle
data for various unit types and events. This database is integrated into RFMSS and is
called the ATTACC Training Model (ATM).
Information in the ATM may be
supplemented with vehicle information gathered from other sources such as range
control records or directly from the using activity (e.g., units, schoolhouses, testers).
The RFMSS ATM currently consists of two major components:
Unit Training Component
Institutional Training Component.
Information contained in the unit training component of the ATM is derived from the
BLTM, which is an official Army database used for developing training budgets. It
consists of vehicle types, counts, and average daily mileage by event for almost every
type unit in the Army. Table 3-2 provides sample data from the unit training component
of the ATM.
Table 3-2. Sample ATM Unit Data.
UNIT SRC
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
EVENT
DESCRIPTION
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN CPX
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
17375-AC
VEHICLE
DESCRIPTION
MILES/
DAY
VEHICLE
COUNT
HMMWV
22
20
BN CPX
TRUCK: 2.5 Ton M35A2
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN FTX
HMMWV
52
40
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN FTX
28
34
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN FTX
Tank: M1A2 Main Battle
14
58
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN LFX
HMMWV
19
20
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN LFX
16
34
17375-AC
Tank BN (M1A2)
BN LFX
Tank: M1A2 Main Battle
56
For example, the ATM includes a unit type of TANK BN that conducts several
different types of events, including a battalion field training exercise (BN FTX). There
are 58 tanks in the BN FTX, and each of these tanks travels an average of 14 miles per
day.
Information contained in the institutional training component of the ATM is derived
from the Programs of Instruction (POI) that define each Army course. For each POI that
the ATTACC team evaluated, the institutional ATM includes all course modules that
have a training land requirement and lists the number, type, and average daily mileage
of all vehicles used 5 .
The institutional training component of the ATM does not yet include all POIs with a land requirement.
Page 3-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
For example, the institutional training component includes entries for the Armor
Officer Basic Course (AOBC) offered at Ft Knox. There are several modules in the
AOBC course that have a land requirement, one of which is the 72 Hour War. Table
3-3 shows sample data from the institutional training component of the ATM. This
specific example indicates a requirement of 13 tanks, 22 HMMWVs, and seven 2.5 ton
trucks. On average, tanks travel 14 miles, HMMWV travel 42 miles, and trucks travel 27
miles while participating in this exercise.
Table 3-3. Sample ATM Institutional Training Component Data.
COURSE
COURSE
MODULE
AOBC
72 HR WAR
AOBC
AOBC
VEHICLE
DESCRIPTION
VEHICLE
COUNT
AVERAGE MILES
TRAVELED PER DAY
M1A2
13
14
72 HR WAR
HMMWV
22
42
72 HR WAR
TRUCK 2.5 TON
27
3.5.2 Override ATM Vehicle Counts

Although the ATM is an extensive database, vehicle counts in the ATM assume the
full contingent of equipment that normally used for each event. However, this may not
always be realistic since individual units are not always fully resourced with vehicles,
and all vehicles are not available for each training event due to repairs, etc.
To substitute more realistic vehicle counts when more accurate information is
available, simply override the ATMs default vehicle count for a scheduled event in
RFMSS 6 . Vehicle counts provided by the ATM can be modified for a scheduled event
in three ways:
The unit or scheduler can modify the default vehicle counts during the scheduling
process
The firing desk operator can modify vehicle counts on the day of training
The ITAM user can modify vehicle counts after training has occurred 7 .
To modify the default vehicle counts during the scheduling process, the unit or
scheduler may fill in the vehicle information on the RFMSS training request form. The
unit or scheduler must choose vehicles from a pick list and then enter or modify the
vehicle counts. Entering vehicle information is optional, unless installation policy
dictates otherwise.
To modify vehicle counts at the firing desk, the firing desk operator must obtain the
vehicle count information from the using unit during the sign-in or sign-out procedure
and then enter the updated information on the training reservation. Since this can be
6
Note that there is no provision in RFMSS to override the daily vehicle mileage. Furthermore, overriding vehicle
types is not recommended because it will create a disconnect with the vehicle mileage database.
7
The latter feature may not be available in RFMSS when this handbook is completed.
Page 3-9
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
time consuming, large or busy installations usually do not require units to report vehicle
counts for non live-fire events.
Finally, to modify vehicle counts after completing an event, the ITAM user must
obtain the actual vehicle counts from the user or from other DPTM or Range Control
records, and then modify the training reservation. Refer to your RFMSS manual for the
exact details of this process.
If installation range control policies do not require units to report vehicle counts, then
the installation should use the default vehicle counts from the ATM. The ITAM user
should evaluate the effectiveness of this practice by manually comparing default values
with actual vehicle counts. If the difference is significant, then the ITAM user and range
control personnel should work together to adopt one of the above methods to refine the
vehicle counts.
3.5.3 Add Vehicles to the RFMSS Vehicle List
Since fielding the ATTACC capabilities in RFMSS, many installations have become
interested in improving training load calculations. As a result, some installations have
added to the RFMSS/ATTACC vehicle list so that all vehicles in use at the installation
are represented. While adding vehicles may be support other objectives, the newly
added vehicles in the vehicle list will NOT contribute to MIMs calculations because they
will not have associated mileage in the ATM. For example, if the ATM lists the M113A3
for a given type unit, but this type of unit on your installation uses the M113A2, you
should not replace the M113A3 vehicle counts with M113A2s. This will result in zeroS
MIMs for the M113 class of vehicles.
The ATTACC and RFMSS teams recognize that adding vehicles to the RFMSS
vehicle list creates a problem and are working to create a solution that allows the
installation to use an accurate vehicle list. This may be accomplished by creating a
vehicle cross-walk process similar to the event cross-walk described in section 3.3.1. In
the mean time, for purposes of ATTACC it is recommended that the vehicles on the
standard vehicle list are used whenever possible, as long as this does not interfere with
other range control functions which use vehicle counts.
3.6
Step 4: Apply Training Impact Factors
The fourth and final step in measuring training

load is to multiply the vehicle mileage information
obtained during Step 3 by several scaling factors,
also known as Training Impact Factors (TIF). The
effect of this step is to convert all vehicle mileage
to the equivalent M1A2 mileage, or MIMs. This
multiplication step as well as all of the TIFs are
integrated into RFMSS.
Page 3-10
Training impact factors

convert the mileage of vehicles
used in a training event into
MIMs, ATTACC uses RFMSS
to calculate MIM values.
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
3.6.1 Training Impact Factors

The ATTACC TIFs consist of the Vehicle Severity Factor (VSF), Vehicle Off-Road
Factor (VOF), the Vehicle Conversion Factor (VCF), Event Severity Factor (ESF), and
Local Condition Factor (LCF). The ESF, VSF, and VCF are considered constant across
all Army installations, whereas the VOF and LCF will vary by installation. Section 3.7
describes how to adjust training impact factors. Refer to Appendix D for TIF values and
for a description of how the factors were developed. Each type of TIF is described
below.
Vehicle Severity Factor (VSF). The VSF is a multiplier that represents the
relative impact of a vehicle on land condition as compared to the standard
vehicle -- an M1A2 tank. The VSF for an M1A2 tank is 1.0. The VSF for a
vehicle with 50 percent greater impact on land condition than an M1A2 tank
would be 1.5. Current ATTACC VSF values are subjective and were derived
using expert opinion.
Vehicle Off-Road Factor (VOF). The VOF is a multiplier that represents the
portion of vehicle mileage typically driven off improved roads. For example, if 85
percent of M1A2 miles are typically driven off improved roads, the VOF for the
M1A2 will be 0.85. This factor will vary by installation depending on installation
policy, distance to training areas, available road network, etc. Current ATTACC
VOF values represent an Army-wide average and were derived using expert
opinion.
Vehicle Conversion Factor (VCF). The VCF is a multiplier that represents the
width of the area impacted by a given vehicle as compared to the width of the
area impacted by an M1A2 tank. The VCF is an objective value based on the
width of the tires or tracks of the vehicle compared to the M1A2 track width. For
example, a wheeled vehicle that has a VCF of .25 has a tire footprint that is .25
of the width of the M1A2 tracks. The VCF for the M1A2 is 1.0.
Event Severity Factor (ESF). The ESF is a multiplier that represents the relative
impact of an event on land condition as compared to the standard event -- an
Armor Battalion FTX. The ESF for the Armor Battalion FTX is 1.0. The ESF for
an event that has 25 percent less impact on soil erosion than an Armor Battalion
FTX, would be 0.75. Current ATTACC ESF values are subjective and were
derived using expert opinion.
Local Condition Factor. The LCF is a multiplier that represents the relative
susceptibility of land to the impacts of training on a particular day due to
conditions such as soil moisture, temperature, etc. For example, if the impact
due to training is expected to be twice as much on a very wet day as compared
to the impact under average conditions, the LCF value for very wet days should
be set to 2.0. The LCF is set for the entire installation for a day or range of days.
Use of the LCF is optional, with a default value of 1.0. All LCF values are
determined by the ITAM user during RFMSS setup.
Page 3-11
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
3.6.2 Calculate Training Load

The ATTACC methodology defines the MIM value for a unit training event 8 by
applying the TIF to the vehicle mileage as follows:
MIM (event) =
DailyMileage(veh1) * Veh1Count * VSF1 * VOF1 * VCF1 +

DailyMileage(vehn) * VehnCount * VSFn * VOFn * VCFn
SUM of Vehicle Mileage * Days * ESF * LCF[Day1 to Dayn]
In this equation there are a number of data elements related to the vehicles in the
event: DailyMileage(vehn) is the average daily mileage for one vehicle of type n,
VehnCount is the number of vehicles of type n in the event, and VSFn, VOFn, VCFn are
the vehicle factors associated with vehicles of type n. Note that DailyMileage(vehn) is
dependent on the type of unit and the event as well as the vehicle type, whereas the
vehicle type alone determines the vehicle factors.
Data elements associated with the event are days, which is the duration of the event
in days, and ESF, which is the Event Severity Factor associated with the event. These
factors are applied after adjusting the vehicle mileage with the vehicle factors and then
summing for all of the vehicles in the event.
Finally, the LCF, which is optional, can be used to adjust the MIM value. The LCF
helps account for unusual conditions, such as extremely wet or dry weather, that may
affect the impact of training. Note that the LCF may have a different value for each day
of the training event. The default LCF value of 1.0 indicates average conditions. Table
3-4 shows a sample MIM calculation for a Mechanized Infantry Company executing a
one-day situational training exercise on a wet day (LCF = 1.5).
Table 3-4. Training Load.
SRC
0724
0724
0724
0724
0724
0724
0724
0724
SRC
Description
CO, INF
MECH
CO, INF
MECH
CO, INF
MECH
CO, INF
MECH
CO, INF
MECH
CO, INF
MECH
Event
Descrip
-tion
CO
STX
CO
STX
CO
STX
CO
STX
CO
STX
CO
STX
Facility
Duration
Description
Miles
MNVR
SITE A
MNVR
SITE A
MNVR
SITE A
MNVR
SITE A
MNVR
SITE A
MNVR
SITE A
CARRIER:
M113A3
CARRIER:
CP M577
IFV: M2A2
.361
1
1
CO, INF
MECH
CO, INF
MECH
CO
STX
CO
STX
MNVR
SITE A
MNVR
SITE A
VOF
VCF
LCF
MIMS
.65
.85
.54
1.5
1.9
.361
.67
.60
.54
1.5
0.6
.361
.86
.90
.64
1.5
18.8
CFV: M3A2
.361
.74
.90
.64
1.5
5.5
HERMIT:
W/CRAVE
RECOVERY
VEH: MED
M88
HMMWV
.361
1.03
.80
1.0
1.5
2.2
18
.361
.58
.50
.57
1.5
4.8
40
.361
.27
.70
.43
1.5
7.0
34
.361
.34
.37
.82
1.5
5.7
TRUCK: 2.5
TON M35A2
ESF
VSF
The MIM value for institutional training is similar, with courses replacing type units and course modules
replacing events. Refer to Appendix D for a description of the MIMs calculation for institutional training.
Page 3-12
ATTACC Handbook
SRC
0724
SRC
Description
CO, INF
MECH
March 1999
Event
Descrip
-tion
CO
STX
Facility
MNVR
SITE A
Duration
1
Description
Miles
TRUCK: 5
TON 6X6
M923
42
ESF
.361
VSF
.38
VOF
VCF
LCF
MIMS
.37
.48
1.5
7.7
TOTAL MIMS
54.2
3.6.3 Summary of RFMSS Training Load Calculation

As shown in Table 3-5, the data elements for calculating MIMs are part of the
training schedule, the ATTACC TIFs, or the ATTACC Training Model. Shaded boxes
indicate data elements that are pre-populated in RFMSS, whereas white boxes indicate
data elements that must be entered into RFMSS by the ITAM user, the scheduler, or the
using unit. As training activities are scheduled and executed, RFMSS uses this data to
calculate the MIM value of each activity and maintain the MIM balance of each training
facility. This process is transparent to RFMSS users and does not affect the scheduling
process.
Table 3-5. Data Sources for Calculating MIMs.
Data Element
Training
Schedule
Type Unit
Type Event
Training Facility
Event Duration
Vehicle Type
Vehicle Count
ATTACC Training
Impact Factors
X
X9
Vehicle Miles/Day
ATTACC
Training Model
X
X
Event Severity Factor (ESF)
Vehicle Severity Factor (VSF)
Vehicle Off-Road Factor (VOF)
Vehicle Conversion Factor (VCF)
Local Condition Factor (LCF)
Default vehcile counts in the ATM may be overridden by information in the schedule
Page 3-13
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
The role of the ITAM user of RFMSS is to monitor the executed and projected
training load in each training area using MIM thresholds and target values, various
RFMSS reports, and the MIMs Map. MIM thresholds are based on land conditions
and capabilities and are discussed in Section 4. MIM target values, RFMSS reports,
and the "MIMs Map" are ATTACC management tools and are described in Section 6.
The spatial distribution of training is addressed with the Training Distribution Map,
Section 4.
3.7
Customized RFMSS Setup Operations
As described in section 3.2, "Cross-Walk

RFMSS with ATTACC Events" and "Specify
Unit Type" are the only required steps
associated with the standard RFMSS setup
operation. The standard setup is a prerequisite
for initiating MIMS calculation.
Before you customize RFMSS,

make sure to understand how
adjustments to TIFs affect the
MIMs that RFMSS calculates.
For help with this, contact the
functional and technical POCs
provided in Appendix G.
New ATTACC users should begin with the standard setup operation and use the
results as a baseline for training load calculations. After learning and becoming familiar
with the ATTACC process, the intermediate or advanced ATTACC user may want to
make some adjustments to the ATTACC factors that are used in MIM calculations. This
will allow the user to customize ATTACC for his/her installation by setting local condition
factors and adjusting other training impact factors 10 .
3.7.1 Setting Local Condition Factors
As described in paragraph 3.5.1, Local Condition Factors (LCF) are one of several
ATTACC TIFs used to calculate MIMs. The LCF allows the user to account for the
effect of unusual weather or soil conditions that may affect the impact of training as
compared to average conditions. For example, in many ecological settings the
presence of moisture in the soil can increase the impact of training. If extremely wet soil
conditions would result in twice as much erosion, an LCF of 2.0 could be applied to all
training that occurs when the soil is extremely wet. This would result in RFMSS
recording twice as many MIMs as compared to an average day. Table 3-6 provides
sample LCF values and condition descriptions.
Table 3-6. Sample LCF Values.
CONDITION DESCRIPTION
Very Wet
LCF VALUE
2.0
Wet
1.5
Normal
1.0
Very Dry
0.5
Frozen
0.3
10
Adjustments to ATTACC TIFs will only affect the installation application of ATTACC. HQDA ATTACC
applications use uniform, standard TIFs for all installations.
Page 3-14
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
There are two steps required to set the LCF:
Step 1: Initialize the LCF table that relates a numeric value for the LCF to a local
condition description.
Step 2: Monitor soil conditions and update the observed local conditions. Figure
3-5 illustrates the RFMSS screen for setting LCF values.
The first step is a one-time event with occasional adjustments, whereas the second step
may be done on a daily, monthly, or seasonal basis.
To initialize the LCF table, go to the ITAM administrative/setup area of RFMSS and
look for "Local Condition Factor Setup". Using the LCF setup process, create one or
more LCFs by assigning a numeric value to a local condition description. The
assignment of an LCF value is highly subjective and depends on an individuals
expertise regarding how various local soil conditions affect the impact of training. 11
Note that normal or average conditions should have an LCF value of 1.0, which is the
default. RFMSS allows LCF values between 0.1 and 9.9.
Figure 3-5. RFMSS LCF Setup Screen.

3.7.2 Adjusting the Vehicle Off-Road Factor
Another Training Impact Factor that the user may consider adjusting is the Vehicle
Off-Road Factor (VOF). This factor represents the typical portion of vehicle miles that
are traveled off of improved roads and can vary widely from one installation to the next.
For example, at an installation where all tracked vehicles are trucked to the maneuver
areas or pre-positioned, the VOF for tracked vehicles should be 1.0 because all tracked
11
Note that the land condition analysis accounts for differences in soil types, vegetation, etc. The LCF accounts
for things such as soil temperature and moisture that can also effect erodability.
Page 3-15
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
vehicle mileage is off of improved roads. If tracked vehicles are driven to maneuver
areas and the areas are far from the cantonment area, the VOF values will be much
lower.
To adjust the VOFs, go to the ITAM administration/setup area and look for Vehicle
Factors. Then edit the current values (which represent Army-wide averages) to reflect
installation conditions. The effective date of these changes will depend on your version
of RFMSS. Figure 3-6 provides an example of the screen for adjusting VOF factors.
Figure 3-6. RFMSS VOF Adjustment Screen.

3.7.3 Adjusting Severity Factors
Some very advanced users may also choose to adjust the Vehicle Severity Factors
or the Event Severity Factors. While this is possible, please keep the following
considerations in mind:
It will be very difficult to determine which factors to change and the combined
effect on MIM calculations
Changes to severity factors are for local installation use only and will not be used
in HQDA ATTACC applications, unless the change is approved for use by all
ITAM installations.
Refer to your RFMSS manual for specific instructions on how to change the vehicle and
event severity factors.
Page 3-16
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 4. LAND CONDITION

4.1
Introduction
Land Condition is the ecological state of the land. ATTACC uses erosion status
(ES) as the measure of land condition for military installations because soil erosion is
a quantifiable variable that is easily understood by both military trainers and natural
resources managers. Although other measures of land condition including vegetation
composition exist, soil erosion is a good general indicator.
Soil erosion is directly related to the productivity of a site and military activities
directly and indirectly affect erosion rates. Installations often have land management
plans with goals to reduce or maintain erosion rates at levels that ensure the training
lands will continue to support the training mission. Erosion related projects make up a
significant portion of LRAM funding requirements. Figure 4-1 provides the steps to
estimate land condition.
Step1
Estimate Current
Land Condition
Step 2
Predict Future
Land Condition
Acquire and
Develop Data
Calculate
Current Land
Condition
Acquire and
Develop Data
Calculate Future
Land Condition
Step 3
Produce Land
Condition
Curves
Step 4
Set Land
Condition
Thresholds
Land Condition
Figure 4-1. Land Condition.
As part of the ATTACC methodology, the steps to estimate and predict the land
condition occur independently from the steps described in section 3, for measuring an
installation's training load.
Page 4-1
ATTACC Handbook
4.2
March 1999
Step 1: Estimate Current Land Condition
Soil erosion, specifically erosion status, is the

primary measurement of land condition used in the
ATTACC model. ES is the ratio of predicted
erosion rates to tolerable erosion rates, with larger
values indicating poorer land condition and smaller
values indicating better land condition. ATTACC
presently uses soil loss based on water erosion to
predict loss rates. Water erosion is used due to
available data at the majority of installations using
ATTACC, and is usually the worst case for
measuring soil loss.
ATTACC bases soil loss

calculations on a model
designed to estimate water
erosion. Efforts are in
progress to enhance ATTACC
to include models that
estimate erosion from other
sources, such as wind.
There are other means to predict soil loss, e.g., wind, tidal. Soil loss is also
attributed to soil compaction. Activities, such as grazing, impact training land as this
activity can strip the land of needed cover and /or vegetation. The ATTACC
methodology estimates land condition in terms of the erosion status. Erosion status is
the ratio of predicted erosion rates to tolerable erosion rates, with greater values
indicating poorer land condition, and lesser values indicating better land condition.
Erosion rates are estimated using a modification of the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE). The RUSLE only estimates water erosion. For many installations
water erosion is the main source of erosion.
The Adapted Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
RUSLE is defined as A=RKLSCP where:
A = soil loss per unit area (tons ac-1 yr-1)
R = rainfall and runoff factor ([hundreds of ft-tons] inch ac-1 hr-1yr-1)
K = soil erodibility factor (tons hr [hundreds of ft-tons]-1 in-1)
LS = slope length and steepness factor (dimensionless)
C = cover and management factor (dimensionless)
P = support practice factor (dimensionless).
The R Factor. Soil erosion is greatly influenced by the intensity and duration of
precipitation events and by the amount and rate of the resulting runoff. The R
factor is the rainfall and runoff factor or erosivity factor for a specific location.
The R factor is a quantitative expression of the erosivity of local average annual
precipitation and runoff. The R factor incorporates the amount, intensity, and
duration patterns of precipitation.
Differences in R factor values reflect
differences in precipitation patterns between regions. Larger R factor values
indicate more erosive weather conditions. Generally, a single R factor value
represents an area of interest. However, larger areas may require more than
one R factor value.
Page 4-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
The K Factor. The soil texture, organic matter content, structure, and
permeability largely determine a soils erodibility. The soil-erodibility factor (K) is
the rate of soil loss per rainfall erosion index unit under standardized conditions.
Higher K factor values indicate more easily erodible soils.
The T Factor. An objective in managing Army training lands is to reduce erosion

caused by Army activities to an acceptable level. To help determine acceptable
levels of soil loss, the soil loss tolerance factor (T) for each soil type is provided
by the NRCS. T denotes the maximum level of soil erosion that will permit a high
level of soil productivity to be sustained economically and indefinitely. T values
are based on soil depth, rooting depth, soil organic matter reduction and plant
nutrient losses.
The LS Factor. The rate of soil erosion is greatly affected by the local
topography of an area. The LS factor provides a quantitative representation of
both the slope length and steepness. Slope steepness and length values for the
LS equations can be determined from topographic maps, digital elevation models
(DEM), average values from soil mapping units, or from direct field
measurement. Mathematical equations for calculating the LS factor have been
developed and incorporated into GIS applications.
The C Factor. The cover factor (C) reflects the degree of erosion protection
provided by vegetative cover. The cover factor describes the density and
structure of the vegetative canopy cover and kind and amount of cover in contact
with the soil. The C factor is a ratio of soil loss, from land under specified
conditions to the corresponding soil loss from clean-tilled continuous fallow land
under otherwise identical conditions. An increase in the cover factor represents
a decrease in ground and/or canopy cover and an associate increase in the
estimated erosion rate.
The most appropriate C factor for application on military lands is currently in
dispute. The current ATTACC implementation of the C factor makes use the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) C factor rather than the RUSLE C factor. 12
The P Factor. The conservation practices factor (P) is a quantitative expression

of the mitigating effect that conservation practices have on the erosion process.
Conservation practices include seeding, site hardening, terracing, and other land
maintenance practices.
For ATTACC, published P Factor values were assigned to LRAM practices
when available. For all other practices, land management/erosion theory experts
were used to assign P Factor values. Individuals from land managing agencies
including Department of Energy (DOE), DoD (including installation land
12
The choice to use USLE C factor was based on past applications of the RUSLE model on military
lands, guidance from the NRCS, and the uncertainty of how best to estimate RUSLE C factor sub-values.
Page 4-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
management personnel), and NRCS were used as subject matter experts. For
more information on how P factors are used for ATTACC, see section 5. For
LRAM practice P factor values, see Appendix F.
4.2.1 Acquire and Develop Data
Table 4-1 summarizes many of the currently available data sources for each of the
factors in the RUSLE and for calculating erosion status. For further detailed
descriptions on these RUSLE factors, data sources for measuring land condition, and
discussion of data layer development, see Appendix F. For examples, refer to section
7.
Table 4-1. RUSLE Factors and Data Sources.
RUSLE
FACTOR
R
K and T
DESCRIPTION
DATA SOURCES
The rainfall and runoff factor or

erosivity factor for a specific location.
Published isoerodent maps
Local precipitation data
The soil-erodibility factor (K) is the

rate of soil loss per rainfall erosion
index
unit
under
standardized
conditions.
NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Data Base

(SURGO)
NRCS State Soil Geographic Data Base

(STATSGO)
NRCS National Soil Geographic Data Base

(NATSGO)
Digitized public NRCS soil survey reports
NRCS Map Unit Interpretations Record (MUIR)

attribute data base
Soil samples from field surveys
Elevation (i.e., terrain) data
USGS Digital Elevation Models (DEM)
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)

Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED)
Digital imagery
Field measurements
LCTA data
Global Positioning System (GPS) data
Field measurements
LCTA data
Other vegetation survey data
Published data
Expert opinion
The soil loss tolerance factor (T)

denotes the maximum level of soil
erosion that will permit a high level of
soil productivity to be sustained
economically and indefinitely.
LS
A quantitative representation of the

effect of the local topography on
erosion rates. This factor includes
both the slope length and steepness.
The cover factor (C) reflects the

degree of erosion protection provided
by vegetative cover.
The conservation
is a quantitative
mitigating effect
practices have
process.
practices factor (P)

expression of the
that conservation
on the erosion
Page 4-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Training land and training area maps provide data needed to estimate the current
land condition.
Available Training Land Maps. ATTACC requires a map of all installation lands
available for training and those areas with use restrictions. Lands not available
for training may include cantonment, impact, off-limit, buffer areas, bodies of
water, steep slopes, and wetlands. Lands not available for scheduling training
activities should not be in the available training lands map.
Training Area Maps. A training area map is a map

delineating land units used for scheduling and
conducting military training. This map should be the
same as the training area map used for scheduling
training in the RFMSS program. This map is required
when estimating land condition for individual parcels of
land that match the same parcels of land as they are
managed in the RFMSS program and/or range
operations office.
If a traning area
is not in RFMSS,
then it will not
appear on the
training area map.
4.2.2 Calculate Current Land Condition

Annual soil loss (A) can be difficult to evaluate and interpret by itself. A ratio of
estimated soil loss to the soil loss that can be tolerated is a more easily interpreted
value. This ratio is the erosion status and expresses estimated soil loss as a
percentage of soil loss tolerance. A value less than one indicates that soil productivity
can be sustained. A value greater than one is cause for concern because soil losses
exceed sustainable rates.
ES=A/T where:
ES = Erosion Status (dimensionless)
A = soil loss per unit area (tons ac-1 yr-1)
T = soil loss tolerance factor (tons ac-1 yr-1).
An automated GIS tool is available that solves the equation for current land
condition. This tool requires the previously mentioned data layers as input. The GIS
tool can be provided to installations implementing ATTACC. All GIS calculations are
done using a raster data model. A raster data model represents the map area as an
array of equal sampling units (grid cells). Grid cells are usually squares where the
dominant feature of interest is numerically coded into each cell.
The spatial location of features in a raster data model is implicit from their position in
the array. The spatial accuracy of a raster map layer is limited by predetermined
sampling resolution (size of the grid cell). Before performing any GIS function using
multiple map layers, the resolution should be set to match that of the map layer with the
lowest resolution. This resolution issue is important for the ATTACC GIS calculations.
For instance, if the T and K factor maps were created from soils data at 20M resolution,
but the DEM used to calculate LS factor is at 30M resolution, the resolution for
Page 4-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
calculating erosion status should be set at 30M (the data layer with the lowest
resolution).
Current land condition, as measured by erosion status, is calculated for each grid
cell. A simple map calculation using the RUSLE and erosion status equations (Section
4.2.1) is used to calculate current land condition for ATTACC. Once the current land
condition is calculated for every grid cell, the average condition for any parcel of land
can be calculated by averaging the erosion status values for each cell within the
specified area. Only areas represented by the available training lands map layer are
included in the calculation of average land condition.
For input into RFMSS, average land condition is calculated for each training area
defined in the training area map. For HQDA summaries, land condition is the average
ES for all training lands defined in the available training lands map layer.
4.3
Step 2. Predict Future Land Condition
Military training impacts soils and vegetation. Therefore, soils are more exposed to
raindrop impact and surface water runoff, resulting in an overall degradation of land
condition, when vegetative cover is reduced. The more the land is impacted, the more
the vegetative cover loss and the greater the degradation of land condition. This
relationship is conceptually modeled as:
PredLC = CurLC + LCTrain - LCNatRec
Where:
PredLC = Predicted land condition
CurLC = Current land condition
LCTrain = Change in Land Condition due to training
LCNatRec =Change in Land Condition due to natural recovery.
As with current land condition, future land condition is estimated as the average
annual erosion status of the land.
4.3.1 Acquire and Develop Data
To estimate future land condition, additional data are required beyond that required
by current land condition. The impact of training on vegetation, the distribution of
mission activities, and the natural rate of recovery must be quantified. Subsequent
sections briefly describe each data requirement. For further detailed descriptions on
these data layers, including discussion of data layer development, see Appendix F.
4.3.1.1
Training Impact Map (Delta C Factor Map)
To adequately model the impacts of training activities, the consequences of training
activities must be predicted. In the ATTACC model training activities are characterized
in terms of Maneuver Impact Miles (MIMs). As discussed in section 3, Maneuver
Impact Miles are vehicle miles adjusted for the differences in training land impact
Page 4-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
between various vehicle types and training events. In the ATTACC model, the
assumption is made that a MIM will cause the same amount of damage as any other
MIM under similar environmental conditions regardless of the type of vehicle or event.
However, a MIM may cause much different amounts of damage under different
environmental conditions such as varying soil and vegetation types. As such, the
impact of a MIM to the land must be estimated separately for different environmental
conditions.
The Training Impact Map (Delta C Factor Map) represents the change in the C factor
value that can be attributed to a single pass of an M1A2 (equal to one MIM). The
values for this map can be estimated from controlled studies, field measurements, or
subject matter experts. Different Delta C Factor values are often estimated for different
soil and vegetation types.
4.3.1.2 Training Distribution Map
Another important aspect to adequately modeling the impacts of training activities is
the spatial distribution of land use activities. Land use activities are not distributed
uniformly across the installation. The training distribution map should reflect the effects
of topography, vegetation, and other environmental influences on the distribution of land
uses such as training. It should also reflect the doctrinal requirements of training and
historic land use patterns. In ATTACC, the methodology to create this data layer is
flexible but the land use patterns estimated should reflect actual land use.
4.3.1.3 Vegetation Recovery Map
To adequately model changes in land condition, the natural recovery of the land
must be accounted for. Recovery rate data are available from a variety of sources.
Recovery rate data can be obtained from controlled studies at installations or from
similar ecosystems, or from subject matter experts (SME). Recovery period is the
number of years necessary to replace an equivalent amount of soil protecting cover
after being disturbed (factors related to C factor including ground cover, aerial cover,
etc). The change in erosion status due to natural recovery is modeled in ATTACC by
using an estimate of the number of years required to grow an equivalent amount of
cover (C factor) that was removed by a single pass of an M1A2.
4.3.2 Calculate Predicted Future Land Condition
Future land condition is calculated for a given training load (MIM value) by
performing all mathematical operations within the GIS on a cell-by-cell basis. It is also
calculated as the average annual predicted ES value for each grid cell (excluding areas
unavailable for training as delineated on the available training lands map). As shown in
the conceptual equation in section 4-3, this model includes the following:
Current land condition (calculated in step 1 using the most recent vegetative
cover data to derive the C factor)
Change in land condition due to training (using the training impact map and the
training distribution map)
Change in land condition due to natural recovery (using the recovery map).
Page 4-7
ATTACC Handbook
4.4
March 1999
Step 3. Produce Land Condition Curves
The relationship between land condition (as measured

by erosion status) and training load (as measured by
maneuver impact miles) is represented as the ATTACC
land condition curve. An automated GIS tool is available
that produces this curve by reiterating the equation to
predict land condition using a range of possible MIM
values.
You can produce land

condition curves by
training area of for the
entire installation.

LAND CONDITION
(Erosion Status)
Larger
Smaller
Smaller
TRAINING LOAD
(MIM)
Larger
Figure 4-2. Land Condition Curve.

To produce the curve, the GIS tool requires the results of the current land condition
calculation and the following maps:
Training impact
Training distribution
Land Recovery
The map that includes the land units to which the land condition curves will
relate.
Note that the map representing land units should be the training area map if the user
wishes to integrate results into RFMSS. However, if land condition curves for other land
units such as management areas, watersheds, or an entire installation are more useful,
those map layers can be used instead of training area maps. Figure 4-2 provides an
example of a land condition curve.
Page 4-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
ATTACC produces land condition curves independently from the process described
in section 3 for measuring training load. However, the land condition curve along with
the training load (i.e., MIM values) integrate to support ATTACC's Land Maintenance
component, which is described in section 6. In the Land Maintenance component of
ATTACC, the land condition curve enables ATTACC users to estimate predicted land
condition for any estimated training load.
4.5
Step 4. Set Land Condition Thresholds
Erosion is a normal geologic process occurring

in ecosystems. The objective in managing military
lands is not to eliminate erosion but to reduce
erosion due to human activity to an acceptable
level. To help interpret soil loss estimates, soil loss
tolerance (T) for each soil type is provided by the
NRCS. The T value indicates the maximum level of
soil erosion that will permit a high level of soil
productivity to be sustained economically and
indefinitely.
Land condition thresholds

are erosion status (ES)
values established by each
installation to reflect local
environmental conditions,
management objectives,
funding restrictions, and
mission priorities.
Erosion status values less than or equal to 1 indicate areas where the soil resource
is being sustained. Values greater than 1 indicate areas where the soil resource is not
being sustained. An erosion status of 1 is a potentially useful carrying capacity
threshold for military lands. Other ES values may also be important threshold values for
installations. For more information on setting land condition thresholds see appendix F.
In the ATTACC methodology, land condition threshold values are established by
each installation to reflect local environmental conditions, management objectives,
funding restrictions, and mission priorities. Land condition threshold values are erosion
status values that reflect land condition management goals. Usually two land condition
thresholds are established to correspond to red, amber, and green conditions. Land
condition threshold values are frequently set at 1.0 and 2.0. Figure 4-3 shows a land
condition curve with two land condition threshold values.
A T T A C C L a n d C o n d itio n C u r v e
A T T A C C L a n d C o n d itio n C u r v e
GREEN
LAND CONDITION
LA
N
D
C
O
N
DI
TI
AMBER
T R A IN IN G L O A D R E D
T R A IN IN G L O A D
Figure 4-3. Establishing LC Threshold Values for ATTACC LC Curve.

Page 4-9
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Once land condition threshold values are established,

MIM Red/Amber/Green carrying capacity threshold
values can be obtained from the land condition curve.
Carrying capacity threshold values are the maximum
training load (i.e., MIM) that an installation (or training
area) can support while sustaining a specified land
condition. For each threshold determine the training load
(i.e., MIM) value where the land condition curve crosses
each land condition threshold. RFMSS will use these
MIM values, as described in section 6, Using ATTACC to
Support Installation Land Maintenance.
Page 4-10
Carrying capacity
threshold values are the
maximum training load
(i.e., MIMs) that an
installation (or training
area) can support while
sustaining a specified
land condition.
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 5. LAND MAINTENANCE

5.1
Introduction
Land maintenance is the collection of LRAM practices and their sum total benefit in
mitigating erosion. ATTACC measures land maintenance in terms of the type of
practice, costs, affected acres, and associated P values. Figure 6-1 provides the
steps to measure land maintenance costs. Yearly projected MIMs provided by RFMSS
and land condition curves can be calculated by training area or for the entire installation.
To tie the land maintenance piece to RFMSS, land maintenance practices should be
collected at training area level. Once yearly MIMs are calculated, a predicted land
condition is determined.
Land Maintenance
Step 1:
Compare
Erosion Status Goal
& Predicted ES
Identify ES Delta
Calculate % Shift in
Land Condition Curve
Step 2:
Develop Land
Maintenance Investments
Determine LRAM
Benefits
Develop a Cost
Function
Step 3:
Conduct Resource
Analysis
Calculate Total Repair
Requirement
Calculate Total Sustain
Requirement
Calculate Total LRAM
Requirement
Figure 5-1. Land Maintenance.

5.2
Step 1. Compare ES Goal and Predicted ES
For costing and funding purposes, a land condition goal is chosen to accomplish a
desired land condition that reflects realistic funding goals. A delta between the
predicted land condition and land condition goal indicates the proportional difference
between the two erosion status calculations. Once the predicted future land condition
value (measured in ES and referred to as predicted ES) is determined in Step 5, the
value is compared to the desired land condition (referred to as the ES goal). Larger ES
values reflect a poorer land condition, whereas smaller ES values reflect a better land
condition.
Page 5-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
5.2.1 Identify ES Delta

The difference between the predicted erosion status and the erosion status goal
results in the delta. This delta is a numeric representation of the degree to which the
predicted erosion status varies from the ES prediction. As an example, the difference
between the predicted erosion status of 1.8 and the erosion status goal of 1.5 results in
a delta value of (-) 0.3.
ES Goal ES Prediction = ES Delta
ES Goal 1.5 ES Prediction 1.8 = ES Delta (-) 0.3
A (-) designates that a shortfall situation exists and that the predicted erosion status
exceeds the ES Goal. Figure 5-2 illustrates the relationship between the ES Goal and
the ES prediction based on training load, i.e., MIMs.

Larger
LAND CONDITION
(Erosion Status)
ES 1.5
Goal
Predicted
ES 1.8
Smaller
Smaller
TRAINING LOAD
(MIM)
Larger
Figure 5-2. Predicted ES and ES Goal

5.2.2 Calculate Percent Shift in Land Condition Curve
To calculate the percent shift in the land condition curve, translate the difference
between the predicted erosion status and the erosion status goal, i.e., the ES delta, into
a percentage. The percentage is the shift in land condition curve required to meet the
ES goal and maintain the same training load. To translate the ES delta into a
percentage, a ratio is taken between the delta and the predicted erosion status.
In the previous example, a 0.3 ES delta was required to meet the erosion status goal
of 1.5. Therefore, translating the ES delta into the shift in the land condition curve is
done as follows:
Page 5-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
% Shift in Land Condition Curve = ES Delta / ES Prediction

% shift in Land Condition curve = 0.3 / 1.8
% shift in Land Condition curve = 16.6%
This example implies that the land condition curve needs to shift 16.6%. The arrow
in figure 5-3 points to the required shift in the land condition to accommodate the same
amount of training load and decrease the erosion status from 1.8 to the erosion status
goal of 1.5. Note that the land condition curve does not change its shape; rather its
position on the land condition axis (i.e., the Y-axis) changes.

Larger
LAND CONDITION
(Erosion Status)
ES 1.5
Goal
Predicted
ES 1.8
Smaller
Smaller
TRAINING LOAD
(MIM)
Larger
Figure 5-3. Required shift in land condition.

5.3
Step 2. Develop Land Maintenance Investments
LRAM practices are those maintenance investments that are funded through the
LRAM component of the ITAM Program. They are defined as operations or structures
that slow runoff water velocity, thus reducing the amount of sediment carried by runoff
waters. The maintenance investment practices on military lands include, but are not
limited to, revegetation, surface hardening, and sediment retention structures.
The ATTACC land condition curve represents the relationship between the training
load (MIM) and land condition (erosion status). The execution of land maintenance
practices and their resulting level of effectiveness mitigate erosion and shift the land
condition curve without impacting training load.
Page 5-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
5.3.1 Identify Type Practices

For the purposes of ATTACC, LRAM practices are defined as operations or
structures that slow runoff water velocity, thus reducing the amount of sediment that is
carried by runoff waters. There are two basis types of LRAM practices -- repair and
sustain.
Repair practices are those that directly affect erosion and whose benefit can be
quantified to shift the land condition curve. Seeding is an example of a repair practice.
Sustain practices are non-erosion related practices, i.e., they do not directly affect
erosion, but whose expense is part of the cost of doing LRAM business. Firebreaks are
an example of a sustain practice.
Table 5-1 provides an abbreviated list of LRAM practices. The first column lists valid
LRAM practices, which are funded through the installation ITAM workplan process. The
second column distinguishes between Repair and Sustain types of LRAM practices.
Conversely, equipment expenses do not directly affect erosion, but they are a legitimate
LRAM costs. The third column is the unit of measure for the construction of the LRAM
practice. The fourth column provides the total acres affected by one unit of the LRAM
practice.
Table 5-1. Partial Listing of LRAM practices.
Practice
Type
Unit of
Practice Measure
Affected
Acres/ Unit
Quantity
P
(Effectiveness
Measure)
Aerial Seeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Drill Seeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Hydroseeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Construction and maintenance

of fire breaks
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Watershed Erosion Project
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Subsequent sections describe the process for quantifying LRAM practices and their
benefits. Appendix G provides a more comprehensive listing of LRAM practices and a
brief description of each practice. The full list of LRAM practices is available from the
Installation Work Analysis Module (IWAM).
5.3.2 Determine LRAM Benefits
ATTACC quantifies the benefits of an LRAM practice, based on the mitigating effect
that a practice has on the erosion process. The location of the operation (i.e., structure)
on the landscape, structure, design, and maintenance practices are components that
Page 5-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
influence the effectiveness of LRAM practices (structure) in reducing runoff velocity

and/or trapping sediment.
The effectiveness measurement or P factor, associated with each LRAM practice
has a value between from 0.00 to 1.00, where smaller values represent more effective
practices. P factor values for LRAM practices are included in the last column of table 51.
The P factor value is the only variable that can shift the land condition curve.
Consequently, a P factor value of 0.85 indicates that the land maintenance practice will
reduce soil runoff by 15 percent (1.00 - 0.85 = 0.15).
5.3.3 Develop a Cost Function
To develop a cost function, ATTACC combines the cost of the practices with their
ability to mitigate erosion. ATTACC distinguishes between two types of LRAM costs -costs of erosion-related practices (treated as repair costs) and costs of non-erosion
related practices (treated as sustain costs). Figure 5-4 illustrates how ATTACC
develops a cost function for an installation.
Unit
Affected
Acres
per Unit
Qty
6
8
Ea
Mi
1.00
1.00
Ea
300
Total:
Qty
in FY
Practice
Stream Crossings
Paved Road
Sediment basins (Erosion
Control/Sed Ret Str)
Practice
Type
Practice
Qty Unit Cost

in FY
Stream Crossings
Paved Road
Sediment basins (Erosion
Bulldozing
Repair
Repair
Repair
Sustain
6
8
5
4600
Affected
Acres
Ratio of
Affected
P
Acres to
(Effectiveness
Total Acres
Measure)
6
8
0.00
0.01
0.55
0.50
1,500
1,514
0.99
0.48
Change in
Reduction in
Land Condition
Land Condition
Weighted by
due to P
Affected Acres
0.450
0.500
0.520
Weighted Average:
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.520
Total Cost
$10,000
$134,000
$70,000
$60
$60,000
$1,069,320
$350,000
Sustain
TOTALS:
Cost to achieve a 1% change in Land Condition:
$1,479,320
$28,469
Figure 5-4. LRAM cost function.

Initially, practices are identified and their total quantity is recorded. A simple
calculation determines the number of acres affected by the LRAM practices and their
relative impact to the total affected acres. ATTACC determines a weighted average by
totaling the weighted affected acres per practice. Next, ATTACC calculates the total
practice costs by multiplying the quantity by the unit cost
Finally, the total cost of the LRAM practices is divided by the weighted average
change in P. For the purposes of this calculation, changes in P values are assumed to
be linearly related to changes in cost. The result is a cost value for a one percent
change in P. Note that Sustain LRAM maintenance practices are not included in the
Page 5-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
weighted average. Their costs are added at the end of the cost process, as described
in the section 5.4.
For example, the total cost of erosion-related LRAM practices is $1,479,320. The
total cost is divided by the weighted average change for the LRAM practice, which is
0.520, and multiplied by 100 to estimate a requirement (e.g., $1,479,320/(0.520 * 100)).
The resulting value of $28,469 is the cost to achieve a one percent shift in the land
condition curve. In the above example, the LRAM requirement has been calculated for
the entire installation. Should you want to determine a requirement at training area
level, you would replicate this process for each designated training area.
5.4
Step 3. Conduct Resource Analysis
Now that ATTACC has calculated the cost to shift the land condition curve by 1%, a
total sustain requirement, based on our delta and repair practices costs, is calculated.
In previous steps, ATTACC determined that a 16.6% shift in the land condition curve
was needed to accommodate the training load and return the land condition to its ES
goal of 1.5.
5.4.1 Calculate Total Repair Requirement
The Total REPAIR requirement is the cost to change the predicted erosion status
from 1.8 to the starting erosion status of 1.5. Multiplying the percent shift by the cost to
shift the curve 1%, determines the total REPAIR requirement. The resulting value
accounts only for LRAM maintenance practices.
Total REPAIR requirement = (% shift) x (Cost to achieve 1% change in Curve)
Total REPAIR requirement = (16.6% shift) x ($28,469 per 1% shift)
Total REPAIR requirement = $472, 585
5.4.2 Calculate Total Sustain Requirement

The costs of doing business, referred to as "Sustain costs", also need to be
considered to get an accurate picture of the TOTAL LRAM requirement for an
installation.
Total SUSTAIN Requirement = Sum of Sustain Costs
Total SUSTAIN Requirement = 4600 Acres Bulldozed at $60/Acre
Total SUSTAIN Requirement = $276,000
Page 5-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
5.4.3 Calculate Total LRAM Requirement

Finally, the total repair requirement and total sustain requirement are summed to
calculate a TOTAL installation LRAM requirement.
Total LRAM Requirement = Total Repair Requirement + Total Sustain
Requirement
Total LRAM Requirement = $472,585 + $276,000
Total LRAM Requirement = $748,585.
Page 5-7
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page 5-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 6. USING ATTACC TO SUPPORT INSTALLATION LAND

MANAGEMENT
6.1
Introduction
Before the ATTACC methodology can

meet its objectives, ATTACC users must
understand how to follow the steps
associated with the ATTACC components to:
Measure training load, using RFMSS;
Estimate land condition using GIS; and
Determine
land
maintenance
requirements, using information from the
Installation Workplan Analysis Module
(IWAM).
Before the methodology can be really

beneficial to installation land managers, the
three components of ATTACC (i.e., training
load, land condition, and land maintenance)
must be integrated to provide useful
information to the land manager.
This
section describes how information from the
three components of ATTACC are integrated
into RFMSS to support land management
decisions.
6.2
ATTACC Objectives
Estimate
training
land
carrying capacity by relating
training load, land condition,
and
land
maintenance
practices
Provide decision support to

the installation training land
manager and the installation
staff for optimizing training
land usage, while minimizing
repair
and
maintenance
requirements
Provide
a
means
for
estimating future LRAM costs
of
land-based
training
requirements, by considering
the
costs
of
land
maintenance practices and
expected training land usage.
Concept of Operations
Figure 6-1 illustrates the concept for integrating ATTACC into RFMSS. The four
steps comprising the integration concepts are summarized as follows:
Step 1: Develop/ Update Land Condition Curve. The ITAM Coordinator

develops a land condition curve for each training area, as described in section
4.4. The land condition curve describes the unique relationship between training
load, land condition, and land maintenance for each training area. The curve is
updated each year to reflect the previous years land maintenance practices,
training load, and any new LCTA information.
Step 2: Set Thresholds and Targets. The ITAM Coordinator uses the land
condition curve and his/her land management objectives to set carrying capacity
thresholds and target values for each training area. The threshold and target
values are entered into RFMSS and serve as a measuring stick with which to
assess the MIM balance associated with a specific training area.
Page 6-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
ATTACC Concept of Operations
Step 1:
Develop/ Update
Land Condition
Curve
Step 4:
Support Land
Management
Decisions
Step 2:
Set Thresholds
and
Targets
Step 3:
Maintain
MIM
Balance
Figure 6-1. ATTACC Integration into RFMSS.
Step 3: Maintain MIM Balance. RFMSS maintains the MIM balance in each
training area as events are scheduled and executed. The MIM balance is
accumulated on a fiscal year basis and is compared to the target and threshold
values set in Step 2.
Step 4: Support Land Management Decisions. The ITAM Coordinator uses

various RFMSS reports and the ATTACC Integration Model to support land
management decisions. For example, the land manager may use these tools to
project land condition, determine land maintenance requirements, and assess land
use patterns
Steps 1 and 2 occur at the start of each fiscal year; while Steps 3 and 4 occur
continually as events are scheduled and executed. Each step is further described in the
remainder of this section.
6.3
Step 1: Develop/Update Land Condition Curve
Section 4 described how to measure land condition, develop land condition curves,
and determine land condition and carrying capacity threshold values, using various GIS
data layers and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. (i.e., RUSLE) The carrying
capacity threshold values and land condition curve are the key outputs supporting the
RFMSS/ATTACC concept of operations.
To support integration of ATTACC into RFMSS, the ITAM Coordinator must develop
a land condition curve for each training area that he/she monitors. Normally, this is
limited to maneuver training areas, but RFMSS supports the development of a land
condition curve for all training areas found in RFMSS.
During the first year of ATTACC implementation, the ATTACC land condition curve
will not directly incorporate the previous years training load or land maintenance
Page 6-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
practices. Rather, the effects of these activities are assumed to be reflected in the
RUSLE factors. (e.g., vegetative cover) Thus, the first year land condition curve serves
as a baseline for the ATTACC model.
In subsequent years of ATTACC implementation, ATTACC users need to develop or
update land condition curves. If new LCTA information is available, a new land
condition curve should be developed using the steps outlined in Section 4. If no new
LCTA information is available, then ATTACC users should update baseline land
condition curves using information from RFMSS and the IWAM. RFMSS data provides
the previous years training load and the IWAM provides information regarding land
maintenance projects.
Last years training load from RFMSS is used to determine the starting point for next
years curve. Land maintenance practices from the IWAM shift the curve to the right
and upward to reflect improved land condition. The effect of changes to the land
condition curve are changes to the MIM threshold values 13 .
6.4
Step 2: Set Thresholds and Targets
In Step 2, the ITAM coordinator uses the land condition

curves and his/her land management objectives to set
annual MIM threshold values for each training area in
RFMSS. As described in Section 4, MIM thresholds are
derived from the land condition curve and represent
boundaries between qualitative values of land condition.
The Green-Amber MIM threshold is the number of MIM
at which the land condition will go from good (i.e., green) to
fair (i.e., amber). The Amber-Red MIM threshold is the
number of MIMs at which the land condition will go from fair
to poor (i.e., red). MIM thresholds are based primarily on
ecological considerations and are used within ATTACC and
RFMSS to get qualitative, visual feedback on land condition
via the MIMs Map and various RFMSS reports.
MIM threshold
values (also called
carrying capacity
threshold values) are
the maximum
training load that an
installation (or
training area) can
support while
sustaining a
specified land
condition.
In addition to the MIM thresholds, the ITAM Coordinator must also determine MIM
target values for each training area. MIM target values represent the amount of training
that individual training areas can accommodate in terms of the ITAM Coordinators
overall land management objectives. Thus, target values are management objectives,
whereas MIM thresholds correspond to a value of land condition.
In an ideal world, all target values would be set within the green band of land
condition.
However, because training objectives take precedence over land
management objectives, and because land maintenance funding is not limitless, the
13
The exact method for updating the ATTACC land condition curve will be included in the ATTACC Integration
Module and associated documentation, due for release in 3Q FY99.
Page 6-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
MIM target value for many training areas may be in the Amber or even Red band. This
allows for a more realistic approach to land management that recognizes that not all
training areas will be in optimal condition during a given year.
Once the ITAM Coordinator establishes MIM threshold and target values, he/she
enters the values into RFMSS using the ITAM administrative/setup area and the Facility
Setup screen. The ITAM Coordinator enters three values for each training area (i.e.,
facility): the Green-Amber Threshold, the Amber-Red Threshold, and the Target value.
Figure 6-2 illustrates a sample RFMSS facility setup screen.
MIM thresholds are
used within
ATTACC and
RFMSS to get
qualitative, visual
feedback on land
condition via the
MIM Map and
various RFMSS
reports. The target
values allow the
ITAM Coordinator
to monitor land use
according to
his/her
management
objectives for
training load.
Figure 6-2. RFMSS Facility Setup Screen.
After the ITAM Coordinator completes steps 1 and 2 at the beginning of the fiscal
year, he/she is ready to use RFMSS and ATTACC to assist with land management
decisions.
6.5
Step 3: Maintain MIM Balance
There are two distinct categories of MIM balances: scheduled MIM and executed
MIM. In general, scheduled MIM values represents an estimate of future training load;
executed MIM values quantify past training loads.
To determine scheduled MIM values, RFMSS combines information from the training
request with information from the ATTACC Training Model and calculates MIM values
as described in Section 3. These MIM values are then added to the scheduled MIM
balance for the training area listed on the training request.
Page 6-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Once an event in the schedule is executed, scheduled MIM values convert to

executed MIM values. Then RFMSS adjusts the scheduled and executed MIM
balances for the relevant training areas accordingly. In many cases a combination of
scheduled and executed MIM values are needed to support ATTACC.
RFMSS performs Step 3, Maintain MIM Balance, as events are scheduled and
executed. 14 RFMSS maintains MIM balances by fiscal year for each training area. 15
6.6
Step 4: Support Land Management Decisions
The integration of ATTACC into RFMSS supports the ITAM Coordinator by providing
a mechanism to:
Estimate land condition
Estimate land maintenance requirements
Monitor training load and training allocation per land management objectives.
These basic capabilities provide insightful information for supporting a wide variety
of land management decisions such as prioritizing land maintenance projects,
evaluating training site alternatives, and assessing the impact of stationing decisions. It
is up to the ITAM Coordinator to determine how best to use the information and
capabilities provided by ATTACC for installation land management.
6.6.1 Using ATTACC/RFMSS to Estimate Land Condition
The most basic capability that the integration of ATTACC into RFMSS provides is an
ability to estimate the impact of training on land condition. This is done by comparing
the MIM thresholds (described in section 6.4) to the MIM balance (described in section
6.5), and then expressing the result qualitatively using the Red-Amber-Green scale.
The Red-Amber-Green assessment is displayed on the MIMs Map, various RFMSS
reports, and several RFMSS screens.
6.6.1.1
Estimate Land Condition
Because the ATTACC land condition curves and MIM thresholds are based on one
year of use and recovery, land condition predictions in RFMSS always estimate land
condition at the end of the fiscal year 16 . The estimate is based on a combination of
scheduled and executed MIM and compares the total MIMs for the fiscal year with the
MIM thresholds.
For example, suppose the ITAM Coordinator runs a RFMSS report to estimate FY99
land condition in training area one (TA1). If this report is run on 1 July 1999, then
14
Some versions of RFMSS require the user to activate a Recalculate MIMs function before MIMs are
calculated.
15
This is necessary in order to be consistent with the land maintenance budgeting process and with the land
condition curves, which represent one year of use and recovery.
16
Future versions of ATTACC/RFMSS may incorporate a sliding year, so that land predictions do not have to be
limited to the fiscal year.
Page 6-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
RFMSS will add TA1s executed MIM values (i.e., events executed between 1 October
1998 and 30 June 1999) to TA1s scheduled MIM values (i.e., events scheduled
between 1 July 1999 and 30 September 1999) to create a combined MIM balance.
Then, RFMSS will compare the combined MIM balance with the Green-Amber and
Amber-Red threshold values for TA1 to create a qualitative land condition estimate.
If the combined MIM balance is less than the Green-Amber threshold, the estimated
Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 land condition in TA1 is good or green. If the combined MIM
balance is greater than the Green-Amber threshold, but less than the Amber-Red
threshold, then the estimated FY 1999 land condition for TA1 is fair or amber. Finally, if
the combined MIM balance is greater than the Amber-Red threshold, then the estimated
FY 1999 land condition for TA1 is poor or red. The relationship is expressed by the
following equations:
MIM Balance = Executed MIM (1 OCT to Current Day - 1) +
Scheduled MIM (Current Day to 30 Sep)
Land Condition = Green, for MIM Balance < Green-Amber Threshold

Red, for MIM Balance > Amber-Red Threshold or
Amber, otherwise
Although this is a relatively simple concept, there are some subtleties, of which the
ITAM Coordinator must be aware. First, this calculation is dependent on the length of
the scheduling window. To illustrate if an installation schedules most major events at
least 1 year out, then the land condition estimate will be at maximum reliability from the
start of the FY. Conversely, if an installation only schedules 3-6 months out, then land
condition estimates run early during the same FY will underestimate the training load
and thus overestimate land condition.
The under-estimation of training load due to a relatively short scheduling window will
cause most areas to exhibit a good (i.e., green) land condition early in the FY, which will
then worsen toward the end of the FY. The implication is that land condition estimates
are less reliable until you are within your installations scheduling window from the end
of the FY. (Alternatively you may work with your scheduler to schedule larger events a
little further out, or to schedule dummy events as placeholders.)
Second, the ITAM Coordinator should keep in mind that the training schedule may
change considerably as training requests change or are cancelled. Consequently, the
predicted land condition will also change so it should not be considered as a static
value.
Finally, land condition predictions will change if the training executed is not the same
as that which was originally scheduled. For example, there may be no-shows, the
duration of the event may increase or decrease, and the number of vehicles may
increase or decrease from the original request. All of these changes affect the
predicted land condition.
Page 6-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
6.6.1.2
Display Land Condition
Qualitative values of land condition are displayed in RFMSS via the MIMs Map,
various MIMs reports, and on several RFMSS screens. Figure 6-3 provides an example
of a RFMSS generated MIMs Map.
To display your MIMs
map, go to the ITAM
section of RFMSS and
select View Maps. This
activates the ArcView
GIS tool that displays
the MIMs Map (as well as
other GIS data layers).
By clicking on a specific
training area in the MIMs
Map, the ITAM user can
get additional
information such as the
MIMs balance, MIM
thresholds, and MIM
target values of each
training area. Refer to
your RFMSS manual for
complete instructions.
Figure 6-3. MIMs Map.

The MIMs Map is a GIS map that displays the qualitative land condition of each
training facility, using the Red-Amber-Green color scheme. In addition to the MIMs
Map, RFMSS displays qualitative land condition on several RFMSS reports and
screens. For example, the Area/Facility MIMs Status Report shows the following:
Current MIMs balance and land condition (as of the date of the report)
The next MIM threshold
Number of MIMs projected by the end of the FY
Estimated land condition at the end of the FY.
RFMSS screens that display land condition estimates include the facility set-up
screen, the two-week scheduling calendar, and the MIMs tab of the training request
depending on your version of RFMSS. 17 Figure 6-4 is an example of a RFMSS MIMs
Status Report.
17
Note that there is some disagreement as to whether using units should view the MIM information and RedAmber-Green land condition estimates. This is a decision that each installation much make.
Page 6-7
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Figure 6-4. MIMs Status Report.

6.6.2 Using ATTACC/RFMSS to Estimate Land Maintenance Requirements
A second capability that the integration of ATTACC into RFMSS provides is a
mechanism to estimate land maintenance requirements. This is done using one of two
methods. The first method uses the comprehensive cost analysis, which is repeated
annually and outlined in section 5. The second method uses ATTACC cost factors
within RFMSS to provide "on-the-fly" cost estimates during the course of the year. To
use the first method, consult section 5.
There are two types of ATTACC cost factors in RFMSS:
Installation ATTACC Cost Factor ($/MIM/Installation)
Facility ATTACC Cost Factors ($/MIM/Facility).
To use the RFMSS ATTACC cost factors, you must first generate the cost factors, using
the annual land maintenance requirements from section 5.3.3 and one year of executed
MIMs from section 6.5.
The installation ATTACC cost factors are an average dollar per MIM for land
maintenance; they apply to the entire installation. To calculate the installation cost
factors, divide the total installation land maintenance repair requirement by the total
Page 6-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
executed MIMs. 18 For example, if your total FY 2000 land maintenance repair
requirement is $500,000 and the executed MIM value is 600,000, then your installation
cost factor is:
$500,000 / 600,000 MIM = $0.83 / MIM.
Facility ATTACC cost factors are average dollars per MIM for land maintenance;
they are specific to each facility. (e.g., training area) To calculate facility cost factors,
divide each facility's land maintenance repair requirement by the number of executed
MIMs for that training area. For example, if the land maintenance repair requirement for
TA1 = $2,000 and you executed 750 MIMs in TA1, the facility cost factor for TA1 is:
$2,000 / 750 MIM = $2.67 / MIM.
Note that installation cost factors may be too general if you have a diverse
installation, whereas facility cost factors may be too specific. If this is the case, you may
also develop cost factors for groupings of facilities, and then use this same cost factor
for every facility in the group.
RFMSS uses installation cost factors and facility cost factors to generate MIM-based
cost reports, with facility cost factors taking precedence over installation cost factors
when they exist. This allows the ITAM Coordinator to get a ballpark figure for the
impact of each training event on his/her land maintenance budget. RFMSS cost reports
also support a projection for next years land maintenance requirements as the training
schedule evolves. However, just as when estimating land condition, the ITAM
Coordinator must be aware that training schedules change. Also that the length of the
scheduling window affects how useful the RFMSS cost reports will be for projecting
annual land maintenance requirements, when run early in the FY.
6.6.3 Using ATTACC/RFMSS to Monitor Training Load
A third capability that the integration of ATTACC into RFMSS provides is the ability
to monitor training load and training allocation. To use ATTACC/RFMSS to monitor
training load and training allocation, you will use the same mechanisms used to
determine land condition. The mechanisms include MIMs Map, RFMSS MIMs reports,
and RFMSS screens supporting the red-amber-green assessment described in section
6.6.1.
Besides supporting the red-amber-green
assessment, the RFMSS reports, screens, and
the MIMs Map
also support comparisons
between MIM balances and MIM target values.
For example, by "right clicking" the mouse on a
training area on the MIMs map (figure 6-3), the
user sees the MIM target value for the facility,
executed and scheduled MIMs, and the MIM
18
MIM target values reflect land

management objectives.
MIM threshold values
correspond to qualitative land
condition boundaries.
You may also contact the ATTACC Team for your installation cost factor until you develop your own land curves
and cost analysis. For POC information, refer to Appendix G.
Page 6-9
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
thresholds.
By comparing a facility's training load with the MIM target value, the ITAM
Coordinator can assess whether training load projections are within his/her land
management objectives and determine whether a change is necessary. Possible
changes include the following:
Adjustments to planned land maintenance practices (e.g., a heavily used area

may require more attention than planned)
Adjustments to the way that training is allocated between training areas (in
conjunction with the scheduler and the land user)
Changes to land management objectives, whereby certain training areas are

maintained at a lower land condition than originally planned.
A related topic is the monitoring of local soil conditions, which may increase or
decrease the impact of training on a given day. This is done using the Local Condition
Factor and is an optional operation.
First, the ITAM Coordinator must set up some local condition factor values as
described in section 3.7.1. This process is a one-time event, although local condition
descriptions and values may be changed at any time.
Second, the ITAM Coordinator must monitor soil conditions and set the LCF for a
given date or date range to account for unusual soil conditions. To set the LCF for a
given date or date range, go the ITAM section of RFMSS and select update Local
Condition Factor. You will see a screen that has a start date, end date, and a pick list of
the local condition factor descriptions that you entered during set up.
Set the start and end dates and select the local condition description that
corresponds to the date range. For example, after a period of heavy rain that saturated
the soil, you may select a local condition of Very Wet for the days where soil
conditions were very wet. This will multiply the MIM values of the training events
scheduled or executed on these days by 2.0, which is the local condition factor value
that was entered for the description Very Wet during the set up process.
LCFs may be set on a daily basis, or for any time period desired. For example, you
may choose to use the LCF to account for seasonal differences in soil conditions, or you
may just use the LCF to account for unusual weather events after they occur. In either
case, the default value for the LCF is 1.0. Thus, if there is no LCF indicated for a given
day, the multiplier used in MIMs calculations will remain 1.0.
6.7
Summary
The ATTACC Concept of Operations provides a model for integrating the three
components of ATTACC, the scheduling component of RFMSS, and the expertise of the
ITAM Coordinator into one process. This process has the single objective of better land
management.
Page 6-10
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Having ATTACC functions integrated with RFMSS supports the ITAM Coordinator
by providing a practical mechanism to estimate the impact of training on land condition
and land maintenance requirements. This in turn gives him/her the ability to support a
wide variety of land management decisions such as prioritizing land maintenance
projects, evaluating training site alternatives, and assessing the impact of stationing
decisions.
While ATTACC and RFMSS provide the tools, it is the job of the ITAM Coordinator
to determine exactly how the information and capabilities provided by ATTACC and
RFMSS are best used for installation land management.
Page 6-11
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page 6-12
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
SECTION 7. FORT ITAM -- AN EXAMPLE

7.1
Introduction
This section provides an example of start-up, daily, and periodic Army Training and
Testing Area Carrying Capacity (ATTACC) activities at the hypothetical installation -Fort ITAM. The data, activities, and situations are unique to Fort ITAM and are not
intended to represent actual maximum or minimum sets of data, activities, or situations.
7.2
Fort ITAM
Fort ITAM is a small training Army

installation comprised of six contiguous
training areas.
The following are
stationed at Fort ITAM:
Mechanized infantry battalion
Armor battalion
Engineer battalion
Brigade headquarters.
A
2
A
1
B
2
C
5
Additionally, the United States

Training
and
Doctrine
Command
(TRADOC) conducts its Initial Entry
Training (IET) for mechanized vehicle
drivers at the installation.
C
4
B
3
C
2
C
3 C
1
B
4
A
3
B
1
21,408 acre Midwest Installation

Soils vary widely
Climate
- continental
- annual precipitation = 34
Vegetation types:
- upland forests
- Old agricultural fields of
grass and brush
- wetland forest land
Drainage:
- 2 major stream running through
center of installation
Fort ITAM is located in a steppe-alpine meadow-coniferous forest region. The fort

has adequate rainfall and is snow-covered two (2) months each year. Several creeks
are present in the training areas. One alpine meadow training area contains a rare and
protected alpine grass, and is only suitable for light forces training. Each year during
the spring thaw, the soil near two of the creeks is susceptible to erosion.
The ITAM staff consists of 3 individuals: Rocky Gabion, ITAM Coordinator; Jack
Hammer, LRAM Coordinator; and Lotta Leaves, LCTA Coordinator.
The training land management objectives at Fort ITAM are to maintain the current
land conditions in all training areas, and to have no more than one training area offlimits to training at one time. To achieve these objectives, the ITAM Coordinator faces
three challenges. First, overgrown vegetation and trafficabilty problems on two of the
training areas means that units habitually concentrate training exercises in just four of
the six areas. Second, Fort ITAM is about to be the new site for a National Guard
Brigades Annual Training and the ITAM Coordinator does not know the impact of this
new training mission. Third, Spring rainfall is predicted to be above average.
Page 7-1
ATTACC Handbook
7.3
March 1999
Preparation
The ITAM Coordinator, Rocky Gabion, has decided to implement ATTACC at Fort
ITAM on April 1st and has only this handbook as a resource. What should Rocky do?
Step 1. He confirms the Range Operations staff uses RFMSS Version 3.5 or
Version XXI. He works with the RFMSS Administrator in Range Operations to
verify the ITAM Set Up Module is in RFMSS, specifically the Set Up Table-Units
and Pre-Defined Tables-Training Event. Rocky returns to his office and
confirms he has remote access through his ITAM computer workstation.
Step 2. Rocky knows he has to get a list of mission activities, training events,
training units and school courses to determine what the training load was last
year and is scheduled for this year. He decides this is enough data, as he uses
RFMSS and ATTACC, hell get more data on training events.
Step 3. Rocky's first stop is Range Operations, where he asks for a copy of the
RFMSS Utilization Report for the previous 12 months and a copy of the RFMSS
Training Schedule for the remainder of this fiscal year. He learns the training
schedule is updated monthly, which should be enough information to set up
ATTACC. Rocky also asks the Range Operations person to print out the unit list
and event list from RFMSS, he will need that when he works the National Guard
training issue.
Next, Rocky visits the office of the Director of Plans, Training and Mobilization
(DPTM) office. Here Rocky gets the new National Guard (50th Brigade) unit list
and proposed training schedule, since neither have been loaded into RFMSS yet.
He ensures he has both unit identification codes (UICs) and unit Standard
Requirements Codes (SRCs) for the 50th Brigade units. He also finds out that
the Brigade wants to perform a company level and battalion-level FTX and CPX,
all in one training area.
Rocky had also checked RFMSS and found the TRADOC Initial Entry
Training (IET) for mechanized vehicle drivers is scheduled 4 times annually as a
RFMSS Training Event. He goes to the schools Director of Training (DOT or
G3) and gets the paper and automated copies of the POI. He will review the
facility annex, equipment annex and course modules (PFNs) at a later time.
Rocky wants to understand which modules use land, how long the training lasts,
how many vehicles it involves, and how many miles they travel.
Step 4. Rocky meets with Lotta and her LCTA team to get information from the
LCTA database; he also confirms that the data has been entered into the
RFMSS GIS system. The data is critical in developing a picture of what the
land condition and erosion status are in each training area.
Step 5. Rocky goes to the Jack Hammers office and gets the ITAM Workplans
for the previous and current years, from the Installation Workplan Analysis
Module (IWAM). Finally, Rocky checks to confirm the LRAM projects contain a
Page 7-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
project description, the projected and executed costs, and a very critical piece of
information -- the projects training area location.
7.4
Setup RFMSS
Rocky is now prepared to customize ATTACC for Fort ITAM so that he can use
RFMSS to calculate MIMs. He sits down with the RFMSS administrator, logs on to
RFMSS and goes to the ITAM administrative/setup section in RFMSS. Rocky performs
the setup operations described in sections 3.3 and 3.8.
7.4.1 Cross-Walk RFMSS with ATTACC Events
Rocky looks at the RFMSS event list for Fort ITAM, which the Range Operations
schedulers use every day. Rocky recognizes some of the events, like Armor Company
FTX, but others, like Red Leg Rumble does not make sense. Rocky reviews the
RFMSS event list with the Range Operations scheduler to get an idea of exactly what
happens during the training event, how big it is, and how long it lasts. The notes he
jots down will help him determine each training events impact on the land, and how it
will most closely match to an ATTACC event. Rocky follows the instructions in section
3.3.1 and matches each RFMSS event to an ATTACC event, using his best judgement.
Rocky even matches the schools mechanized vehicle drivers training program to the
Drivers Training event on the ATTACC list. As the final step, he saves the event
information in the RFMSS database, prints the lists and checks them for accuracy.
RFMSS
ATTACC
Un
Unit
RFMSS EVENT LIST
ATTACC EVENT
AVIATION - TABLE VII
CREW WPNS QUAL
ARTEP
BN FTX
2-10 AV
BN, AV ASLT UH-60
CALFEX
BN LFX/CALFEX
20 ENGR
BN, EN HVY DIV
CPX
BN CPX/MAPEX
EDRE
BN CPX/MAPEX
1-42 FA
BN, FA 155SP (HVY)
FCX
BN FCX
2-8 FA
BN, FA 105T LT
FTX
BN FTX
1-34 AR
BN, AR M1 SERIES
AR CO FTX
CO FTX
MECH CO FIELD EXERCISE
BN FTX
115 FSB
BN, FWD SPT FSB HVY
MEC INF TF BN FTX
BN FTX
1-14 INF
BN, INF (LT)
10 METER RECORD FIRE
IND WPNS QUAL
41 ENGR
BN, EN (LT)
WARFIGHTER EXERCISE
BN FTX
BRADLEY (ADA) - TABLE VIIIA
CREW WPNS QUAL
CO LANES TRAINING
CO STX
COMMAND POST
CO CPX/TEWT/MAPEX
RFMSS UNIT ID
ATTACC UNIT TYPE
7.4.2 Specify Standard Unit Type

Since Rocky and the RFMSS administrator are still logged on to RFMSS and in the
setup section, they begin to assign a standard unit type to each unit in the RFMSS
database, as described in section 3.3.2. Rocky reviews the Fort ITAM unit list in the
RFMSS database, and the 50th BDE unit list he picked up earlier. He picks an ATTACC
standard unit type from the ATTACC unit list and using the setup instructions matches
every RFMSS unit to a single type unit. He saves this in the RFMSS database.
Rocky gets Range Operations approval to have the scheduler load the 50th BDE
units in RFMSS, and then they match these to ATTACC standard unit types. They save
this information in RFMSS.
They print out the RFMSS and ATTACC unit lists to check them for accuracy and
completeness. Now that the standard unit types are specified; the ATTACC Training
Page 7-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Model will assign default vehicle types, counts and mileage as the training events are
scheduled.
7.4.3 Adjust Vehicle and Event Factors
The RFMSS ATTACC Training Model
database contains the default vehicle and
event values. Since Rocky does not yet have
any experience or hard data to make him
question those values, he does not make any
changes.
7.4.4 Set Local Condition Factor
Rocky is happy with using a Local
Condition Factor default value of (1.0) for now,
but he decides he will set up two Local
Condition Factors, just in case. He sets up a
LCF of 2.0 for very wet conditions, and an LCF
of 1.0 for average conditions. Rocky leaves
Range Operations, but plans to return to
accomplish two final tasks.
7.5
Event Severity Factors and MIMs

UNIT TYPE
TANK BN
TANK CO
TANK / MECH TASK FORCE
FA BN 155SP
CBT SPT CO (HVY)
HVY ENGR BN
HVY INF CO
LT INF BN
LT FA BN 105T
LT ENGR CO
EVENT
BN FTX
CO FTX
BN CALFEX
BN CPX
CO FTX
BN FTX
CO LFX
BN FTX
BN FTX
CO FTX
ESF DURATION MIMS

1.00
3 DAY
6,750
0.36
4 DAY
321
0.68
2 DAY
502
0.11
4 DAY
28
0.28
5 DAY
892
1.41
4 DAY
4,549
0.23
4 DAY
274
0.11
4 DAY
57
0.24
4 DAY
400
0.08
3 DAY
11
Vehicle Factors
VEHICLE
VSF
VCF
VOF
TANK: M1A2 ABRAMS
1.00
1.00
1.00
IFV: M2A2 BRADLEY
0.86
0.64
0.90
CARRIER: M113A3
0.65
0.54
0.85
HOWITZER: 155SP M109A5
0.79
0.64
0.75
HMMWV
0.27
0.43
0.60
Set Thresholds and Targets
Rocky meets with Jack Hammer and Lotta Leaves to discuss setting carrying
capacity (i.e., MIMs) thresholds for each training area, as described in sections 4.5 and
6.4. They discuss current conditions, training area carrying capacity, and the impact
training has on the training area. They also discuss options for mission usage and
identify affordable LRAM practices for repairing the effects of training.
After providing the land condition curves for a specific training area, Lotta explains
the implication of the curves to Rocky and Jack. During the discussion, Lotta describes
the importance of LCTA data in the GIS and how the information was used in the
RUSLE equation to develop the land condition curves. She adds that major contributors
for applying the RUSLE equation at Fort ITAM are vegetation cover and training
distribution data.
C Factor = Tracked C Factor - Untracked C
Historic land use

patterns
are
used to predict
future land use
distribution
LCTA
disturbance data
is extrapolated
using remotely
sensed imagery
and other spatial
data
LCTA plot data is divided

into
tracked
and
untracked data subsets
Fort ITAM
C factors for tracked and

untracked
areas
are
calculated
D lt
C i
l t d
Page 7-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
In her analysis the two alpine meadow training areas and two areas adjacent to the
two creeks have extremely low MIMs thresholds, four are medium, and four areas are
extremely resilient and have high thresholds.
Jack Hammer reviews the completed and planned LRAM projects, and makes his
suggestions. He agrees with Lotta's assessment that the alpine meadow areas cannot
be repaired if severely damaged. Jack suggests that the planned erosion control
barriers and hardened crossings will give the two creek areas a higher threshold. Jack
concurs on the four medium threshold areas and the four high threshold areas. He
recommends that one medium and one high threshold training area be designated as
"off-limits" for two years to promote natural and man-made recovery.
Rocky carefully listens to Lotta and Jack, thinks about Fort ITAM land management
objectives, and what he learned about the scheduled training at Range Operations. He
returns to Range Operations and meets with the RFMSS administrator.
Together they enter data into RMFSS regarding the training area Green-to-Amber
(G TO A) and Amber-to-Red (A TO R) thresholds
TGT
G TO A A TO R
(based on the land condition curves), and Rocky
TA
A1
21000
18000
25000
selects the target MIM values. The target (TGT)
TA B2
22000
18000
25000
MIM value corresponds with Rocky's land
TA
C3
23000
20000
25000
management objectives for the training year,
given what he knows about land condition and
training load.
ATTACC Land Condition Curve & Thresholds (TA B2)
GREEN
AMBER
RED
TRAINING LOAD THRESHOLDS (MIMs)
Page 7-5
ATTACC Handbook
7.6
March 1999
Enter IWAM Data
While at range operations, Rocky updates the IWAM module in RFMSS 19 , to include
executed LRAM Projects and planned LRAM projects When he prepared his ITAM
workplan last year he used the IWAM to enter all of the planned LRAM projects, but he
doublechecks to see that he has also entered the executed LRAM Projects. He pays
close attention to make sure that the training area information is entered for each LRAM
project and that the costs and quantities of each land management practice are as
accurate as possible.
7.7
DAILY OPERATIONS.
Based on Range Operations

scheduling routine, Rocky decides he
will check MIMs values in each training
area on Thursday afternoons. He looks
at the training areas the National Guard
BDE wants to use (A1, B2, or C3). He
notices that based on the training
scheduling for the rest of the FY, one
area is green, one area is already
amber and one is red.
Facility
Training Load
Land Condition
15,750
17,400
26,500
Green - 1.3
Amber - 1.5
Red - 2.2
A1
B2
C3
MIMs
Erosion Status
Rocky meets with the Range Operations Chief to discuss the training land condition,
and ask that he become involved before next quarters training is scheduled. He
intends at that time to suggest alternatives to training in the amber area and how the
two unused areas might become more suitable for training. This initiative could reduce
the load on the other training areas, and allow for some rest and recovery.
7.8
SPECIAL SITUATIONS
Current
The DPTM asked Rocky three

questions concerning the just confirmed
National Guard Brigade training this
summer. He wants to know in which
area the brigade should train, how it will
impact the land condition and what the
land repair costs will be.
W/50th Bde
Facility Training Load Land Condition Training Load Land Condition

A1
15,750
Green 1.3
20,750
Amber 1.8
B2
17,400
Amber 1.5
22,400
Amber 1.79
C3
26,500
Red 2.2
31,500
Red 2.25
MIMs
Erosion Status
Rocky remembers he already loaded the 50th BDE units into RFMSS and assigned
them ATTACC standard type units, so he returns to cross-walk their planned training
events in RFMSS and ATTACC. Rocky and the scheduler try different combinations of
the 50th BDE units and events in different training areas based on the Brigades training
schedule, the Range Operations schedulers experience, his previous conversation with
Jack and Lotta, and common sense.
19
Currently the IWAM module is a stand-alone module not integrated into RFMSS.
Page 7-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
RFMSS and the ATTACC Training Module calculate the MIMs for the different
options, and Rocky can see the
FY
99
effects of this new training load: two
Starting Land
Condition: ES
areas will exceed their Target MIMs.
FY 99
Ending
Land
Condition
As a supplementary analysis,
Rocky also works with Jack to
determine some facility cost factors
based on the LRAM information he
loaded into the IWAM. He then
loads these factors into RFMSS and
runs some MIMs cost reports to
estimate the impact of each
alternative on his LRAM budget.
FY
99
Ending Land
Condition
with
50th
FY 99 Training
Load with 50th
Bde: 22,400
FY 99 - Training
Load w/o 50th
Bde: 17,400
A cost requirement
for each training area is
calculated,
and
a
comparison
of
the
alternatives shows the
differences in cost for
rehabilitation for each
training area. Rocky
and Jack can then
balance this information
with the land condition
estimates and land
maintenance objectives
(represented by the
target MIMs) to decide
which training area is
optimal for training of the 50th Bde.
Calculate Cost to Shift

Calculate Weighted
Report
U n it
A ffe c te d
A cre s
p e r U n it
Q ty
6
8
Ea
Mi
1 .0 0
1 .0 0
Ea
300
T o ta l:
Q ty
in F Y
P ra c tic e
S tre a m C ro s s in g s
Paved R oad
S e d im e n t b a s in s (E ro s io n
C o n tro l/S e d R e t S tr)
P ra c tic e
S tre a m C ro s s in g s
Paved R oad
S e d im e n t b a s in s (E ro s io n
B u lld o z in g
T yp e
P ra ctic e
Q ty
in F Y
Low
R e p a ir
R e p a ir
R e p a ir
F ix e d
6
8
5
4600
$ 5 ,0 0 0
$ 6 7 ,0 0 0
$ 2 5 ,0 0 0
$30
7.9
%Shift
R a tio o f
A ffec te d
P
A c re s to
(E ffe c tive n e ss
T o ta l A c re s
M e a su re )
6
8
0 .0 0
0 .0 1
0 .5 5
0 .5 0
1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 1 4
0 .9 9
0 .4 8
U n it C o st
A vera g e
$ 1 0 ,0 0 0
$ 1 3 4 ,0 0 0
$ 7 0 ,0 0 0
$60
H ig h
C h a n g e in
R e d u c tio n in
L a n d C o n d itio n
L a n d C o n d itio n
W eig h te d b y
d u e to P
A ffe c te d A c re s
0 .4 5 0
0 .5 0 0
0 .5 2 0
W e ig h te d A v e ra g e :
Low
T o ta l C o st
A ve ra g e
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 2
0 .5 2 0
H ig h
$ 2 0 ,0 0 0
$ 2 0 1 ,0 0 0
$ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0
$90
$ 3 0 ,0 0 0
$ 5 3 4 ,6 6 0
$ 1 2 5 ,0 0 0
S u s ta in
$ 6 0 ,0 0 0
$ 1 ,0 6 9 ,3 2 0
$ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0
S u s ta in
$ 1 2 0 ,0 0 0
$ 1 ,6 0 3 ,9 8 0
$ 1 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0
S u s ta in
TO TALS:
$ 6 8 9 ,6 6 0
$ 1 ,4 7 9 ,3 2 0
$ 2 ,9 7 3 ,9 8 0
A v e ra g e c o s t to a c h ie v e a 1 % c h a n g e in L a n d C o n d itio n :
$ 1 3 ,2 7 2
$ 2 8 ,4 6 9
$ 5 7 ,2 3 4
Total AVERAGE cost to

shift curve 1% = ($1,479,320)
Total Repair Requirement = (% Shift) * (Cost to
Training Area
A ffe c te d
A c re s
$per1%
Predicted Repair Cost
TA A1
38.0
$1,050
$39,900
TA B2
16.7
$1,232
$20,574
A cost requirement for each training

area is calculated, displaying the
differences in cost for rehabilitation for
each training area. Rocky and Jack
can then decide which training area is
most cost effective to allow training of
the 50th Bde.
PERIODIC ADJUSTMENT
The long-range weather forecast predicts a well above-average rainfall. These

heavy rains will adversely affect the ground and erosion during heavy force training next
month, and it cannot be rescheduled or moved to another area. To account for this,
Rocky goes to the RFMSS ITAM section for adjusting Local Condition Factors and
selects the local condition description of Very Wet for that time period. As training is
Page 7-7
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
scheduled for those four areas in September, RFMSS will calculate twice as many
MIMs.
At the end of each FY, Rocky and Lotta Leaves update the Land Condition Curves,
which in turn change the MIM thresholds and target values. This is especially important
when new LCTA data becomes available or if significant training load or land
maintenance has occurred in a training area. Rocky updates thresholds and target
values in RFMSS, and he is ready for another year of ATTACC.
Page 7-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX A: RELATED PUBLICATIONS

Appendix A includes related publications, such as Army Regulations (AR), and
literature citations associated with the content of the handbook. The content of this
appendix is to provide sources of additional information. The reader does not have to
read the publications to understand the Army Testing and Training Area (ATTACC)
Handbook.
Related Publications
Army Regulation 200-2 Environmental Effects of Army Actions
Army Regulation 210-20 Master Planning for Army Installations
Army Regulation 210-21
(implementing draft), 1997
Army
Training
Ranges
and
Training
Land
Army Regulation 350-1 Army Training

Army Regulation 350-4 Integrated Training Area Management, 1998
Field Manual 25-100, Training the Force
Field Manual 25-101, Battle Focused Training
Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM), How-To Manual, Draft Version,
February 1999
Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) II August 1996 Report United States
Army Environmental Center, August 1997
Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) II, January 1996 Report, United States
Army Environmental Center, March 1996
Remote Sensing Users Guide, United States Army Environmental Center
Study Report (CAA-SR-96-5), Evaluation of Land Value Study (ELVS); US Army
Concepts Analysis Agency, June 1996
Technical Report (N-92/03), U.S. Army Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA)
Plot Inventory Field Methods, US Army Corps of Engineers Construction
Engineering Research Laboratories, February 1992
Training Circular 25-1, Training Lands
Training Circular 25-8, Training Ranges
Page A - 1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Literature Citations
Anderson, A.B., W.L. Sprouse, D.G. Kowalski, and P.J. Guertin. 1995. LCTA
Users Interface Progam, Users Manual Version 1.0. USACERL ADP Report
95/24, August 1995, ADA 300797. 156 pp.
Bright, T.A., S. Getlein, J. Jarrett, S. Tripp, and J. Moeller. 1997. Remote

Sensing Users Guide, Version 1.0. US Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
and Topographic Engineering Center (TEC). January 1997.
Desmet, P.J.J., and G. Govers. 1996. A GIS procedure for automatically

calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(5), 427-433.
El-Swaify, S.A., and E.W. Dangler. 1976. Erodibilities of Selected Tropical Soils
in Relation to Structural and Hydrologic Parameters. P. 105-114. In Soil Erosion:
Prediction and Control. Soil Cons. Soc. Am., Ankeny, IA.
Guertin, P.J., J.F. Paruzinski, C. Rewerts, and A.B. Anderson. 1997. Maneuver
Impacts Distribution Modeling. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Integrated
Training Area Management Workshop, 26-28 August, 1997, San Antonio, TX.
Heimlich, R.E., and N.L. Bills. 1984. An Improved Soil Erosion Classification for
Conservation Policy. J. Soil and Water Cons., 39(4):261-266.
Jurgens, C., and M. Fanders. 1993. Soil Erosion Assessment by Means of

LANDSAT-TM and Ancillary Digital Data in Relation to Water Quality. Soil
Technology. 6:215-223.
Linn, J., and C.C. Gordon. 1993. Mapping Training Area Disturbance on the Fort
Carson Military Reservation. Geographic Information Systems: Proceedings of
the Seventh Annual GRASS Users Conference, March 16-19, 1992, Lakewood,
Colorado. US Department of Interior, Technical Report NPS/NRGISD/NRTR93/13.
Mellerowicz, K.T., H.W. Rees, T.L. Chow, and I. Ghanem. 1994. Soil
Conservation Planning at the Watershed Level Using the Universal Soil Loss
Equation with GIS and Microcomputer Technologies: A Case Study. 49(2):194200.
Ogg, C.W., J.D. Johnson, and K.C. Clayton. 1982. A Policy Option for Targeting
Soil Conservation Expenditures. J. Soil and Water Cons., 37(2):68-72.
Open Grass Foundation. 1993. GRASS Version 4.1; Users Reference Manual.
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories, Champaign, IL, Spring 1993. (http://www.cecer.army.mil/~grass).
Pierce, F.J., W.E. Larson, and R.H. Dowdy. 1984. Soil Loss Tolerance:
Maintenance of Long-term Soil Productivity. J. Soil and Water Cons., 39(2):136138.
Page A - 2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Renard, K.G., C.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, and D.C. Yoder. 1997.
Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agriculture Handbook Number 703. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC. 404pp.
Risse, L.M., M.A. Nearing, A.D. Nicks, and J.M. Laflen. 1993. Error Assessment
in the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:825-833.
Rogler, V.H., and U. Schwertmann. 1981. Erosivitat der Niederschlage und

Isoerodentkarte Bayerns. Zeitschrift Fur Kulturtechnik un Flurbereinigung, 22:99112.
Sedlak, M.A., and S. Brown. 1992. Maneuver Activity Damage Assessment

Model Applications to Predicting the Effects of the Restationing of the 5th Infantry
Division (Mech) to Fort Hood, Texas. Report to Fort Hood, TX. Texas A&M
Research Foundation, College Station, Texas.
Senseman, G.M., S.A. Tweddale, A.B. Anderson, and C.F. Bagley. 1996.
Correlation of Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) Rangeland Cover
Measures to Satellite-Imagery-Derived Vegetion Indicies. USACERL Technical
Report 97/07.
Shaw, R.B., C.M. Bern, K.A. Schultz, V.E. Diersing, and D.J. Tazik. 1990. U.S.
Army Land Condition/Trend Analysis of the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii.
Tropical Hydrology and Caribbean Water Resources, American Water Resources
Association, 455-464.
Shaw, R.B., and V.E. Diersing. 1989. Allowable Use Estimates for Tracked
Vehicle Training on Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, CO. Environ. Manage. 13:773782.
Shaw, R.B., and V.E. Diersing. 1990. Tracked Vehicle Impacts on Vegetation at
the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 19(2):234-243.
Silcox, S. 1995. Impacts of Wheeled Vehicles on Surface Water, Infiltration, and

Erosion: Fort Bliss. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State University.
Sprouse, W. 1998. Access LCTA, A Microsoft Access Interface for Land

Condition - Trend Analysis - Users Guide, CEMML TPS 98-11.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES Blackland Research Center). 1998.

Blackland GRASS User Manual Ver. 1.317. http://brcsun15.tamu.edu/blgrass/,
Released 5/11/98.
Thurow, T.L., S.D. Warren, and D.H. Carlson. 1995. Tracked Vehicle Traffic
Effects on the Hydrologic Characteristics of Central Texas Rangeland.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 36:1645-1650.
Page A - 3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Van Horne, B., and P.B. Sharp. 1998. Effects of Tracking by Armored Vehicles
on Townsends Ground Squirrels in the Orchard Training Area, Idaho, USA.
Environmental Management 22(4):617-623.
Warren, S.D., and C.F. Bagley. 1992. SPOT Imagery and GIS in Support of
Military Land Management. Geocarto International, 1:35-43.
Warren, S.D., V.E. Diersing, P.J. Thompson, and W.D.Goran. 1989. An ErosionBased Land Classification System for Military Installations. Environmental
Management, 13(2):251-257.
Watts, S.E. 1998. Short-Term Influence of Tank Tracks on Vegetation and

Microphytic Crusts in Shrubsteppe Habitat. Environmental Management
22(4):611-6616.
Wheeler, P.H. 1990. An Innovative County Soil Erosion Control Ordinance. J.

Soil and Water Cons., 45(3):374-378.
Wilson, S.D. 1988. The Effect of Military Tank Traffic on Prairie: A Management
Model. Environmental Management, 12(3):397-403.
Wischmeier, W.H., C.B. Johnson, and B.V. Cross. 1971. A soil Erodibility
nomograph for farmland and construction sites. J. Soil and Water Conservation,
26:189-193.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses - a
guide to conservation planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Handbook 537. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 58pp.
Wu, X., and J.D. Westervelt. 1994. Using Neural Networks to Correlate Satellite
Imagery and Ground-truth Data. USACERL Special Report EC-94/28, 53pp.
Page A - 4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS
Appendix B provides a listing of abbreviations that includes office symbols,
acronyms, and abbreviations commonly used throughout the United States Army and
within the Army Training and Testing Area Carrying Capacity (ATTACC) Program.
Abbreviation
Meaning
First Time
Used
ANL
Argonne National Laboratory
Preface
AOBC
Armor Officer Basic Course
3.4.1
ATIC-ATMD
Army Training Modernization Directorate, ATSC
Preface
ATM
ATTACC Training Model
3.1
ATMD
Army Training Modernization Directorate
Preface
ATTACC
Army Training and Testing Area Carrying Capacity
1.1
BLTM
Battalion Level Training Model
3.3.1
BN
Batallion
3.1
CAA
US Army Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA)
Preface
CATS
Combined Arms Training Strategy
3.3.1
CFX
Command Field Exercise
App. D
CPX
Command Post Exercise
App. D
DAMO-TR
Training Directorate, ODCSOPS, HQDA
Preface
DAMO-TRS
Training Simulations Division, ODCSOPS, HQDA
Preface
DCSOPS
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans
Preface
DEM
Digital Elevation Models
4.2
DLG
Digital Line Graph
App. G
DOE
Department of Energy
Preface;
4.2.1
DOT
Director of Training
7.3
DPTM
Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization
3.3.1
DTED
Digital Terrain Elevation Data
4.2.1
Page B-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Abbreviation
Meaning
First Time
Used
ELVS
Evaluation of Land Value Study
Preface
ES
Erosion Status
1.5
ESF
Event Severity Factor
3.5.1
FCX
Fire Coordination Exercise
App. D
FTX
Field Training Exercise
3.1
GIS
Geographic Information System
1.2
GPS
Global Positioning System
4.2.1
GRASS
Geographic Resource Analysis Support System
App. E
HQDA
Headquarters, Department of the Army
Preface;
3.3.1
IET
Initial Entry Training
7.2
ITAM
Integrated Training Area Management Program
1.1
IWAM
Installation Work Analysis Module
5.3.1
JRTC
Joint Readiness Training Center
App. D
LC
Land Condition
1.3
LCF
Local Condition Factor
3.5.1
LCTA
Land Condition Trend Analysis
1.2
LFX
Live Fire Exercise
App. D
LRAM
Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance
1.2
MAGIC
Military Activity GIS Information Concept
1.4.1
MAPEX
Map Exercise
App. D
MIM
Maneuver Impact Mile
1.5
MUIR
Map Unit Interpretations Record
4.2.1
NATSGO
NRCS National Soil Geographic Data Base
4.2.1
NIMA
National Imagery and Mapping Agency
4.2.1
NRCS
Natural Resource Conservation Service
4.2
NTC
National Training Center
App. D
Page B-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Abbreviation
First Time
Used
Meaning
ODCSOPS
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Preface

Plans
OPTEMPO
Operating Tempo
Preface
POC
Point of Contact
3.1
POI
Programs of Instruction
3.4.1
RDP
Range Development Plan
3.3.1
RFMSS
Range Facility Management and Support System
1.2
RTLP-AS
Range and Training Land Program Automated System
1.4.1
RUSLE
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
4.2
SFIM-AECEQN
Environmental
Conservation
Branch
Environmental Quality Division, OACSIM
SME
Subject Matter Expert
4.3.1.3
SRC
System Resource Codes
3.2.2
STATSGO
NRCS State Soil Geographic Data Base
4.2.1
STX
Situational Training Exercise
3.2.1
SURGO
NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Data Base
4.2.1
TC
Training Circular
3.3.1
TEWT
Tactical Exercise Without Troops
App. D
TIF
Training Impact Factors
3.5
TOR
Terms of Reference
Preface
TRADOC
Training and Doctrine Command
7.2
UIC
Unit Identification Code
7.3
USACERL
US Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Preface

Engineering Research Lab
USAEC
United States Army Environmental Center
Preface
USATSC
United States Army Training Support Center
Preface
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
App. E
USGS
United States Geological Survey
4.2.1
Page B-3
of
the Preface
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Abbreviation
Meaning
First Time
Used
USLE
Universal Soil Loss Equation
4.2
VCF
Vehicle Conversion Factor
3.5.1
VOF
Vehicle Off-Road Factor
3.5.1
VSF
Vehicle Severity Factor
3.5.1
Page B-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ATTACC Training
Model (ATM)
A database of vehicle data for various unit types and events,

integrated as part of the Range Facility Management Support
System.
Carrying Capacity
Thresholds
The maximum training load (i.e., MIMs) that an installation (or

training area) can support while sustaining a specified land
condition.
Conservation
Practices (P)
Factor
The quantitative expression of the mitigating effect that

conservation practices have on the erosion process.
Customized
RFMSS Setup
Operation
The process of preparing the Range Facility Management

Support System to calculate MIMs, by adjusting the training
impact factors.
Erosion
The wearing away of geological formations and soil.
Erosion Status
(ES)
Ratio of estimated soil loss to the soil loss that can be tolerated.
Erosion status expresses estimated soil loss as a percentage of
soil loss tolerance (T). Smaller erosion status values indicate
more acceptable levels of erosion.
Event
A training event, either in generic terms (e.g. Field Training

Exercise), or including type unit and echelon (e.g. Armor BN
CPX).
Event Cross-Walk
The process of matching RFMSS training events with the

equivalent event found in the ATTACC Training Model.
Event Severity
Factor (ESF)
A number used as a multiplier in computing Maneuver Impact

Miles and representing the relative impact of a training event on
the condition of training land.
Executed MIM
Maneuver impact miles that quantify past training loads.
Field Training
Exercise (FTX)
A high-cost, high-overhead exercise conducted under simulated

combat conditions in the field. It exercises command and control
of all echelons in battle functions against actual or simulated
opposing forces.
Page C-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Geographic
Information
System (GIS)
A system to manage spatial data and develop map made up of a

series of different data layers. Data layers can be individually
selected and combined to generate a new map display. Each
data layer, or theme, also has its own unique database
associated with it. This allows queries to be conducted on the
theme layers. In ATTACC, a GIS estimates land condition and
draws the land condition curve.
Isoerodent Map
Contour maps of rainfall and runoff factor values.
Land Condition
The ecological state of the land. ATTACC measures land

condition in terms of the erosion status.
Land Condition
Curve
The relationship between land condition (as measured by erosion

status) and training load (as measured by maneuver impact
miles).
Land Maintenance
The collection of LRAM practices and their associated costs.

ATTACC measures land maintenance in terms of the type of
practice, costs, and associated effectiveness measures.
Land Maintenance
Practices
See Conservation Practices.
Local Condition
Factor (LCF)
A type of training impact factor used to calculate maneuver

impact miles; a multiplier that represents the relative susceptibility
of land to the impacts of training on a particular day due to
environmental conditions.
Land Condition
Thresholds
Erosion status (ES) values established by each installation to

reflect local environmental conditions, management objectives,
funding restrictions, and mission priorities.
Maneuver Impact
Mile (MIM)
A conceptual unit of measure for military training representing the

impact of training on training land.
MIM Target Values
Amount of training that individual training areas can

accommodate in terms of the ITAM Coordinators overall land
management objectives.
MIM Thresholds
See Carrying Capacity Threshold.
Mission Activity
Individual training events and institutional training that occurs on

a given parcel of land.
Nomograph
Graphs useful for calculating soil erodibility factor values.
Page C-2
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Rainfall and
Runoff Factor
Quantitative expression of the erositivity of local average annual

precipitation and runoff Soil erosion is greatly influenced by the
intensity and duration of precipitation events and by the amount
and rate of the resulting runoff. The R value incorporates total
precipitation, intensity and duration patterns of rainfall.
Differences in the R factor reflect differences in precipitation
patterns between regions. Larger numbers for the R factor
indicate more erosive weather conditions. R values can be
obtained from published isoerodent maps or calculated from
historic weather data.
Repair Practices
Repair practices are a type of land rehabilitation and maintenance

(LRAM) practice that directly affect erosion and whose benefit
can be quantified to shift the land condition curve. Seeding is
an example of a repair practice.
Revised Universal
Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE)
Most widely used erosion prediction model currently available.

The RUSLE is used throughout the world for a variety of
purposes and under many different conditions simply because it
seems to meet the need better than any other modeling
Severity Factors
See Training Impact Factor, Vehicle Severity Factor, Vehicle OffRoad Factor, Vehicle Conversion Factor, Event Severity Factor,
and Local Condition Factor.
Situational
Training Exercise
(STX)
A mission-related, limited exercise designed to train one

collective task, or a group of related tasks or drills, thorough
practice.
Slope Length and

Steepness (LS)
Factor
Rate of soil erosion as affected by the local topography of an

area. The LS factor provides a quantitative representation of both
the slope length and steepness. Slope steepness and length
values for the LS factor can be determined from topographic
maps, digital elevation models, average values from soil mapping
units, or from direct field measurement.
Soil Erodibility (K)

Factor
Rate of erosion per unit value of the rainfall and runoff factor for
standardized conditions. Larger values of the K factor reflect
greater soil erodibility. K factor values are generally determined
for each soil series in an area. K factor values for many soil
series are published in local and regional soil surveys from the
NRCS. K factor values for soils can also be estimated from soil
samples collected in the field.
Page C-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Soil Loss
Tolerance (T)
Factor
Estimate of the maximum level of soil erosion that will permit a

high level of soil productivity to be sustained economically and
indefinitely. The objective in managing lands is not to eliminate
erosion but to reduce erosion due to human activity to an
acceptable level. T values are based on soil depth, rooting depth,
soil organic matter reduction and plant nutrient losses.
Support Practice
Factor
See Conservation Practices Factor.
Sustain Practices
Sustain practices are a non-erosion related type of land

rehabilitation and maintenance (LRAM) practice, i.e., they do not
directly affect erosion, but whose expense is part of the cost of
doing LRAM business. Firebreaks are an example of a sustain
practice.
Target Land
Condition
Training
The entire range of mission activities which require, and/or affect

"training lands." In that regard, the definition applies to the test,
and maneuver activities conducted on Army Materiel Command
(AMC) installations.
Training Area Map
A map delineating land units used for scheduling and conducting

military training.
Training
Distribution Map
A map that reflects the effects of topography, vegetation, and

other environmental influences on the distribution of land uses
such as training. It should also reflect the doctrinal requirements
of training and historic land use patterns.
Training Impact
Factors
Scaling factors used to convert all vehicle mileage to the

equivalent M1A2 mileage, i.e., maneuver impact miles. See
Vehicle Severity Factor, Vehicle Off-Road Factor, Vehicle
Conversion Factor, Event Severity Factor, and Local Condition
Factor.
Training Impact
Map
A map that represents the change in the vegetative cover factor

value that can be attributed to a single pass of an M1A2 (i.e.,
equal to one maneuver impact mile).
Training Land
Carrying Capacity
The amount of training that a given parcel of land can

accommodate in a sustainable manner with a reasonable and
prudent level of maintenance and rehabilitation. The optimum
capacity is a balance of usage, condition, and level of
maintenance
Page C-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Training Land Map A map of all installation lands available for training and those
areas with use restrictions.
Training Load
Training load is the collective impact of all military activities that

occur on a given parcel of land. Training load is derived from
Army training doctrine. ATTACC measures training load in terms
of maneuver impact miles.
Scheduled MIM
Maneuver impact miles that represent an estimate of future

training load.
Standard RFMSS
Setup Operation
The process of preparing the Range Facility Management

Support System to calculate MIMs.
Standard Unit
Type
An identifier for a unit that is based on System Resource Codes.

Standard unit types allow RFMSS to use the ATTACC Training
Model to assign default vehicle types, counts, and mileage as unit
schedule a training event; the basis of the MIMs calculation.
Vegetation
Recovery Map
A map indicating the change in erosion status due to natural

recovery.
Vegetative Cover
(C) Factor
Reflects the degree of erosion protection provided by vegetative

cover. The cover factor describes the density and structure of the
vegetative canopy cover and kind and amount of cover in contact
with the soil. An increase in the cover factor represents a
decrease in ground and/or canopy cover and an associate
increase in the estimated erosion rate. The cover factor can be
estimated from field observations and/or remotely sensed data.
A multiplier that represents the width of the area impacted by a

Vehicle
Conversion Factor given vehicle as compared to the width of the area impacted by
an M1A2 tank. The VCF is an objective value based on the width
(VCF)
of the tires or tracks of the vehicle compared to the M1A2 track
width.
Vehicle Off-Road
Factor (VOF)
A multiplier that represents the portion of vehicle mileage typically

driven off improved roads.
Vehicle Severity
Factor (VSF)
A multiplier that represents the relative impact of a vehicle on

land condition as compared to the standard vehicle -- an M1A2
tank.
Page C-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page C-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX D: TRAINING IMPACT FACTORS (TIF)

D.1
Vehicle Factors.
The ATTACC methodology uses three vehicle factors to measure training load: the
Vehicle Severity Factor (VSF), the Vehicle Off-road Factor (VOF), and the Vehicle
Conversion Factor (VCF).
Vehicle Severity Factor (VSF). The VSF is a multiplier that represents the
relative impact of a vehicle on land condition as compared to the standard
vehicle -- an M1A2 tank. The VSF for an M1A2 tank is 1.0. The VSF for a
vehicle with 50 percent greater impact on land condition than an M1A2 tank
would be 1.5.
Vehicle Off-Road Factor (VOF). The VOF is a multiplier that represents the
portion of vehicle mileage typically driven off improved roads. For example, if 85
percent of M1A2 miles are typically driven off improved roads, the VOF for the
M1A2 will be 0.85.
Vehicle Conversion Factor (VCF). The VCF is a multiplier that represents the
width of the area impacted by a given vehicle as compared to the width of the
area impacted by an M1A2 tank. The VCF is an objective value based on the
width of the tires or tracks of the vehicle compared to the M1A2 track width. For
example, a wheeled vehicle that has a VCF of .25 has a tire footprint that is .25
of the width of the M1A2 tracks. The VCF for the M1A2 is 1.0.
The ATTACC team derived VSF and VOF values by surveying approximately 150
subject matter experts (SME). The majority of SMEs were primarily observers and/or
controllers from the National Training Center (NTC), Ft Irwin, CA, and the Joint
Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Ft Polk, LA.
For the VSF survey, the participants were grouped into teams of five to six SMEs.
The SMEs ranked and scored each vehicle in terms of its impact on land. The M1A2
served as a benchmark and was pre-assigned a score of 100. Large discrepancies in
scores were reconciled through group discussion, and the scores were divided by 100
to arrive at an M1A2 score of 1.0.
The ATTACC team employed a similar process for determining VOF values. The
results provide Army-wide averages for the portion of miles that each vehicle type
spends off of improved roads.
Finally, VCF values were derived by taking measurements of tire and track widths
and then dividing these measurements by the track width of the M1A2. 20
20
For a complete description of the method used for deriving vehicle factors, refer to the Evaluation of Land Values
Study, Concepts Analysis Agency, 1995.
Page D-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Table D-1 provides the VSF, VCF, and VOF values for all of vehicles in the current
ATTACC database. This table also includes the vehicle model, the line identification
number (LIN), whether vehicle usage is represented in miles or hours in the ATTACC
database, and a factor for converting all usage to miles 21 .
Table D-1. Vehicles.
veh_model_id
veh_short_nm
lin
use factor
vsf
vcf
vof
OH-58D
HELICOPTER (KIOWA SCOUT)
A21633
3.00
0.03
0.1
0.1
M551 SERIES
TANK (SHERIDAN) ARAAV
A93125
1.00
0.67
0.62
0.68
A-10A
ATTACK, CLOSE SUPPORT
ACFT01
0.00
1942
B-2 BOMBER
ACFT02
0.00
FB-111A
BOMBER, MEDIUM RNG
ACFT03
0.00
F/A18
FIGHTER
ACFT04
0.00
F-4G
FIGHTER (WILD WEASEL)
ACFT05
0.00
A4
FIGHTER ATTACK (SKYHAWK)
ACFT06
0.00
F-16A/B
FIGHTER, ATTACK BOMBER
ACFT07
0.00
F-16V/D
FIGHTER, ATTACK BOMBER
ACFT08
0.00
AC130A
SPECIAL OPERATIONS,
GUNSHIP
ACFT09
0.00
AV8
VERTICAL TAKEOFF, HARRIER
ACFT10
0.00
M110A1
HOWITZER HVY SLF

PROPELLED 8IN
ARTY01
1.00
0.54 0.643
0.85
P&H2YD
BACKHOE (2YD)
B12585
0.33
0.33 0.732
0.49
BTBRG1
BOAT BRIDGE
B25476
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.95
BRIDGE: BOAT
B83582
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.95
BOAT 36-47'
BOAT (PICKET 36 FT)
B84130
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.95
M992
CARRIER (CARGO FAASV)
C10908
1.00
0.46 0.643
0.8
M1064
CARRIER (MORTAR, 120 MM)
C10990
1.00
0.67 0.536
0.85
M973
CARRIER (SUSV)
C11280
1.00
0.67
0.54
0.8
M981
CARRIER (FIST-V)
C12155
1.00
0.48 0.536
0.85
M1059
CARRIER (SMOKE GENERATOR) C12815
1.00
0.67
0.54
0.8
M113A3
CARRIER (PERSONNEL)
C18234
1.00
0.65 0.536
0.85
BREAKER
BREAKER (PAVING)
C18481
0.20
0.35
0.43
0.4
CRANE7
CRANE (7.5 TON)
C36151
0.50
0.21 0.429
0.4
M3
CAVALRY FIGHTING VEH
C76335
1.00
0.74
0.9
21
0.64
The unit of measurement (hours or miles) is a function of the Battalion Level Training Model, which is the basis
for the ATTACC vehicle database. The conversion of hours to miles is necessary to derive maneuver impact miles.
Page D-2
ATTACC Handbook
veh_model_id
March 1999
veh_short_nm
lin
use factor
vsf
vcf
vof
M106 SERIES
CARRIER (MORTAR, 107MM)
D10741
1.00
0.67 0.536
0.85
M548 SERIES
CARRIER (CARGO 6 TON)
D11049
1.00
0.4 0.643
0.8
M577 SERIES
CARRIER (COMMAND POST)
D11538
1.00
0.67 0.536
0.6
M113
CARRIER (PERSONNEL)
D12087
1.00
0.65 0.536
0.85
M113 (CTC)
CARRIER: M113A3 (OPFOR)
D12087-O M
1.00
0.65 0.536
M113 (SCH)
CARRIER: M113A3 (SCHOOL)
D12087-S H
1.00
0.65
0.54
0.85
M128
MINE DISPENSER
D20529
0.10
0.33 0.482
0.5
WATER SERIES DISTRIBUTOR, WATER SP
D28736
0.50
0.27
0.43
0.4
M139
MINE: DISPENSER (HLDT)
D30897
0.10
0.33 0.732
0.1
DISMOUNTED TA USAGE
DISMNTD H
1.00 0.001 0.001
M728
CBT ENGR VEH
E56578
1.00
M901 SERIES
CARRIER (IMPR TOW VEH)
E56896
CRANE20
CRANE (20 TON)
F39378
M2A2
INF FIGHTING VEH (HS))
M3A2
0.9
1.00
0.65 0.536
0.85
0.50
0.21 0.429
0.4
F40375
1.00
0.86 0.643
0.9
CAV FIGHTING VEH (HS)
F60530
1.00
0.74 0.643
0.9
M3A2 CTC
CAV FIGHTING VEH (OPFOR)
F60530-O M
1.00
0.74 0.643
M132
FLAME THROWER
FLAME1
0.00
AH-64A
HELICOPTER (APACHE)
H28647
3.00
0.12
0.25
0.1
CH-47D
HELICOPTER (CHINOOK)
H30517
3.00
0.33
0.25
0.1
EH-60A
HELICOPTER (QUICK FIX)
H30616
3.00
0.11
0.25
0.1
OH-58A-C
HELICOPTER (KIOWA OBSRV)
H31110
3.00
0.02
0.1
0.1
UH-60L
HELICOPTER (BLACKHAWK)
H32361
3.00
0.15
0.25
0.1
M119 SERIES
HOWITZER LT TOWED
H57505
0.20
0.33 0.482
0.5
M109A6
HOWITZER (PALADIN)
H57642
1.00
0.79 0.643
0.75
SMKGEN
SMOKE GENERATOR (PULSE)
J30492
0.10
0.27 0.429
0.6
PU-405
GENERATOR, 10-15KW
J35492
0.20
0.33 0.482
0.5
30 KW GEN
GENERATOR (30KW)
J36109
0.20
0.33 0.482
0.5
60 KW GEN
GENERATOR (60KW & OVER)
J38301
0.20
0.33 0.482
0.5
CAT130GS
GRADER, ROAD MOTORIZED
J74886
0.20
0.39 0.464
0.9
MA8 SERIES
CHAPARRAL
J95533
1.00
0.4 0.643
0.8
AH-1 SERIES
HELICOPTER (COBRA)
K29694
3.00
0.07
0.1
0.1
UH-1 SERIES
HELICOPTER (HUEY)
K31795
3.00
0.07
0.1
0.1
UH-60A
HELICOPTER (BLACKHAWK)
K32293
3.00
0.15
0.25
0.1
M102
HOWITZER, LT TOWED, 105 MM K57392
0.20
0.33 0.482
0.5
Page D-3
ATTACC Handbook
veh_model_id
March 1999
veh_short_nm
lin
use factor
vsf
vcf
vof
M109 SERIES
HOWITZER (155MM SP A1-A5)
K57667
1.00
0.79 0.643
0.75
M198
HOWITZER, MEDIUM TOWED

155MM
K57821
0.20
0.33 0.482
0.5
LCM 69'
LNDNG CRAFT (MECHANIZED 69 L36739

FT)
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.95
LCU
LANDING CRAFT UTILITY

(115FT)
L36876
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.95
LCU RO-RO
LNDNG CRAFT (ROLL ON ROLL

OFF)
L36989
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.95
AVLB
ARMORED VEH LAU BRIDGE
L43664
1.00
0.75
MLRS SERIES
LAUNCHER MLRS
L44894
1.00
0.84 0.536
0.6
CLK5YD
SCOOP LOADER (5 CY 4X4)
L76321
0.33
0.33 0.732
0.49
JIC2YD
SCOOP LOADER (2 CY DIESEL)
L76556
0.33
0.33 0.732
0.49
AGPU
POWER UNIT AUXILIARY, AVN
P44627
0.10
0.33 0.732
0.1
PAVER
PAVER
PAVER
0.10
0.01
0.01
FOX
NBC RECON VEHICLE (FOX)
R41532
1.00
0.38 0.501
0.45
M578
RECOVERY VEHICLE (LIGHT)
R50544
1.00
0.54 0.643
0.85
M88 SERIES
RECOVERY VEHICLE
R50681
1.00
1.03
0.8
RANGE USE
RANGE
1.00 0.001 0.001
SCRAPER (SELF-PROPELLED)
S30039
0.20
0.39
0.46
0.09
STEAMROLLER
STEAMR
OLLER
0.20
0.01
0.01
AG24
SUBMARINE
SUBMAR
0.00
M1097
HMMWV (HEAVY)
T07679
1.00
0.27 0.429
0.6
M1A1
TANK (MAIN BATTLE, 120MM)
T13168
1.00
0.9
M60 SERIES
TANK (COMBAT, 105MM)
T13169
1.00
0.9
M1A2
T13305
1.00
0.9
M1A2 CTC
TANK: M1A2 (OPFOR)
T13305-O M
1.00
M1
T13374
1.00
0.9
TRACTOR: DSL 4X4
T34437
0.10
0.32 0.429
0.2
M1075
TRUCK, PALLET LOAD SYS
T40999
1.00
0.58
0.57
0.5
LIFTTRUCK
TRUCK, FORKLIFT, ROUGH

TERRAIN
T48944
0.50
0.33 0.732
0.4
FORKLIFT (ELECTRIC 3 TON)
T51071
0.50
0.33 0.732
0.4
M876
TRUCK, MAINT,
TELEPHONE/UTILTY
T53858
1.00
0.58 0.572
0.5
M978
HEMTT TANKER M978
T58161
1.00
0.58
SCRAPER
Page D-4
0.57
0.43
ATTACC Handbook
veh_model_id
March 1999
veh_short_nm
lin
use factor
vsf
vcf
vof
M977 SERIES
HEMTT W/CRANE
T59278
1.00
0.58 0.572
0.5
M1008 SERIES
CUCV (TACTICAL TRUCK

UTILITY)
T59346
1.00
0.27
0.43
0.4
M1078 SERIES
TRUCK CARGO, 4X4 LMTV W/E
T60081
1.00
0.38 0.482
0.37
M911
TRUCK, HET
T61035
1.00
0.32
0.43
0.2
M911 (SCH)
TRACTOR, HET SCHOOL
T61035-S H
10.00
0.32
0.43
0.2
M915 SERIES
TRACTOR, 5 TON
T61103
1.00
0.32
0.43
0.2
M915 SCH
TRACTOR: 5 TON SCHOOL
T61103-S M
1.00
0.32
0.43
M998 SERIES
HMMWV
T61494
1.00
0.27 0.429
0.6
M998 CTC
HMMWV OPFOR
T61494-O M
1.00
0.27 0.429
M998 SCH
HMMWV SCHOOL
T61494-S H
1.00
0.27
0.43
0.6
MTV SERIES
TRUCK CARGO, MTV W/E
T61908
1.00
0.38 0.482
0.37
M932
TRACTOR W/M969A1 TANKER
TRAC/TA M
NK-S
1.00
0.67
0.64
0.43
TAMPER
TAMPER (CCE)
V11001
0.20
0.33 0.732
0.1
CAT D5
TRACTOR, TRACKED, DIESEL,

LGHT
W76268
0.20
0.67 0.643
0.91
JDEERE
TRACTOR (TRACKED LT
DIESEL)
W76336
0.20
0.67
0.54
0.85
M9
ARMORED CBT ENGR VEH

(ACE)
W76473
1.00
0.7 0.643
0.6
CAT D7F
TRACTOR (BULLDOZER MED

DIESEL)
W76816
0.20
0.78 0.643
0.91
CATD8K
TRACTOR (BULLDOZER HVY

DIESEL)
W88699
0.20
0.78 0.643
0.91
M880
TRUCK (CARGO 5/4 TON

TACTICAL)
X39432
1.00
0.27
0.43
0.6
M561
TRUCK (CARGO, GAMMA GOAT) X39940
1.00
0.27
0.43
0.6
M35 SERIES
TRUCK (CARGO 2.5 TON)
X40009
1.00
0.34 0.822
0.37
M923 SERIES
TRUCK (CARGO 5 TON 6X6)
X40794
1.00
0.38 0.482
0.37
M923 SCH
TRUCK: 5 TON CARGO SCHOOL X40794-S M
1.00
0.38
0.48
0.23
M809 SERIES
TRUCK (CARGO 5 TON)
X40831
1.00
0.38 0.482
0.37
M925 SERIES
TRUCK (CARGO/DUMP 5 TON)
X40931
1.00
0.38 0.965
0.37
M925 SCH
TRUCK (CARGO/DUMP 5T)

SCHOOL
X40931-S H
1.00
0.38
0.96
0.37
TRUCK (DUMP 15 TON)
X44393
1.00
0.38
0.97
0.37
TRUCK (20 TON DUMP)
X44403
1.00
0.38
0.97
0.37
M917
Page D-5
ATTACC Handbook
veh_model_id
March 1999
veh_short_nm
lin
use factor
vsf
vcf
vof
M123 SERIES
TRACTOR (10 TON)
X59874
1.00
0.32
0.43
0.2
M151 SERIES
TRUCK (1/4 TON UTILITY)
X60833
1.00
0.27
0.43
0.6
M553
TRUCK, CARGO TON 4X4

WRECKER
X63436
1.00
0.58
0.57
0.5
LMTV
TRUCK: CARGO LMTV W/E
Z40430
1.00
0.38 0.482
0.37
BIDS
BIDS: XM31 BIO DET SYSTEM
Z41179
0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001
MOTORCYCLE
MOTORCYCLE
Z44650
1.00
D.2
0.07 0.072
0.69
Event Severity Factors
The ATTACC methodology also uses an Event Severity Factor (ESF) to measure
training load.
Event Severity Factor (ESF). The ESF is a multiplier that represents the relative
impact of an event on land condition as compared to the standard event -- an
Armor Battalion FTX. The ESF for the Armor Battalion FTX is 1.0. The ESF for
an event that has 25 percent less impact on soil erosion than an Armor Battalion
FTX, would be 0.75.
For the purposes of ATTACC, unit training events are defined by a basic event type
(e.g. command post exercise), the size of the unit (e.g. battalion, company), and the
type of unit (e.g., armor, engineer). Institutional training events are defined by the
Program of Instruction (POI) and course module. Basic unit event types in the ATTACC
database include the following 22 :
22
Individual Weapons Qualification
Common Military Training
Crew Weapons Qualification
Crew Weapons Sustainment
Command Post Exercise (CPX)
Command Field Exercise (CFX)
Situational Training Exercise (STX)
Fire Coordination Exercise (FCX)
Field Training Exercise (FTX)
Live Fire Exercise (LFX)
Refer to FM 25-101, Battle Focused Training, for exact definitions of these events
Page D-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Tactical Exercise Without Troops (TEWT)
Map Exercise (MAPEX).
The ATTACC team derived ESF values for unit training by surveying approximately
150 SMEs, primarily observer and/or controllers from the NTC, Ft Irwin, CA, and the
JRTC, Ft Polk, LA.
For the ESF survey, the participants were grouped into teams of five to six SMEs
and asked to rank and score each training event in terms of its impact on land. The
Armor Bn FTX served as a benchmark and was pre-assigned a score of 100. Large
discrepancies in scores were reconciled through group discussion, and the scores were
divided by 100 to arrive at an Armor Battalion FTX score of 1.0. 23
ESF values for the major unit type/event combinations in the ATTACC database are
shown in tables D-2 (heavy maneuver units) and D-3 (light maneuver units). Values for
all other unit/event combinations and for institutional training events were derived from
these values based on unit type, unit size, vehicle composition, and expert opinion as to
the relative impact of the training events.
Table D-2. Heavy Maneuver Units.
EVENT
EVT # ARMOR MECH
HVY
TF
HVY
CAV
FA
155
HVY
EN
HVY
FSB
MLRS
HVY ADA
IND WPNS
QUAL
1WC
0.003
0.004
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
IND WPNS
SUST
1WS
0.003
0.004
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
ITEP
1Y
0.003
0.004
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
COMMON MIL
TNG
1YG
0.003
0.004
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
CREW WPNS
SUST
2SD
0.007
0.007
0.007 0.008
0.005 0.009
0.009
0.002
0.002
CREW WPNS
QUAL
2WD
0.007
0.007
0.007 0.008
0.005 0.009
0.009
0.002
0.002
CO CPX
4A
0.053
0.053
0.053 0.060
0.038 0.070
0.045
0.027
0.021
CO CFX
4B
0.120
0.118
0.118 0.135
0.085 0.159
0.030
0.062
0.049
CO STX
4E
0.327
0.306
0.314 0.361
0.233 0.431
0.109
0.187
0.143
23
For a complete description of the method used for deriving vehicle factors, refer to the Evaluation of Land Values
Study, Concepts Analysis Agency, 1995.
Page D-7
ATTACC Handbook
EVENT
March 1999
EVT # ARMOR MECH
HVY
TF
HVY
CAV
FA
155
HVY
EN
HVY
FSB
MLRS
HVY ADA
CO FCX
4G
0.137
0.125
0.130 0.150
0.098 0.178
0.091
0.079
0.061
CO FTX
4H
0.357
0.345
0.349 0.400
0.254 0.471
0.279
0.189
0.148
CO LFX
4K
0.223
0.230
0.225 0.255
0.158 0.304
0.191
0.113
0.088
BN CPX
5A
0.150
0.160
0.155 0.174
0.106 0.205
0.144
0.069
0.055
BN CFX
5B
0.343
0.375
0.358 0.401
0.243 0.480
0.053
0.162
0.125
BN TEWT
5C
0.113
0.117
0.114 0.129
0.080 0.155
0.096
0.058
0.045
BN STX
5E
0.350
0.280
0.312 0.368
0.252 0.434
0.168
0.228
0.175
BN FCX
5G
0.267
0.273
0.269 0.303
0.096 0.365
0.217
0.140
0.107
BN FTX
5H
1.000
1.100
1.047 1.167
0.707 1.413
0.927
0.483
0.367
BN OTHER
EXER
5J
0.267
0.273
0.269 0.303
0.096 0.365
0.217
0.140
0.107
BN
LFX/CALFEX
5L
0.640
0.722
0.679 0.754
0.125 0.915
0.620
0.299
0.227
BN TNG EXER 5M
0.267
0.273
0.269 0.303
0.096 0.365
0.217
0.140
0.107
BN MISSION
SPT
5MT
0.267
0.273
0.269 0.303
0.096 0.365
0.217
0.140
0.107
BN DVR
TNG/MAINT
5Y
0.040
0.034
0.037 0.043
0.029 0.050
0.025
0.024
0.019
Page D-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Table D-3. Light Maneuver Units.

EVENT
EVT AASLT ABN

#
LT
INF
RGR
LT
CAV
FA LT EN LT FSB
105T
LT
ADA
LT
OPFOR
IND WPNS
QUAL
1WC 0.001
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
0.001 0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
IND WPNS
SUST
1WS 0.001
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
0.001 0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
ITEP
1Y
0.001
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002
0.002 0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
COMMON MIL 1YG

TNG
0.001
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002
0.002 0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
CREW WPNS 2SD

SUST
0.002
0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003
0.003 0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
CREW WPNS 2WD 0.002

QUAL
0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003
0.003 0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
CO CPX
4A
0.004
0.004 0.003 0.002 0.005
0.006 0.008
0.005
0.005
0.005
CO CFX
4B
0.017
0.017 0.012 0.007 0.022
0.026 0.035
0.023
0.021
0.021
CO STX
4E
0.033
0.032 0.024 0.013 0.042
0.051 0.067
0.044
0.040
0.040
CO FCX
4G
0.018
0.017 0.013 0.007 0.023
0.027 0.036
0.024
0.021
0.021
CO FTX
4H
0.038
0.037 0.028 0.015 0.049
0.059 0.078
0.051
0.046
0.046
CO LFX
4K
0.039
0.038 0.029 0.015 0.051
0.061 0.081
0.054
0.048
0.048
BN CPX
5A
0.022
0.021 0.016 0.008 0.028
0.034 0.045
0.030
0.026
0.026
BN CFX
5B
0.053
0.052 0.039 0.021 0.070
0.084 0.110
0.073
0.065
0.065
BN TEWT
5C
0.024
0.023 0.017 0.009 0.031
0.037 0.049
0.032
0.029
0.029
BN STX
5E
0.112
0.110 0.082 0.043 0.145
0.175 0.230
0.152
0.136
0.136
BN FCX
5G
0.060
0.059 0.044 0.023 0.078
0.094 0.124
0.082
0.073
0.073
BN FTX
5H
0.151
0.148 0.111 0.059 0.196
0.236 0.311
0.206
0.183
0.183
BN OTHER
EXER
5J
0.060
0.059 0.044 0.023 0.078
0.094 0.124
0.082
0.073
0.073
BN
LFX/CALFEX
5L
0.133
0.130 0.098 0.052 0.173
0.208 0.274
0.181
0.161
0.161
BN TNG EXER 5M
0.060
0.059 0.044 0.023 0.078
0.094 0.124
0.082
0.073
0.073
BN MISSION
SPT
5MT
0.060
0.059 0.044 0.023 0.078
0.094 0.124
0.082
0.073
0.073
BN DVR
TNG/MAINT
5Y
0.004
0.004 0.003 0.002 0.005
0.007 0.009
0.006
0.005
0.005
Page D-9
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page D-10
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX E: DATA FOR LAND CONDITION ANALYSIS

E.1
R Factor
Rainfall and runoff (R) factor values for the United States (US) are available from
published isoerodent maps (Renard et al 1997). Isoerodent maps are essentially
contour maps of R factor values. R factor values for the US are also available by
county from the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) computer program
CITY database (Renard et al 1997). Published R factor values are also available for
other countries (Rogler and Schwertmann 1981). R factor values can also be
calculated directly from local precipitation data (Renard et al 1997).
In a study, which evaluated sources of error in soil loss estimations using the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), Risse et al (1993) found little differences in
estimated soil loss between the use of published R factor values and calculated R factor
values. The current Army Training and Testing Area Carrying Capacity (ATTACC)
methodology uses R factor values from published isoerodent maps (Renard et al 1997).
E.2
K Factor
Soil erodibility (K) factor values are available for individual soil series. K factor
values can also be calculated for soil samples collected from the field, such as from
Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) and other natural resources inventories. K
factor values can be calculated using analyses of soil samples and a soil-erodibility
nomograph (Wischmeier et al 1971, Wischmeier and Smith 1978, Renard et al 1997).
Nomographs are graphs useful for calculating K factor values.
Algebraic
approximations of the nomograph have been published (Renard et al 1997). Some of
these algorithms are incorporated into computer programs that make use of LCTA data
(Anderson et al 1995, Sprouse 1998). Algorithms to estimate K factor values for special
case soils have been developed (El-Swaify and Dangler 1976, Renard et al 1997).
When K factor values are estimated from soil samples, they must be extrapolated
across the installation.
Generally an average K value is calculated for each soil mapping unit. The soil map
is reclassified using the respective K values, thus creating a K factor map of the
installation. If a soil map is unavailable, K values are averaged and extrapolated across
the installation by use of remotely-sensed imagery, plot allocation strata, or other data
sources as available.
K factor values are available for most published soil surveys from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). K
factor values can also be found in the table of Physical and Chemical Properties of Soils
in soil survey manuals. The NRCS also maintains an electronic database of soil series
attribute values including K factor values. This database is the Map Unit Interpretation
Database (MUIR). The MUIR database can be accessed at:
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/muir
Page E-1
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Soil mapping data produced by NRCS exists for many areas. The NRCS maintains
soils geographic databases on three scales. The three soil databases are as follows:
National Soil Geographic Data Base (NATSGO). NATSGO is the most general
data and contains data at a scale of 1:75,000,000. This data are primarily used
for national planning activities.
State Soil Geographic Data Base (STATSGO). STATSGO contains data at a

scale of 1:250,000. These data are primarily used for statewide planning
activities.
Soil Survey Geographic Data Base (SSURGO). SSURGO is the most detailed
information and is created from detailed soil survey maps at a scale of 1:12,000,
1:15:840, or 1:24,000.
These data's primary use is for managing individual land parcels and county level
planning.
NATSGO data are generally not applicable for the ATTACC methodology because
of the low resolution of data. STATSGO data are only applicable for areas that do not
have detailed soil surveys. SSURGO is the primary source of soil survey data for
ATTACC. Currently, the SSURGO database does not have digital copies of all the
completed soil surveys. When digital soil surveys are not available from SSURGO,
installation digitized soil surveys are generally available. These soil maps have been
digitized from the NRCS soil survey reports. The digital soil surveys are reclassified in a
GIS using soil series K factor values from the MUIR database to produce K factor maps.
The availability of digital soil data for an area can be obtained from a textual listing of
the holdings of the NRCS's National Cartography and GIS Center (NCG) media library.
Information can be obtained from:
http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/soils data.
SSURGO data are available in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Line
Graph (DLG-3) optional distribution format. NRCS soil map symbols not normally
carried within the DLG-3 file, are available as a unique ASCII file when NRCS soil data
are distributed in the DLG-3 format. Users of this system will need to know their
computer operating system to download the correct files. Selected areas have data
available in ARC/INFO coverages and ARC/INFO export formats. STATSGO data are
available in ARC/INFO coverages, DLG, and Geographic Resource Analysis Support
System (GRASS) formats.
E.3
T Factor
Soil loss tolerance (T) factor values are available for most published soil surveys
from NRCS. T factor values can be found in the table of Physical and Chemical
Properties of Soils in soil survey manuals. The NRCS also maintains the MUIR
database of soil series attribute values including T factor values. Digital soil surveys
(see K factor for details) are reclassified in a GIS using soil series T factor values from
the MUIR database to produce T factor maps.
Page E-2
ATTACC Handbook
E.4
March 1999
LS Factor
Slope length and steepness (LS) factor values can be determined from elevation
files, as follows:
USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Digital Terrain Elevation Data
(DTED)
Derived from digital imagery, i.e., contour maps
Calculated from field measurements (i.e., LCTA data, GPS data)
Estimated using other sources
E.4.1 USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

USGS DEM is a digital file consisting of terrain elevations for ground positions at
regularly
spaced
horizontal
intervals.
(The
website
address
is
http://rmmcweb.cr.usgs.gov/elevation/dpi_dem.html). The USGS produces five different
digital elevation products. Although all are identical in the manner the data are
structured, each varies in sampling interval, geographic reference system, area of
coverage, and accuracy; with the primary differing characteristic being the spacing, or
sampling interval, of the data. Table E-1 lists the five DEM products.
Table E-1. DEM Products.
DEM Product
Spacing
7.5-Minute DEM
30- x 30-meter data
7.5-Minute Alaska DEM
1- x 2-arc-second data
2-Arc-Second DEM
15-Minute Alaska DEM
1-Degree DEM
USGS DEMs are distributed in a specific DEM format that most GIS software can
import. All USGS DEMs are available on 9 -track, 8mm, and 3480 cartridge tape. The
1-degree, 7.5-minute and 2-arc-second DEMs are available for distribution over the
Internet via File Transfer Protocol (FTP).
E.4.2 National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Digital Terrain Elevation
Data (DTED)
The NIMA has developed a standard line of terrain products called Digital Terrain
Elevation Data (DTED). A DTED is a uniform matrix of terrain elevation values. Table
F-2 provides a list of DTED products.
Page E-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Table E-2. DTED Products.

DTED Product
Spacing
Level 0
30 (1 kilometer) arc seconds
Level I
3 (100 meters) arc seconds
Level II
1 (30 meters) arc second
E.4.3 Digitized Contour Maps

Some military installations have used digitized contour maps to derive elevation files.
The scale and resolution of these elevation files depends on the contour interval and
map scale of the original contour data.
E.4.4 Field Measurements
If a digital elevation file is not available or the resolution is undesirable, an LS factor
can be calculated for each measurement plot using slope length and steepness LCTA
data. GPS data is also used to collect elevation data for points across the installation.
LS factor values from point data are extrapolated across the installation. LS values are
averaged and extrapolated across the installation using soils maps, remotely-sensed
imagery, plot allocation strata, or other spatial data sources as available.
E.4.5 Other Sources
In the absence of both DEM and field data sources, LS factors can be estimated
from published soil series descriptions by using average slope and assuming a slope
length. Soil series maps can be reclassified by average soil series slope descriptions.
Respective LS values for each slope class can be estimated using the average slope
and an assumed slope length. Thus, the LS factor map layer of the installation can be
created.
The choice of data source for determining the LS factor for ATTACC depends on the
data available for each study area and the resolution and quality of the data. It is likely
that different sources will be used for different study areas. However, most study areas
will have available LS factor data.
E.4.6 Processing Elevation data
Existing GIS products have automated the calculation of LS factors from DEM
products. (e.g., Open Grass Foundation 1993, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
1998, LAS 1996) New techniques are being developed to improve the computation of
topographic factors for the RUSLE equation, complex terrain, and large areas (Desmet
and Govers 1996).
In the current implementation of ATTACC, LS data layers were generally developed
from 30m x 30m DEM and/or LS factors, using LCTA data extrapolated across the
installation with soil maps. The multiple data sources were evaluated for their effect on
the overall model. At the installation level, the data source that the installation had most
Page E-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
confidence in was used. At the Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) level, a
common data source for all installations was used to ensure comparability of results.
E.5
C Factor
The cover (C) factor can be estimated from field observations and/or remotely
sensed data. Generally, the exclusive use of field data to determine the C factor is
reserved for small or very homogenous areas and the exclusive use of remotely sensed
data to determine the C factor is only applicable to agricultural settings, where specific
vegetation can be related to published C factor values.
Alternatively, remotely sensed data (both satellite and aerial photography) combined
with field data collected as part of the LCTA program, other natural resources
inventories, and ground truth are more appropriate for calculating the C factor on
military lands.
Nomographs have been developed to estimate C factor values using field data
(Wischmeier and Smith 1978). Algebraic approximations of the nomograph have been
developed and some are incorporated into computer programs that make use of LCTA
data (Anderson et al 1995, Sprouse 1998). When C factor values are estimated from
field data, they must be extrapolated across the installation. Several methods of
extrapolation are available. One option is to extrapolate C factor values by using
vegetation maps, soils maps, plot allocation strata maps, and other GIS data layers.
Another option is to calculate the average C factor value for plots in each GIS map layer
category and to reclassify the GIS map using the average C factor values. To
effectively extrapolate C factor plot values spatially, C factor values can be statistically
related to remote-sensed images.
Many approaches to evaluate the condition of natural resources are statistically
based and attempt to generate mathematical formulae that characterize the relationship
between remote-sensed imagery and plot data. These approaches attempt to make
use of image data in conjunction with knowledge about image access time, satellite
orientation, sun orientation, atmospheric conditions, time of year, and weather
conditions. A relationship between remote-sensed imagery and plot data is defined for
the plot locations using a statistical model that adequately defines the relationship. The
statistical model relates point and image data to create the C factor data layer. The
statistical techniques used to relate point and image data can be very simple or very
complex (Senseman et al 1996, Wu and Westervelt 1994).
A common source of remotely-sensed imagery is the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper
imagery. To place orders and to obtain additional information regarding technical
details, ancillary products, and pricing schedules, contact: Customer Services, EROS
Data
Center
(http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/address/addresses#customer).
Online requests for these data (and other imagery from USGS) can be placed via the
USGS Global Land Information System (GLIS) interactive query system
(http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/webglis). The GLIS system contains metadata and online
samples of Earth science data. With GLIS, you may review metadata, determine
product availability, and place online requests for products.
Page E-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
The spectral range of bands and spatial resolution for the LANDSAT Thematic
Mapper sensor are:
Wavelength
Resolution
(micrometers) (meters)
Band 1
0.45-0.52
30
Band 2
0.52-0.60
30
Band 3
0.63-0.69
30
Band 4
0.76-0.90
30
Band 5
1.55-1.75
30
Band 6
10.40-12.50
120
Band 7
2.08-2.35
30
Another common source of remotely-sensed imagery is from the Systeme Pour
lObservation de la Terre (SPOT) Image Corporation. To get information on SPOT
products and SPOT product distributors see http://www.spot.com.
A SPOT
multispectral image consists of reflectance data from three spectral bands:
Wavelength
Resolution
(micrometers) (meters)
Band 1
0.50 to 0.59
20
Band 2
0.61 to 0.68 m
20
Band3
0.79 to 0.89 m 20
More detailed information on remote-sensed data acquisition is available in the
Remote Sensing Handbook (Bright et al 1997), which can be viewed and downloaded
from the ITAM website at http://www.army-itam.com. Remotely-sensed imagery can be
classified to create land cover or vegetation maps. Through a process called
classification, the spectral data for each pixel are examined, and pixels are grouped
into classes of similar spectral reflectance (spectral classes). There are two principle
approaches to classifying remotely-sensed imagery, supervised and unsupervised.
Supervised classification. Supervised classification requires the image analyst

to provide the computer algorithm with training areas, numerical descriptions of
various land cover types in the image. The computer algorithm will then compare
each grid cell in the image to the training area numerical descriptions and assign
it the land cover to which it is numerically closest. Wu and Westervelt (1994)
used this approach with LCTA field data and TM Imagery.
Unsupervised classification.
Unsupervised classification involves less
interaction by the analyst and basically allows the computer to generate spectral
signatures using a predetermined set of rules. The computer routine does this by
identifying typical patterns in the reflectance data. The land cover information
contained in these patterns can be identified by ground truthing (an approach
Page E-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
used to verify remote sensing information by field studies) or by comparing it with

reference data (such as larger scale imagery or maps). The accuracy of the
classified land cover layer is directly related to the amount of field data used to
verify the resulting categories. Spectral categories resulting from unsupervised
classifications of remote-sensed images can be used to create C factor maps.
Each spectrally recognized land-cover category is assigned the mean C factor
value for the plots representing that category (Warren et al 1989).
Vegetation indices have also been used to extrapolate C factor values (Senseman et
al 1996). A vegetation index is derived from discrete bands of electromagnetic
reflectance commonly imaged by space-based sensors. Pixel reflectance values are
transformed using published equations into a new value called a vegetation index
(citation?). Linear regression is one approach to calibrating a vegetation index with
field-based vegetation measures and determining a statistical relationship between field
C factor values and image reflectance values. This relationship is then used to estimate
C factor values for each image value across the installations.
The choice of data source for determining the C factor will depend on the data
available at an installation and the resolution and quality of that data. It is likely that
different sources will be used for different study areas. LCTA data are expected to be
an important source of data for determination of the C factor.
E.6
P Factor
The conservation practices (P) factor is generally not known for installation lands
and is assumed to be one (1), when data are not available. Due to the lack of published
P factor values, subject matter experts specializing in LRAM implementation at military
installation and erosion modeling estimated P values. Subject matter experts included
individuals from the US Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Engineering
Research Lab, Argonne National Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Hood, and
Hohenfels Training area.
E.7
Available Training Land Map
Training lands include lands available for training, under installation control, and that
are the responsibility of the installation to maintain as part of the ITAM Program. Lands
not available for training are identified through discussions with the installation range
control office.
A training lands map is produced by combining and reclassifying a number of
thematic data layers within a GIS. Common data layers include: installation boundary,
cantonment, bodies of water, impact areas, and other data layers that capture restricted
uses. These maps have generally been available as digital maps at the installation or
can be digitized from installation paper maps. The GIS data layers that delineate
restricted training areas are overlaid in a GIS to produce an available training lands
map.
The designation of lands available for training should be consistent with the
designations used in the RFMSS system. Lands not available for scheduling training
Page E-7
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
activities should not be in the available training lands map. However, some lands within
training areas that have access restrictions should be removed from the available
training land map.
E.7.1 Training Area Map
A training area map is a map delineating land units used for scheduling and
conducting military training. This map should be consistent with the training area map
used for scheduling training in the RFMSS program. This data layer is required when
estimating land condition for individual parcels of land that match the same parcels of
land as they are managed in the RFMSS program.
E.7.2 Training Impact Map (Delta C Factor Map)
Vehicle impact data are available from a variety of sources such as installation
studies, published literature, LCTA data, and/or subject matter experts. The choice of
data sources for the ATTACC model is likely to be up to each installation.
Experimental impact studies that specifically examined the impact of military
vehicles on installation resources have been completed (Silcox 1995, Thurow et al
1995. Van Horne and Sharp 1998, Watts 1998, Wilson 1988). Many of these studies
quantify the impact of single and multiple passes of a vehicle. Data from these studies
can be used to estimate a change in C factor associated with a pass of a vehicle. The
data from these studies must then be extrapolated across the installation. Data can be
extrapolated by vegetation type, soil type, or other relevant spatial data.
Results of studies of related impacts such as off-road civilian vehicle impact studies
can also be used to infer changes in C factor associated with vehicle impacts. LCTA
data can be used to estimate the impact of military vehicles on installation resources
(Shaw and Diersing 1989, Shaw and Diersing 1990, Warren and Bagley 1992, Shaw et
al 1990).
Data from experimental studies provides high quality data on vehicle impacts.
However, these studies do not exist for many installations. For installations with data
from experimental studies, the data may not represent all plant community types. Data
from off-road civilian vehicle impact studies are also not available for all installations and
must be related to military vehicle impacts. For installation not having experimental
studies or off-road vehicle impact studies, LCTA data can be used to estimate the
change in C Factor values resulting from training impact. Since LCTA plot data are
divided into tracked and untracked data subsets, C factor values can be calculated for
both tracked and untracked data sets. During the collection of LCTA field data, a
determination of the presence or absence of vehicle disturbance is made at each pointintercept along the line transect. This determination allows each field measurement plot
to be divided into disturbed and undisturbed subsets. A C factor value for disturbed
(Cd) and undisturbed (Cu) subsets can be calculated The difference between Cd and
Cu is an estimate of the impact on vegetative cover due to a single pass of vehicle
traffic. It is important to note that LCTA implementation assumes that a point-intercept
Page E-8
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
recorded as tracked represents the impact of a single pass of a vehicle and that the
single pass happened during the current year.
In the ATTACC model, the assumption is that a MIM will cause the same amount of
damage as any other MIM under similar environmental conditions regardless of the type
of vehicle or event. However, a MIM may cause much different amounts of damage
under different environmental conditions such as varying soil and vegetation types. As
such, the impact of a MIM to the land must be estimated separately for different
environmental conditions. An average Delta C Factor is calculated for a group of plots
representing similar environmental conditions. The Delta C Factor is extrapolated
across the installation using an installation's vegetation, soils, and plot allocation strata
maps, and/or other relevant GIS maps.
E.7.3 Vegetation Recovery Map
Recovery period should be determined experimentally for the most accurate
estimate. Unfortunately these type of data are not always available or possible to
collect. Estimates of natural recovery can also be obtained from the literature, subject
matter experts, or personal experience.
In the ATTACC methodology, installation ITAM personnel (or designated experts)
estimated recovery rates and extrapolation methods. Estimated recovery rates are
associated with vegetation type, soil type, or another spatially distributed land feature,
so that the information can be extrapolated across the installation. Expert opinions
were validated using experimental data on recovery rates and literature, where available
and applicable.
E.7.4 Training Distribution Map
An important aspect to adequately modeling the impacts of training activities is the
spatial distribution of land use activities. Land use activities are not distributed uniformly
across the installation. The training distribution map should reflect the effects of
topography, vegetation, and other environmental influences on the distribution of land
uses such as training. It should also reflect the doctrinal requirements of training and
historic land use patterns. In ATTACC, the methodology to create this data layer is
flexible but the land use patterns estimated should reflect actual land use.
Evidence of historic disturbance can be used as a surrogate measure of future
training use distribution. This assumes that all vegetation/soils types are similarly
affected by vehicle traffic and that installation lands will generally be used in the future
as they have been used in the past. To spatially extrapolate historic data, measures of
disturbance from field plots are statistically related to spatial data. The statistical
techniques that relate point and spatial data can be very simple or very complex.
Standard LCTA core plot data are often used to quantify disturbance since percent
of plot disturbed is a standard data element. Percent ground disturbance is also a
common measurement in LCTA II field methodologies. LCTA disturbance data can be
averaged by training area (Linn and Gordon 1993), related to remotely-sensed imagery
(Wu and Westervelt 1994), or related to GIS spatial data (Guertin et al 1997).
Page E-9
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
In the absence of ground truth data, remotely-sensed imagery can be used to

estimate the percentage of area that is denuded of vegetation. This assumes loss of
vegetation is due to land use activity and proportional to the amount of land use
activities. This approach was used in the Fort Hood Maneuver Activity Damage
Assessment Model (MADAM) (Sedlak and Brown 1992).
Averaging LCTA data by training area is a simple means to estimate distribution, but
it assumes an even distribution within a training area and is dependent on LCTA plot
locations within a training area. Using remotely-sensed imagery to identify disturbed
areas more accurately captures the spatial distribution of land use activities, but does
not have a means to quantify amount of land use. Using LCTA data/GIS/ remotelysensed imagery more accurately captures spatial distributions with quantifiable groundtruth data.
The utility of the different methods depends on availability of remotely-sensed
imagery and field disturbance data. Some methods work better than others depending
on the characteristics of the site and the mission activities.
In the ATTACC methodology, LCTA disturbance data was correlated with remotelysensed imagery and GIS data such as slope, vegetation and soil types, and distance
from roads, cantonment, and firing points. A statistical model was developed
quantifying the relationships between field data and these various spatial data. Once
statistically insignificant data layers were removed, the statistical model is used to
produce a disturbance map. Each grid in this map is assigned a value between 0 and
100 that represents the percentage of disturbed land in that grid. Information on
remote-sensed data acquisition can be found in the Remote Sensing Handbook (Bright
et al 1997). This information is also available at following web site: http://www.armyitam.com.
E.8
Additional Requirements
Applying P factors to the ATTACC model requires more than an estimate of the
effectiveness of an LRAM activity. The life span of the activity is important for
estimating effects of an activity in subsequent years. Many activities require periodic
maintenance to sustain effectiveness.
Life span and maintenance costs were obtained from reports published by the
NRCS. This data was available on a regional basis and is maintained by the NRCS.
During the survey of P factor values, the experts were asked to review the NRCS values
to determine if they were applicable to military conditions.
Unlike most of the other information, the area affected by an LRAM activity is very
installation specific. To determine the area affected by LRAM activities for a specific
installation, installation personnel from the installation were surveyed. Survey data was
supplemented where possible with published data specific to the installation.
Page E-10
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX F: LRAM PRACTICES

For the purposes of ATTACC, Land Rehabilitation and Management (LRAM)
practices are defined as operations or structures that slow runoff water velocity, thus
reducing the amount of sediment that is carried by runoff waters. There are two basic
types of LRAM practices -- repair and sustain.
Repair practices are those that directly affect erosion and whose benefit can be
quantified to shift the land condition curve. Seeding is an example of a repair practice.
Sustain practices are non-erosion related practices, i.e., they do not directly affect
erosion, but whose expense is part of the cost of doing LRAM business. Firebreaks are
an example of a sustain practice.
F.1
LRAM Practices and their P Factor
Table F-1 provides an abbreviated list of LRAM practices. The first column lists valid
LRAM practices, which are funded through the installation ITAM workplan process. The
second column distinguishes between Repair and Sustain types of LRAM practices.
Conversely, equipment expenses do not directly affect erosion, but they are a legitimate
LRAM costs. The third column is the unit of measure for the construction of the LRAM
practice. The fourth column provides the total acres affected by one unit of the LRAM
practice.
Table F-1. Partial listing of LRAM practices.
Practice
Type Practice
Unit of
Measure
Affected
Acres/ Unit
Quantity
P
(Effectiveness
Measure)
Aerial Seeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Band Fertilizer
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.68
Blocking trails/fords
Repair
Each
50.00
0.52
Blocking trails/fords
Repair
Each
50.00
0.52
Broadcast Fertilizer
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Broadcast Seeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Chiseling
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.58
Critical Area Treatment
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.68
Diversion Ditches
Repair
Foot
4.50
0.65
Diversion terraces
Repair
Foot
0.01
0.70
Drill Seeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Page F-1
ATTACC Handbook
Practice
March 1999
Type Practice
Unit of
Measure
Affected
Acres/ Unit
Quantity
P
(Effectiveness
Measure)
Fabrics & Netting
Repair
Cubic
Yard
1.00
0.63
Filter Stripping
Repair
Acre
4.50
0.65
Furrowing/Shredding
Repair
Acre
0.50
0.68
Gabions
Repair
Cubic
Yard
1.00
0.52
Grading & Shaping
Repair
Cubic
Yard
0.50
0.68
Grass Sods
Repair
Square
Yard
1.00
0.63
Grass Stolons, Rhizomes
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.63
Grassed Waterways
Repair
Each
4.50
0.65
Gravel Road (Hill Access Point)
Repair
Each
1.00
0.56
Gravel/Rock Mulch
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.57
Heavy use area: Bivouac
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.56
Heavy use area: Firing Points
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.56
Heavy use area: Staging
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.56
Heavy use area: Travel Lanes
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.56
Hydroseeding
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.73
Limestone & Gypsum
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.63
Moldboard Plowing
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.59
Non-Traditional Material
Repair
Hour
1.00
0.63
Offset Disking
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.58
Paved Road
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.50
Rest Eroded areas
Repair
Each
50.00
0.63
Page F-2
ATTACC Handbook
Practice
March 1999
Type Practice
Unit of
Measure
Affected
Acres/ Unit
Quantity
P
(Effectiveness
Measure)
Retaining Structures
Repair
Acre
0.50
0.68
Riprap
Repair
Cubic
Yard
1.00
0.52
Sediment Barriers: sediment fence
Repair
Foot
15.00
0.54
Sediment basins (Erosion Control/Sed Repair

Retention Structure)
Each
300.00
0.48
Sediment Traps
Repair
Cubic
Yard
0.50
0.53
Straw Mulch: Crimped
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.62
Straw Mulch: Disked
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.62
Stream Crossings
Repair
Each
1.00
0.55
Subsoiling
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.58
Tandem Disking
Repair
Acre
1.00
0.58
Terracing
Repair
Foot
0.50
0.68
Topsoiling
Repair
Cubic
Yard
0.50
0.68
Trail
Repair
Mile
10.00
0.68
Trees & Shrubs
Repair
Plant
1.00
0.63
Trenching
Repair
Foot
0.50
0.68
Aircraft Hover Points; Landing Zones/ Sustain

Pads
Each
N/A
N/A
Archaeological Site Capping
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Brush Plowing
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Bulldozing
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Chaining
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Page F-3
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Practice
Type Practice
Concealment Islands
Unit of
Measure
Affected
Acres/ Unit
Quantity
P
(Effectiveness
Measure)
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Construction and maintenance of fire Sustain

breaks
Each
N/A
N/A
Erosion Control Management Plan
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Herbicide - Foliar Aerially Applied
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Herbicide - Foliar Ground Applied
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Herbicide - Soil Active Aerially Applied
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Herbicide - Soil Active Ground Applied
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Inter-Agency Support
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Plant Holding Facility/Seed Collection
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
POL Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Rehabilitation of other Use Areas into Sustain

Training Areas; UXO Clearing
Each
N/A
N/A
Resource Management Plan
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Root Plowing
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Shredding
Sustain
Acre
N/A
N/A
Design; Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Study
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
Watershed Erosion Project
Sustain
Each
N/A
N/A
POL Contaminant
Training Site
Structure;
Specified/Unspecified Project
Comprehensive Plans
F.2
Description of LRAM Practices
Table F-2 provides a description of LRAM repair practices. Table F-3 provides a
description of LRAM sustain practices. The source of the information is the Installation
Work Analysis Module (IWAM). Descriptions for all LRAM practices were not available
for the March 1999 release of the ATTACC Handbook.
Page F-4
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Table F-2. LRAM Repair Practices.

Aerial seeding: Application of seed to a site from fixed wing or helicopters.
Band Fertilizer: Fertilizer applied in a band adjacent to the point where the seed is
planted.
Broadcast fertilizer: Scattering fertilizer on the surface of the soil.
Broadcast seeding: Scattering seed on the surface of the soil.
Chiseling: An operation to loosen soil that creates parallel slots on the contour in the
soil surface to hinder water flow and increase infiltration.
Critical Areas: Areas subject to accelerated erosion due to human disturbance, soil
type, or slope.
Ditch: A means of conveying water away from a road or trail to a natural waterway.
Diversion Ditch: A barrier built to divert surface runoff.
Diversion terrace: Terraces built to divert surface runoff.
Drill seeding: Planting seed with a drill in narrow rows in the soil.
Fabrics and Netting: Materials used to construct erosion control structures such as
filter strips.
Filter strip: Usually long, relatively narrow area of undisturbed or planted vegetation
used to retard or collect sediment for protection of waterways or adjacent lands.
Filter strips: A filter or buffer of vegetation between streams and disturbed areas that
provide sediment control.
Gabion: A wire mesh cage filled with rock and used to protect channel banks and
other sloping areas from erosion.
Grading/Surface grading: Smoothing or reshaping roadways by means of blading or
dragging without adding materials.
Grading: Cutting and/or filling of the land surface to a desired slope or elevation.
Grass sods, stolons, rhizomes: Forms of grass used to establish vegetative control
structures.
Grassed waterways: Grassed waterways are natural or constructed waterways that
are shaped to required dimensions and vegetated for safe disposal and runoff.
Hydroseeding: Sowing seed mixed into a water spray with or without mulch, lime,
Page F-5
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
and fertilizer.
Mulch: A natural or artificial layer of plant residue or other materials covering the land
surface, which conserves moisture, hold soil in place, aids in establishing plant cover,
and minimizes temperature fluctuations.
Riprap: Layers of stone or concrete placed over exposed soil to protect if from erosive
forces
Sediment Basin/Retention pond: A water impoundment mad by constructing a dam
or embankment.
Sediment traps: Small structures temporarily installed within or adjacent to ditches to
trap sediment from recently disturbed sites until revegetation or other stabilization
measures can take effect.
Terrace: A terrace is an earthen embankment or ridge and channel constructed
across a slope to intercept surface runoff.
Table F-3. LRAM Sustain Practices

Erosion and sediment control plan: A plan that fully indicates necessary land
treatment and structural measures which will effectively minimize soil erosion and
sediment yield.
Herbicides: Chemicals used to eliminate or control unwanted vegetation.
Page F-6
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
APPENDIX G: FUNCTIONAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

G.1
How to Get Functional Support
The Army Training and Testing Area Carrying Capacity (ATTACC) project team is
available to answer questions regarding the ATTACC methodology and its usage at
Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) installations. Any comments, feedback,
or suggestions should be addressed to either the Overall ATACC Project Lead or the
Training Component and RFMSS Integration Lead. The team members, their role on
the team, and other relevant information is listed below.
Overall ATTACC Project Lead
Mr. Steve Sekscienski

(410) 436-1562
U.S. Army Environmental Center
sekscien@aec.apgea.army.mil
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-Conservation
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland 21010
Training Component and RFMSS Integration Lead
Ms. Leslie Winters

(757) 878-3090
Mr. Gordon Weith
(757) 878-3090
U.S. Army Training Support Center
wintersl@atsc.army.mil
ATTN: ATIC-ATMS-LM
weithg@atsc.army.mil
Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604
ATTACC Land Condition and GIS Coordinators
G.2
Mr. Alan Anderson

U.S. Construction Engineering Research Lab
Champaign, Illinois
(217) 373-5474
a-anderson@cecer.army.mil
Ms. Pam Sydelko

Argonne National Laboratory
Chicago, Illinois
ATTACC Cost Factors:
(630) 252-6727
sydelkop@smtplink.dis.anl.gov
Mr. Michael Brown
(703) 845-1000
CALIBRE Systems, Inc.

5111 Leesburg Pike (suite 514)
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
mbrown@calibresys.com
How to Get Technical Support
Several automated tools support ATTACC methodology. Examples of these tools

include the Range Facility Management and Support System (RFMSS); the Arc View
Geographic Information System (GIS), for which ITAM has developed a customized
Page G-1
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
application called Military Activity GIS Interface Computer (MAGIC); and the Land
Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) database. 24
G.2.1 RFMSS
RFMSS support is available through a number of sources. Guidance on how to use
RFMSS screens, functions, reports, etc. is available in the RFMSS User Manual and in
the RFMSS on-line help. The Army Range and Training Land Program also maintains a
24-hour RFMSS hotline for technical and functional assistance, including functional
assistance on ATTACC training component topics like the event cross-walk. Finally,
there is a Range and Training Land Program website which includes RFMSS
information, support, questions and answers, and user feed back.
RFMSS HOTLINE:
(256) 842-8189, DSN 788-8189
RTLP Website:
http://www.rtlp.redstone.army.mil
Note that a password is required to access the RTLP website. A password is

available through the RFMSS hotline, or through your local RFMSS administrator.
G.2.2 ATTACC Integration Module
The ATTACC Integration Module configuration also includes an on-line help feature.
For more information, users of the ATTACC Integration Module may contact the
technical automation coordinators listed below.
Technical Automation Coordinators for the ATTACC Integration Module:

Mr. Michael Brown
CALIBRE Systems, Inc.
5111 Leesburg Pike (suite 514)
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
(703) 845-1000
mbrown@calibresys.com
G.2.3 GIS and MAGIC

ITAM GIS Regional Support Centers (RSCs) were created to ensure a GIS
capability exists at all ITAM installations, and gain efficiencies through standardization
and geographically centralized support. RSC services include data layer development,
spatial data analysis, customized map production, GIS technical support, and MAGIC
software support.
The four RSCs and Point of Contact (POC) data for each are as follows:
South Eastern RSC -- Fort A.P. Hill, VA

(804) 633-8730 or 8381 DSN Prefix 578
24
ATTACC is also being integrated into the Range and Training Land Program- Automation System (RTLP-AS),
which is a follow-on and improvement to RFMSS.
Page G-2
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
South Central RSC -- Fort Sill, OK

(580) 442-6174 or 4247DSN Prefix 639
South Western RSC -- Colorado State University

(970) 491-0676 or 3324
Northern RSC -- Utah State University

(435) 797-2602 or 2468
The United States Army Environmental Center developed a pamphlet that describes
the various RSC support services, outlines the policy and procedures for issuing task
orders to the ITAM GIS RSCs, identifies those services funded by the ITAM functional
proponent, and provides POC info. The pamphlet is available on the ITAM website at
www.army-itam.com.
Page G-3
DRAFT
ATTACC Handbook
March 1999
Page G-4
DRAFT

Attacc Handbook 1mar99

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Attacc Handbook 1mar99

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

U.S.

ARMY TRAINING AND TESTING

HANDBOOK FOR INSTALLATIONS

Prepared by the United States Army Environmental Center

Establish a model to predict LRAM cost requirements based on training usage.

Use the cost estimating relationship to develop land-related operations and

The TOR further specified three essential elements of analysis:

Is the methodology transferable to other units and installations? If so how?

In response to the Tasking, the US Army Concepts Analysis Agency submitted

The United States Army Environmental Center (USAEC), specifically the

United States Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Lab

The Department of Energy (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).

ATTACC COMPONENTS ...........................................................................................................2-1

TRAINING LOAD ......................................................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................3-1

SECTION 4. LAND CONDITION .......................................................................................................4-1

APPENDIX A: RELATED PUBLICATIONS ..................................................................................... A-1

Blank page intentionally inserted.

Purpose of the ATTACC Handbook

Provide step-by-step processes to implement ATTACC

Provide an example of using ATTACC for land management decisions.

Basic Functional Principles

ITAM is the Armys program for managing

Provide a means for estimating future LRAM costs of land-based training

The identification and measurement of training land carrying capacity provides

Running ATTACC at the Installation

Implementation of ATTACC depends

ATTACC combines theory with a

1.4.1 Automation Tools

166 MHz microprocessor

Compact Disc (CD) reader (internal or portable).

Structure of the Handbook

Section 2 Implementation Overview. Section 2 provides the "big picture" for

Section 4 Land Condition. Section 4 describes the steps to estimate the

Section 5 Land Maintenance. Section 5 describes the steps to measure land

Section 6 Using ATTACC to Support Land Management. Section 6 provides

Section 7 Fort ITAM. Section 7 provides an example of start-up, daily, and

Appendices supplement the content of sections two through six by providing

Blank page intentionally inserted.

Land Maintenance. Land maintenance is the collection of LRAM practices and

Figure 2-1. ATTACC Components.

Relating Training Load and Land Condition

ATTACC Land Condition Curve

Figure 2-2. Land Condition Curve.

Estimating Training Land Carrying Capacity Thresholds

ATTACC Land Condition Curve

Figure 2-3. Estimating Training Land Carrying Capacity Thresholds.

Integrating the Effects of Land Maintenance Practices

ATTACC Land Condition Curve

+ Land Maintenance Practices

Figure 2-4. Impact to Land Condition by LRAM Practices.

Blank page intentionally inserted.

Steps to Measure Training Load

ATTACC Training Model

Figure 3-1. Steps to Measure Training Load.

Armored Cavalry NTC Rotation

Step 1: Perform RFMSS Setup Operations

Specify the unit type for each unit at an installation.

Set Local Condition Factors (LCF)

Adjust the Vehicle Off-Road Factor (VOF)

Adjust severity factors.

Once RFMSS is setup, the

Section 3.7 describes customized RFMSS setup

Refer to your RFMSS manual for an exact description of this process.