This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-621T 
entitled 'Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on 
Training Ranges Still Evolving' which was released on April 02, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Testimony:



Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:



Wednesday, April 2, 2003:



Military Training:



DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges Still 

Evolving:



Statement of Barry W. Holman, Director 

Defense Infrastructure Issues:



GAO-03-621T:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-621T, a testimony before the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate



Why GAO Did This Study:



DOD faces growing challenges in carrying out realistic training at 

installations and training rangesland, air, and seabecause of 

encroachment by outside factors. These include urban growth, 

competition for radio frequencies or airspace, air or noise pollution, 

unexploded ordnance and munition components, endangered species 

habitat, and protected marine resources. Building on work reported on 

in 2002, GAO assessed (1) the impact of encroachment on training 

ranges, (2) DODs efforts to document the effect on readiness and cost, 

and (3) DODs progress in addressing encroachment.



What GAO Found:



Encroachment was reported as having affected some training range 

capabilities, requiring workaroundsor adjustments to training 

eventsand sometimes limiting training, at all stateside installations 

and major commands GAO visited. GAO has identified similar effects 

abroad. Encroachment generally limits the time that training ranges are 

available and the types of training conducted. This in turn limits 

units ability to train as they would fight. Most encroachment issues 

are caused by population growth and urban development. Because both are 

expected to increase, as are the speed and range of weapon systems used 

on training ranges, the problems are also expected to increase.



Despite DOD-voiced concerns about encroachments effects on training, 

service readiness data in 2002 did not show the impact of encroachment 

on training readiness or costs, although DODs most recent quarterly 

report to Congress on readiness did tie a training issue directly to 

encroachment. While individual services are making some assessment of 

training requirements and limitations imposed by encroachment, 

comprehensive assessments remain to be done. Likewise, complete 

inventories of training ranges are not yet available to foster sharing 

of ranges on an interservice or joint basis. This increases the risk of 

inefficiencies, lost time and opportunities, delays, and added cost. 

Also, although some services have reported higher costs because of 

encroachment-related workarounds for training, service data systems 

do not capture the costs comprehensively.



DOD has made some progress in addressing individual encroachment 

issues, such as implementing some short-term actions, proposing 

legislation to clarify the relationship between training and 

conservation statutes, and issuing a range sustainment directive. 

But more is required for a comprehensive plan, as recommended by GAO 

earlier, that clearly identifies steps to be taken, goals and 

milestones to track progress, and required funding. 



What GAO Recommends:



GAO is not making any new recommendations. However, GAO did make 

recommendations in reports issued in April and June 2002 (GAO-02-525 

and GAO-02-614). They were aimed at (1) improving the quality of 

readiness reporting to better reflect training constraints and (2) 

helping DOD develop a comprehensive plan for dealing with encroachment 

issues and improving the information and data available for identifying 

and reporting on the effects of encroachment. In addition, the Congress 

directed DOD to report periodically on its progress in addressing 

encroachment issues and requires GAO to review those reports.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-621T.

To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 

the link above. For more information, contact Barry W. Holman at 

(202) 512-8412 or holmanb@gao.gov.



[End of section]



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:



I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the results of our work 

involving the constraints that encroachment places on military 

training. As you know, senior Department of Defense (DOD) and service 

officials have testified that they face growing difficulties in 

carrying out realistic training at installations and training 

ranges[Footnote 1] because of so-called encroachment [Footnote 2] 

issues, which limit their ability to train military forces at the 

desired levels and proficiencies. The eight encroachment issues 

identified by DOD are urban growth around military installations, 

competition for radio frequency spectrum; air pollution; noise 

pollution; competition for airspace; unexploded ordnance and munitions 

components;[Footnote 3] endangered species habitat; and protected 

marine resources.



My testimony is largely built on work we reported on last year 

concerning the effects of encroachment in the continental United States 

on military training and readiness.[Footnote 4] Last year we also 

reported on the constraints on training of U.S. forces 

overseas.[Footnote 5] The findings of the two reviews have some 

similarities. Today, I would like to briefly highlight our findings 

regarding (1) the growing impact of encroachment on training range 

capabilities, (2) DODs efforts to document the effects of encroachment 

on readiness and costs, and (3) DODs process in addressing 

encroachment.



Summary:



On the basis of our observations and discussions with officials at 

installations and major commands we visited last year here in the 

United States, we obtained numerous examples where encroachment had 

affected some training range capabilities, requiring workarounds--or 

adjustments to training events--and, in some cases, limited training. 

We identified similar effects overseas. The potential problem with 

workarounds is that they lack realism and can lead to the practice of 

tactics that are contrary to those used in combat. Officials, both 

stateside and abroad, reported that encroachment at times limits the 

time that training ranges are available and the types of training that 

can be conducted. Service officials believe that urbanization and 

population growth is primarily responsible for encroachment in the 

United States and is likely to cause more training range losses in the 

future.



Despite concerns voiced repeatedly by DOD officials about the effects 

of encroachment on training, DODs readiness reports did not indicate 

the extent to which encroachment was adversely affecting training 

readiness and costs. In fact, at the time we did our review, most 

readiness reports showed that units had a high state of readiness; and 

they were largely silent on the issue of encroachment. Recently, 

however, one DOD readiness report indicated that the Air Force has 

attributed environmental encroachment to a reduced capability to 

conduct flight training.[Footnote 6] We have previously reported on 

limitations in DODs readiness reporting.[Footnote 7] While 

improvements in readiness reporting can and should be made to better 

show any shortfalls in training, DODs ability to fully assess training 

limitations and their overall impact on training capabilities and 

readiness will be limited without (1) more complete baseline data, such 

as a comprehensive database, on all training range capabilities and the 

services training range requirements and (2) full consideration of how 

live training capabilities may be complemented by other forms of 

training, such as those available through training devices and 

simulations. These actions will not replace other steps needed to deal 

with encroachment, but they are key to better define the magnitude of 

the encroachment problem now and in the future. At the same time, it is 

important to note that while it is widely recognized that encroachment 

results in workarounds that can increase training costs, those costs 

are not easily aggregated to measure their full effect.



Although DOD has made some progress in addressing individual 

encroachment issues, that effort is still evolving; and more work will 

be required to put in place a comprehensive plan, as we recommended 

earlier, that clearly identifies steps to be taken, goals and 

milestones to track progress, and required funding. We reported last 

year that the department had prepared draft action plans that deal with 

each encroachment issue separately, but information was limited on 

specific actions planned, time frames for completing them, and funding 

needed. In December 2001, DOD directed an Integrated Product Team to 

act as the coordinating body for all encroachment issues, develop a 

comprehensive set of legislative and regulatory proposals by January 

2002, and formulate and manage outreach efforts. Last year and just 

recently, DOD submitted a package of legislative proposals, which it 

describes as clarifications, seeking to modify several statutory 

requirements. We are aware that consideration of these and other 

related legislative proposals affecting existing environmental 

legislation will need to include potential trade-offs among multiple 

policy objectives and issues on which we have not taken a position. At 

the same time, we also understand that DOD recently asked the services 

to develop procedures for invoking the national security exceptions 

under a number of environmental laws. Historically, DOD and the 

services have been reluctant to seek such exceptions; and we are aware 

of only a couple of instances where this has been done. In our report 

last June on stateside encroachment issues, we made several 

recommendations aimed at helping DOD develop a comprehensive plan for 

dealing with encroachment and improve the information and data 

available for identifying and reporting on the effects of encroachment. 

[Footnote 8] Our two reports last year recommended that DOD develop 

reports that accurately capture the causes of training shortfalls and 

objectively report units ability to meet their training requirements. 

Following our reports, DOD issued a range sustainment 

directive[Footnote 9] to establish policy and assign responsibilities 

for the sustainment of test and training ranges; and the Special 

Operations Command developed a database identifying the training ranges 

it uses, type of training conducted, and restrictions on training. The 

department also plans to develop a set of internal policies and 

procedures based on the range sustainment directive, strengthen and 

empower its management structure to deal with range issues, and take a 

more proactive role in working with local governments and 

organizations.



We are not making any new recommendations in this testimony. As you may 

be aware, Mr. Chairman, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 requires a series of yearly 

reports to the Congress dealing with encroachment issues beginning this 

year, and a requirement for GAO to review those reports. The first of 

those reports was required to be submitted along with the Presidents 

budget for fiscal year 2004. That report was to describe DODs progress 

in developing a comprehensive plan to use existing authorities to 

address training constraints on the use of military lands, marine 

areas, and airspace that are available in the United States and 

overseas for training. However, to our knowledge, DOD has not yet 

issued this report. The Act also requires the submission of a report 

not later than June 30, 2003, on plans of the department to improve its 

readiness reporting to reflect the readiness impact that training 

constraints have on specific units of the armed forces.



Background:



Military ranges and training areas are used primarily to test weapon 

systems and train military forces. Required facilities include air 

ranges for air-to-air, air-to-ground, drop zone, and electronic combat 

training; live-fire ranges for artillery, armor, small arms, and 

munitions training; ground maneuver ranges to conduct realistic force-

on-force and live-fire training at various unit levels; and sea ranges 

to conduct ship maneuvers for training.



According to DOD officials, there has been a slow but steady increase 

in encroachment issues that have limited the use of training 

facilities, and the gradual accumulation of these issues increasingly 

threatens training readiness. DOD has identified eight such 

encroachment issues:



* Designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. Under the Act, agencies are required to ensure that their actions 

do not destroy or adversely modify habitat that has been designated for 

endangered or threatened species. Currently, over 300 such species are 

found on military installations. In 1994, under the previous 

administration 14 agencies signed a federal memorandum of 

understanding[Footnote 10] for implementing the Endangered Species 

Act.[Footnote 11] The agencies agreed to establish or use existing 

regional interagency working groups to identify geographic areas within 

which the groups would coordinate agency actions and overcome barriers 

to conserve endangered species and their ecosystems. Such cooperative 

management could help DOD share the burden of land use restrictions on 

military installations that are caused by encroachment issues, but 

implementation of this approach has been limited. We are currently 

reviewing this issue.[Footnote 12]



* Application of environmental statutes to military munitions. DOD 

believes that the Environmental Protection Agency could apply 

environmental statutes to the use of military munitions, shutting down 

or disrupting military training. According to DOD officials, 

uncertainties about future application and enforcement of these 

statutes limit their ability to plan, program, and budget for 

compliance requirements.



* Competition for radio frequency spectrum. The telecommunications 

industry is pressuring for the reallocation of some of the radio 

frequency spectrum from DOD to commercial control. DOD reports that 

over the past decade, it has lost about 27 percent of the frequency 

spectrum allocated for aircraft telemetry. And we previously reported 

additional allocation of spectrum could affect space systems, tactical 

communications, and combat training.[Footnote 13]



* Marine regulatory laws that require consultation with regulators when 

a proposed action may affect a protected resource. Defense officials 

say that the process empowers regulators to impose potentially 

stringent measures to protect the environment from the effects of 

proposed training in marine environments.



* Competition for airspace. Increased airspace congestion limits the 

ability of pilots to train as they would fly in combat.



* Clean Air Act requirements for air quality. DOD officials believe the 

Act requires controls over emissions generated on Defense 

installations. New or significant changes in range operations also 

require emissions analyses, and if emissions exceed specified 

thresholds, they must be offset with reductions elsewhere.



* Laws and regulations mandating noise abatement. DOD officials stated 

that weapon systems are exempt from the Noise Control Act of 1972, but 

DOD must assess noise impact under the National Environmental Policy 

Act. As community developments have expanded closer to military 

installations, concerns over noise from military operations have 

increased.



* Urban growth. DOD says that unplanned or incompatible commercial or 

residential development near training ranges compromises the 

effectiveness of training activities. Local residents have filed 

lawsuits charging that military operations lowered the value or limited 

the use of their property.



To the extent that encroachment adversely affects training readiness, 

opportunities exist for the problems to be reported in departmental and 

military service readiness reports. The Global Status of Resources and 

Training System is the primary means units use to compare readiness 

against designed operational goals.[Footnote 14] The systems database 

indicates, at selected points in time, the extent to which units 

possess the required resources and training to undertake their wartime 

missions. In addition, DOD is required under 10 U.S.C. 117 to prepare 

quarterly readiness reports to Congress. The reports are based on 

briefings to the Senior Readiness Oversight Council, a forum assisted 

by the Defense Test and Training Steering Group. In June 2000, the 

council directed the steering group to investigate encroachment issues 

and develop a comprehensive plan of action.



The secretaries of the military services are responsible for training 

personnel and for maintaining their respective training ranges and 

facilities. Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness develops policies, 

plans, and programs to ensure the readiness of the force and provides 

oversight on training; the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Installations and Environment develops policies, plans, and programs 

for DODs environmental, safety, and occupational health programs, 

including compliance with environmental laws, conservation of natural 

and cultural resources, pollution prevention, and explosive safety; and 

the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, provides advice on tests 

and evaluations.



Encroachment Has Reduced Some Capabilities, and Its Effects Are Likely 

to Grow:



On the basis of what we have seen, the impact of encroachment on 

training ranges has gradually increased over time, reducing some 

training capabilities. Because most encroachment problems are caused by 

urban development and population growth, these problems are expected to 

increase in the future.



Although the effects vary by service and by individual installation, 

encroachment has generally limited the extent to which training ranges 

are available or the types of training that can be conducted. This 

limits units ability to train as they would expect to fight and causes 

workarounds that may limit the amount or quality of training. 

Installations overseas all reported facing similar training 

constraints.



Some of the problems reported by installations we visited last year 

were those related to urban growth, radio frequency spectrum 

interference, air quality, noise, air space, and endangered species 

habitat. For example, in response to local complaints, Fort Lewis, 

Washington, voluntarily ceased some demolitions training. Eglin Air 

Force Base, Florida, officials reported the bases major target control 

system received radio frequency spectrum interference from nearby 

commercial operators. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, officials reported 

that urban growth near the base and related safety concerns had 

restricted flight patterns of armed aircraft, causing mission delays 

and cancellations. They also reported that they receive approximately 

250 complaints about noise each year. About 10 percent of Marine Corps 

Base Camp Pendleton, California, had been designated as critical 

habitat for endangered species. Atlantic Fleet officials reported 

encroachment problems stemming from endangered marine mammals and 

noise. They said that the fleets live-fire exercises at sea were 

restricted, and night live-fire training was not allowed.



More recently, in January 2003, DODs Special Operations Command 

reported that its units encounter a number of obstacles when scheduling 

or using training ranges.[Footnote 15] According to the report, the 

presence of endangered species and marine mammals on or near ranges 

result in restrictions on training for at least part of the year--

closing the area to training, prohibiting live fire, or requiring 

modified operations. For example, a variety of endangered species live 

on the training areas of the Navy Special Warfare Command in 

California, particularly on Coronado and San Clemente islands. Due to 

environmental restrictions, Navy Special Warfare units report that they 

can no longer practice immediate action drills on Coronado beaches; 

they cannot use training areas in Coronado for combat swimmer training; 

and they cannot conduct live-fire and maneuver exercises on much of San 

Clemente Island during some seasons. In addition, the Special 

Operations Command owns no training ranges of its own and largely 

depends on others for the use of their training ranges. As a result, 

command officials advised us that they must train under operational and 

scheduling restrictions imposed by its host commands. For example, the 

command normally trains at night; and because range management 

personnel are not often available at night, this prevents such 

training. Also, on many ranges, the command reported that priority is 

given to larger units than special operations units causing it to 

postpone or cancel training. According to the report, ranges are also 

inadequately funded for construction, maintenance, repairs, and 

upgrades. This results in some commanders using their own funds in 

order to prevent the ranges from becoming dangerous or unusable.



The Special Operations Command, while expressing concern for the 

future, reported that none of the eight encroachment issues identified 

by DOD had yet stopped military training, due mostly to the creativity 

and flexibility of its commanders and noncommissioned officers. In 

general, when obstacles threaten training, the unit will find a 

workaround to accomplish the training. In some instances, the unit may 

travel to another training facility, costing additional money for 

transportation and potentially requiring an extended stay at the 

training site. By sending units away to train, the command limits its 

ability to send people on future travel for training or missions due to 

efforts to control the number of days per year that servicemembers are 

deployed away from home. Other workarounds consist of commands using 

different equipment, such as plastic-tipped bullets; changing 

maneuvering, firing, and training methods to overcome training 

obstacles; and using facilities that need repair. According to the 

Special Operations Command, all of these workarounds expend more funds 

and manpower in order to accomplish its training mission.



DOD and military service officials said that many encroachment issues 

are related to urban growth around military installations. They noted 

that most, if not all, encroachment issues result from urban and 

population growth and that around DOD installations this is increasing 

at a rate higher than the national average. Figure 1 illustrates the 

increase in urban growth encroachment near Fort Benning, Georgia, while 

the fort has remained relatively unchanged. According to DOD officials, 

new residents near installations often view military activities as an 

infringement on their rights, and some groups have organized in efforts 

to reduce operations such as aircraft and munitions training. At the 

same time, according to Defense officials, the increased speed and 

range of weapon systems are expected to increase training range 

requirements.



Figure 1: Historical and Projected Urban Growth Near Fort Benning, 

Georgia:



[See PDF for image]





Note: (Top left to right) Urban growth near Fort Benning, Georgia, in 

1955 and 1985. (Bottom left to right) Urban growth near Fort Benning, 

Georgia, in 1996 and projected for 2008.



[End of figure]



Effects of Encroachment on Training Readiness and Costs Have Not Been 

Reflected in Most Service Readiness Reports:



Despite the loss of some training range capabilities, service readiness 

data did not show the impact of encroachment on training readiness. 

However, DODs January 2003 quarterly report to Congress did tie an Air 

Force training issue directly to encroachment.



Even though DOD officials in testimonies and many other occasions have 

repeatedly cited encroachment as preventing the services from training 

to standards, DODs primary readiness reporting system did not reflect 

the extent to which encroachment was a problem. In fact, it rarely 

cited training range limitations at all. Similarly, DODs quarterly 

reports to Congress, which should identify specific readiness problems, 

hardly ever mentioned encroachment as a problem.



This is not surprising to us because we have long reported on 

limitations in DODs readiness reporting system and the need for 

improvements; our most recent report was issued just last 

week.[Footnote 16] Furthermore, on the basis of our prior reports on 

readiness issues and our examination of encroachment, we do not believe 

the absence of data in these reports concerning encroachment should be 

viewed simply as no data, no problem! Rather, as with other readiness 

issues we have examined over time, it suggests a lack of attention on 

the part of DOD in fully assessing and reporting on the magnitude of 

the encroachment problem.



However, DODs most recent quarterly report did indicate a training 

issue that is tied directly to encroachment. The January 2003 

Institutional Training Readiness Report showed that the Air Force has 

rated itself as 

C-2 for institutional flight training.[Footnote 17] This indicates that 

it is experiencing some deficiencies with limited impact on 

capabilities to perform required institutional training. The Air Force 

attributed this to training range availability and encroachment 

combined with environmental concerns that are placing increasing 

pressure on its ability to provide effective and realistic training. 

The Air Force also reported that sortie[Footnote 18] cancellations are 

becoming a more common occurrence and may soon adversely impact the 

quality of training. For example, the spotting of a Sonoran Pronghorn 

on the Barry M. Goldwater Range forces immediate cancellation or 

relocation of scheduled missions.



Readiness reporting can and should be improved to address the extent of 

training degradation due to encroachment and other factors. However, it 

will be difficult for DOD to fully assess the impact of encroachment on 

its training capabilities and readiness without (1) obtaining more 

complete information on both training range requirements and the assets 

available to support those requirements and (2) considering to what 

extent other complementary forms of training may help mitigate some of 

the adverse impacts of encroachment. The information is needed to 

establish a baseline for measuring losses or shortfalls.



We previously reported that the services did not have complete 

inventories of their training ranges and that they do not routinely 

share available inventory data with each other (or with other 

organizations such as the Special Operations Command). DOD officials 

acknowledge the potential usefulness of such data and have some efforts 

underway to develop these data. However, since there is no complete 

directory of DOD-wide training areas, commanders sometimes learn about 

capabilities available on other military bases by chance. All this 

makes it extremely difficult for the services to leverage assets that 

may be available in nearby locations, increasing the risk of 

inefficiencies, lost time and opportunities, delays, added costs, and 

reduced training opportunities.



Although the services have shared training ranges, these arrangements 

are generally made through individual initiatives, not through a formal 

or organized process that easily and quickly identifies all available 

infrastructure. Last year, for example, our reported on 

encroachment[Footnote 19] noted that the Navy Special Operations forces 

recently learned that some ranges at the Armys Aberdeen Proving 

Grounds in Maryland are accessible from the water--a capability that is 

a key requirement for Navy team training. Given DODs increasing 

emphasis on joint capabilities and operations, having an inventory of 

defense-wide training assets would seem to be a logical step toward a 

more complete assessment of training range capabilities and shortfalls 

that may need to be addressed.



This issue was recently reinforced by the January 2003 range report by 

the Special Operations Command, which found that none of the services 

had joint databases or management tools to combine all training ranges 

into a single tool accessible to all commands. The command concluded 

that such a centralized database would contribute to improving unit 

readiness and mission success for all components. At the same time, we 

cannot be sure of the extent to which recent military operations in the 

Middle East could impact future training requirements. DOD will need to 

reassess lessons learned from these operations.



Each service has, to varying degrees, assessed its training range 

requirements and limitations due to encroachment. For example, the 

Marine Corps has completed one of the more detailed assessments of the 

degree to which encroachment has affected the training capability of 

Camp Pendleton, California. The assessment determined to what extent 

Camp Pendleton could support the training requirements of two unit 

types and two specialties by identifying the tasks that could be 

conducted to standards in a continuous operating scenario (e.g., an 

amphibious assault and movement to an objective) or in a fragmented 

manner (tasks completed anywhere on the camp). The analysis found that 

from 60 to 69 percent of continuous tasks and from 75 to 92 percent of 

the other training tasks could be conducted to standards. Some of the 

tasks that could not be conducted to standards were the construction of 

mortar-and artillery-firing positions outside of designated areas, 

cutting of foliage to camouflage positions, and terrain marches. Marine 

Corps officials said they might expand the effort to other 

installations. At the same time, the Air Force has funded a study at 

Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, which focuses on airspace 

requirements; and the Center for Navy Analysis is reviewing 

encroachment issues at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada. We have not 

had an opportunity to review the progress or the results of these 

efforts. In its 2003 range study report, the Special Operations Command 

compiled a database identifying the training ranges it uses, type of 

training conducted, and restrictions on training. In its study, the 

command recommended that a joint training range database be produced 

and made available throughout DOD so that all training ranges, 

regardless of service ownership, may be efficiently scheduled and 

utilized.



While recent efforts show increased activity on the part of the 

services to assess their training requirements, they do not yet 

represent a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of encroachments. 

We have also previously reported that the services have not 

incorporated an assessment of the extent that other types of 

complementary training could help offset shortfalls. We believe these 

assessments, based solely on live training, may overstate an 

installations problems and do not provide a complete basis for 

assessing training range needs. A more complete assessment of training 

resources should include assessing the potential for using virtual or 

constructive simulation technology to augment live training. However, 

based on our prior work I must emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that these 

types of complementary training cannot replace live training and cannot 

fully eliminate the impact of encroachment, though they may help 

mitigate some training range limitations.



In addition, while some service officials have reported increasing 

costs because of workarounds related to encroachment, the services 

data systems do not capture these costs in any comprehensive manner. In 

its January 2003 report, the Special Operations Command noted that the 

services lacked a metric-base reporting system to document the impact 

of encroachment or track the cost of workarounds in either manpower or 

funds. We noted last year that DODs overall environmental conservation 

funding, which also covers endangered species management, had 

fluctuated, with an overall drop (except for the Army) in obligations 

since 1999. If the services are indeed conducting more environmental 

assessments or impact analyses as a result of encroachment, the 

additional costs should be reflected in their environmental 

conservation program obligations.



Progress in Addressing Encroachment Issues Still Evolving:



DOD has made some progress in addressing individual encroachment 

issues, including individual action plans and legislative proposals. 

But more will be required to put in place a comprehensive plan that 

clearly identifies steps to be taken, goals and milestones to track 

progress, and required funding. Senior DOD officials recognized the 

need to develop a comprehensive plan to address encroachment issues 

back in November 2000, but efforts to do so are still evolving. To 

their credit, DOD and the services are increasingly recognizing and 

initiating steps to examine range issues more comprehensively and in a 

less piecemeal fashion.



Recent efforts began in 2000 when a working group of subject matter 

experts was tasked with drafting action plans for addressing the eight 

encroachment issues. The draft plans include an overview and analysis 

of the issues; and current actions being taken, as well as short-, mid-

, and long-term strategies and actions to address the issues. Some of 

the short-term actions implemented include the following.



* DOD has finalized, and the services are implementing, a Munitions 

Action Plan--an overall strategy for addressing the life-cycle 

management of munitions to provide a road map that will help DOD meet 

the challenges of sustaining its ranges.



* DOD formed a Policy Board on Federal Aviation Principles to review 

the scope and progress of DOD activities and to develop the guidance 

and process for special use air space.



* DOD formed a Clean Air Act Services Steering Committee to review 

emerging regulations and to work with the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Office of Management and Budget to protect DODs ability 

to train.



* DOD implemented an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program to 

assist communities in considering aircraft noise and safety issues in 

their land use planning.



Some future strategies and actions identified in the draft plans 

addressing the eight encroachment issues include the following.



* Enhancing outreach efforts to build and maintain effective working 

relationships with key stakeholders by making them aware of DODs need 

for training ranges, its need to maintain readiness, and its need to 

build public support for sustaining training ranges.



* Developing assessment criteria to determine the cumulative effect of 

all encroachment restrictions on training capabilities and readiness. 

The draft plan noted that while many examples of endangered species/

critical habitat and land use restrictions are known, a programmatic 

assessment of the effect these restrictions pose on training readiness 

has never been done.



* Ensuring that any future base realignment and closure decisions 

thoroughly scrutinize and consider the potential encroachment impact 

and restrictions on operations and training of recommended base 

realignment actions.



* Improving coordinated and collaborative efforts between base 

officials and city planners and other local officials in managing urban 

growth.



In December 2001, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established a senior-

level Integrated Product Team to act as the coordinating body for 

encroachment efforts and to develop a comprehensive set of legislative 

and regulatory proposals by January 2002. The team agreed on a set of 

possible legislative proposals for clarifying some encroachment issues. 

After internal coordination deliberations, the proposals were submitted 

in late April 2002 to Congress for consideration. According to DOD, the 

legislative proposals sought to clarify the relationship between 

military training and a number of provisions in various conservation 

and compliance statutes, including the Endangered Species Act, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Clean 

Air Act. DODs proposals would, among other things, do the following:



* Preclude designation under the Endangered Species Act of critical 

habitat on military lands for which Sikes Act Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plans have been completed. At the same time, the 

Endangered Species Act requirement for consultation between DOD and 

other agencies on natural resource management issues would remain.



* Permit DOD to take migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act without action by the Secretary of the Interior, where the taking 

would be in connection with readiness activities, and require DOD to 

minimize the taking of migratory birds to the extent practicable 

without diminishment of military training or other capabilities, as 

determined by DOD.



* Modify the definition of harassment under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act as it applies to military readiness activities.[Footnote 

20]



* Modify the conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act. The proposal 

would maintain the Departments obligation to conform military 

readiness activities to applicable state implementation plans but would 

give DOD 3 years to demonstrate conformity. In the meantime, DOD could 

continue military readiness activities.



* Change the definition of solid waste under the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act to generally exclude explosives, unexploded ordnance, munitions, 

munition fragments, or constituents when they are used in military 

training, research, development, testing and evaluation; when not 

removed from an operational range; when promptly removed from an off-

range location; or when recovered, collected, and destroyed on range at 

operational ranges. Solid waste would not include buried unexploded 

ordnance when burial was not a result of product use.



Of the above proposals, Congress passed, as part of the fiscal year 

2003 defense authorization legislation, a provision related to the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act.[Footnote 21] Under that provision, until the 

Secretary of the Interior prescribes regulations to exempt the armed 

forces from incidental takings of migratory birds during military 

readiness activities, the protections provided for migratory birds 

under the Act do not apply to such incidental takings. In addition, 

Congress authorized DOD to enter agreements to purchase property or 

property interests for natural resource conservation purposes, such as 

creating a buffer zone near installations to prevent encroachment 

issues, such as urban growth.[Footnote 22]



In February 2003, DOD submitted to Congress the Readiness and Range 

Preparedness Initiative for fiscal year 2004. In it, the department 

restates a number of legislative proposals from 2002 and includes a 

proposal concerning the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In the 2004 

initiative, the department seeks to reconcile military readiness 

activities with the Marine Mammal Protection Act by adding language to 

sections of title 16 of the U.S. Code.



We are aware that consideration of these legislative proposals 

affecting existing environmental legislation will need to include 

potential tradeoffs among multiple policy objectives and issues on 

which we have not taken a position. At the same time, we also 

understand that DOD recently asked the services to develop procedures 

for invoking the national security exceptions under a number of 

environmental laws. Historically, DOD and the services have been 

reluctant to seek such exceptions; and we are aware of only a couple of 

instances where this has been done.



Our two reports last year both recommended that DOD develop reports 

that accurately capture the causes of training shortfalls and 

objectively report units ability to meet their training requirements. 

At the time we completed our reviews in 2002, DODs draft action plans 

for addressing the eight encroachment issues had not been finalized. 

DOD officials told us that they consider the plans to be working 

documents and stressed that many concepts remain under review and may 

be dropped, altered, or deferred, while other proposals may be added. 

No details were available on overall actions planned, clear assignments 

of responsibilities, measurable goals and time frames for accomplishing 

planned actions, or funding requirements--information that would be 

needed in a comprehensive plan. Our report on stateside encroachment 

problems also recommended that DOD develop and maintain a full and 

complete inventory of service and department-wide training 

infrastructure; consider more alternatives to live training; and ensure 

that the plan for addressing encroachment includes goals, timelines, 

responsibilities, and projected costs.[Footnote 23] Our recently issued 

report on overseas training also recommended that DOD develop reports 

that accurately capture the causes of training shortfalls and 

objectively report units ability to meet their training 

requirements.[Footnote 24]



Following our reports, DOD issued a range sustainment directive to 

establish policy and assign responsibilities for the sustainment of 

test and training ranges,[Footnote 25] and the Special Operations 

Command developed a database identifying the training ranges it uses, 

type of training conducted, and restrictions on training. In addition, 

DOD is working with the other regulatory agencies in the federal 

government to manage the way in which laws are enforced and plans to 

issue four more directives that cover outreach, range clearance, 

community noise, and Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone.



In the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the 

Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to 

address training constraints on the use of military lands, marine 

areas, and airspace that are available in the United States and 

overseas for training.[Footnote 26] As part of the preparation of the 

plan, the Secretary of Defense was expected to conduct an assessment of 

current and future training range requirements of the armed forces and 

an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources (including 

virtual and constructive training assets as well as military lands, 

marine areas, and airspace available in the United States and overseas) 

to meet those current and future training range requirements. Also, as 

you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, that Act requires annual reports to 

Congress dealing with encroachment issues beginning this year and 

requires GAO to review those reports. The first of those reports was 

required to be submitted along with the Presidents budget for fiscal 

year 2004. That report was to describe the progress in developing a 

comprehensive plan to address training constraints. To our knowledge, 

Mr. Chairman, DOD has not completed a comprehensive plan or provided 

Congress with the progress report. Officials of the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense said that they plan to report to Congress later 

this calendar year. The Act also requires the submission of a report 

not later than June 30, 2003, on the departments plans to improve its 

readiness reporting to reflect the readiness impact that training 

constraints have on specific units of the armed forces.



This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you or other members of the Committee may have at his time.



Contact and Acknowledgment:



For further contacts regarding this statement, please contact Barry W. 

Holman on (202) 512-8412. Individuals making key contributions to this 

statement include Tommy Baril, Byron Galloway, Jane Hunt, John Lee, 

Mark A. Little, Patti Nichol, Michelle K. Treistman, and John Van 

Schaik.



FOOTNOTES



[1] The term training ranges in this testimony refers to air, live-

fire, ground maneuver, and sea ranges. 



[2] DOD defines encroachment as the cumulative result of any and all 

outside influences that inhibit normal military training and testing.



[3] Unexploded ordnance are munitions that (1) have been primed, fused, 

armed, or otherwise prepared for action; (2) have been fired, dropped, 

launched, projected, or placed in such a manner as to constitute a 

hazard to operations, installations, personnel, or material; and (3) 

remain unexploded either by malfunction, design or any other cause. 

Munitions components--which DOD calls constituents--include things 

such as propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical agents, metal 

parts, and other inert components that can pollute the soil or ground 

water.



[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a 

Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, 

GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.; June 11, 2002). The Chairmen of the 

Committee on Government Reform and its Subcommittee on National 

Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, House of 

Representatives, requested this review.



[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: Limitations 
Exist 

Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002). The Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. 

Senate, requested this review.



[6] U.S. Department of Defense, Quarterly Readiness Report to the 

Congress, Institutional Training Readiness Report for Fiscal Year 2002, 

Unclassified Annex E (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).



7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: New Reporting 

System Is Intended to Address Long-Standing Problems, but Better 

Planning Is Needed, GAO-03-456 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2003).



[8] GAO-02-614.



[9] U.S. Department of Defense, Directive: Sustainment of Ranges and 

Operating Areas (OPAREAs), 3200.15, Jan. 10, 2003.



[10] Federal Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for Implementation 

of the Endangered Species Act, September 1994.



[11] The 14 federal agencies included the Department of Agricultures 

Forest Service; the Department of Defense; the U.S Army Corps of 

Engineers; the Department of Commerces National Marine Fisheries 

Service; the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management, 

Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Minerals Management Service, and National Park Service; the Department 

of Transportations Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway 

Administration, and Coast Guard; and the Environmental Protection 

Agency.



[12] At the request of the Committee on Government Reform and its 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International 

Relations, House of Representatives, we are reviewing (1) the extent to 

which management of endangered species and related land use 

restrictions are shared by DOD and other federal landowners and (2) the 

efforts that DOD and/or other federal landowners have undertaken to 

promote cooperative management and additional steps needed to enhance 

this approach. We expect to report on the results of this work later 

this year.



[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Spectrum Management: More 

Analysis Needed to Support Spectrum Use Decisions for the 1755-1850MHz 

Band, GAO-01-795 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2001).



[14] The Global Status of Resources and Training System, which units 

use to report their readiness status monthly or whenever a change 

occurs. Units report readiness in four resource areas, including 

training. If a unit is not at the highest readiness level, it must 

identify the reasons from a list that includes training areas. 

Commanders may also include narrative statements with more detailed 

explanations.



[15] U.S. Special Operations Command, Tiger Team Report: Global Special 

Operations Forces Range Study, Jan. 27, 2003. The Special Operations 

Command recommended that all components needed to create master range 

plans that addressed their current and future range issues and 

solutions. The command also recommended that plans identify and 

validate training requirements and facilities available and define the 

acceptable limits of workarounds.



[16] GAO-03-456.



[17] By a way of comparison, C-1 rating is when a unit is at its 

highest readiness level and is able to fully meet its mission.



[18] A sortie is one mission by a single aircraft.



[19] GAO-02-614.



[20] The Marine Mammal Protection Acts definition of harassment has 

been a source of confusion. According to DOD, the statute defines 

harassment in terms of annoyance or the potential to disturb, 

standards that DOD asserts are difficult to interpret. The statute, 10 

U.S.C. 1362, defines the term as any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which has the potential to injure or disturb a marine mammal 

by causing disruption to behavioral patterns such as migration, 

nursing, feeding, breeding, and sheltering.



[21] Section 315, P.L. 107-314, Dec. 2, 2002.



[22] Section 2811, P.L. 107-314, Dec. 2, 2002 (codified at 10 U.S.C. 

2684).



[23] GAO-02-614.



[24] GAO-02-525.



[25] U.S. Department of Defense, Directive: Sustainment of Ranges and 

Operating Areas (OPAREAs), 3200.15, Jan. 10, 2003.



[26] Section 366, P.L. 107-314, Dec. 2, 2002.