DEFENSE 

INFRASTRUCTURE

DOD Efforts to 

Prevent and Mitigate 

Encroachment at Its 

Installations

Accessible Version

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2016

GAO-17-86

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-86, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2016

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE

DOD Efforts to Prevent and Mitigate Encroachment at 

Its Installations 

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) processes for stationing, or determining 

where to locate units and assets consider incompatible land use. Specifically, the 

military departments have processes to determine how to satisfy military 

requirements while considering incompatible land use. DOD instructions further 

require that installations have master plans in place to manage incompatible land 

use issues, based on a strategic assessment of an installation’s mission and 

expected use. For the nine installations visited, GAO found these plans 

considered all or almost all of seven types of incompatible land use that GAO 

identified—historic assets, archeological assets, protected species, protected 

habitat, climate change, urban development, and airborne noise.

DOD, the military services, and individual installations have a number of policies, 

procedures, and approaches to identify and mitigate incompatible land use 

concerns. These include broad-based efforts to identify and mitigate 

incompatible land use, such as the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program, and 

targeted efforts to identify and manage specific types of incompatible land use,

such as the DOD Siting Clearinghouse for alternative energy projects near its 

installations. Regardless of the policies, procedures, or approaches utilized, 

collaboration with external entities like state governments and local communities 

is generally involved (see figure).

Key Participants in Collaborative Efforts to Identify and Mitigate Incompatible Land Use 

DOD guidance and selected installation actions to collaborate with external 

entities to mitigate incompatible land use are generally consistent with key 

considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms. GAO’s 

prior work has found that certain key considerations, such as establishing 

outcomes, accountability, and clarity of roles and responsibilities, benefit efforts to 

implement collaborative mechanisms. GAO’s analysis of DOD’s Joint Land Use 

Study Program Guidance Manual—DOD guidance that outlines a collaborative 

process for evaluating incompatible land use issues around installations and 

developing recommendations to mitigate these issues—found that it was 

consistent with the eight key considerations GAO had identified. Furthermore, 

GAO’s analysis of completed JLUS reports from installations visited found the 

actions taken to complete the studies were also consistent with these key 

considerations. View GAO-17-86. For more information, 

contact Brian J.Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or 

leporeb@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD reports that it faces challenges in 

carrying out realistic training because 

of the cumulative effect of outside 

influences —such as encroachment 

from urban growth—that GAO refers to 

in this report as “incompatible land 

use.” In addition, DOD faces similar 

challenges at its operating installations.

House Report 113-102 accompanying 

a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

included a provision for GAO to review 

DOD efforts to prevent and mitigate 

encroachment at training ranges. This 

report assesses (1) how DOD 

considers this issue when making 

decisions related to stationing units; (2) 

the extent to which DOD has policies, 

procedures, and approaches to identify 

and mitigate incompatible land use;

and (3) the extent to which DOD’s 

guidance and actions to collaborate 

with external entities in this area are 

consistent with key considerations for 

implementing interagency collaborative 

mechanisms.

GAO reviewed DOD guidance and 

plans and interviewed officials to 

assess how incompatible land use was 

considered in stationing decisions and 

determine how DOD identifies and 

mitigates incompatible land use. GAO 

compared key DOD guidance and 

actions to previously-identified key 

considerations for implementing 

interagency collaborative mechanisms. 

GAO selected nine installations to visit 

based on factors such as installation 

size and projected population growth. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. DOD provided technical 

comments, which were incorporated as 

appropriate.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Background 5

DOD Has Basing Processes to Consider Incompatible Land Use 

that Can Potentially Restrict DOD Activities 10

DOD, the Military Services, and Installations Have A Number of 

Policies, Procedures, and Approaches to Identify and Mitigate 

Incompatible Land Use that Generally Involve Collaboration 

with Stakeholders 15

Key DOD Guidance and Military Installation Actions at Locations 

Visited Are Generally Consistent with Key Considerations for 

Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms 25

Agency Comments 28

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II: Implementation of the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program at 

Installations Visited 38

Appendix III: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms 40

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense 42

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43

Appendix VI: Accessible Data 44

Agency Comment Letter 44

Related GAO Products 45

Tables

Table 1: Summary of Compatible Uses for Accident Potential 

Zones (APZ) and Noise Zones 23

Table 2: Summary of Participants in Joint Land Use Studies 

(JLUS) for Installations Visited 27

Table 3: Projected Population Growth at 33 Selected Installations 

(2015 to 2020) 33

Table 4: Summary of Benefits Reported by Readiness and 

Environmental Protection Integration Projects at 

Installations Visited 38

Contents
Table 5: Summary of Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaboration 40

Figure

Page ii GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Figure 1: Key Participants in Collaborative Efforts to Identify and 

Mitigate Incompatible Land Use 15

Abbreviations

AICUZ Air Installations Compatible Use Zones

APZ Accident Potential Zones

DOD Department of Defense

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

JLUS Joint Land Use Study

REPI Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 14, 2016

Congressional Committees

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports that it faces growing 

challenges in carrying out realistic training at installations and training 

ranges due to outside influences that inhibit military training and testing, 

which DOD refers to as encroachment.1In 2001, DOD formed the 

Sustainable Ranges Initiative to act as a coordinating body for all 

encroachment issues affecting DOD ranges and to address 

encroachment through policy formulation, legislative initiatives, and 

compatible land use activities.2In addition, a provision in the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required DOD to 

develop a training range sustainment plan and submit annual reports to 

Congress concerning the progress made in implementing the plan.3 DOD 

faces similar challenges at those installations not designated as either 

training or testing ranges located within the United States.4 As early as 

1985, local communities, in conjunction with military installations, began 

conducting Joint Land Use Studies (JLUS) to study land uses that are 

 

1 DOD defines encroachment as external, as well as internal, DOD factors and influences 

that constrain or have the potential to inhibit the full access or operational use of the live 

training and test domain. It includes, but is not limited to, endangered species and critical 

habitat, unexploded ordnance and munitions, radio frequency spectrum, maritime or 

airspace restrictions, air quality, airborne noise, urban growth, physical obstructions, and 

renewable energy projects. DOD Directive 3200.15, Sustaining Access to the Live 

Training and Test Domain (Dec. 18, 2013). (Hereinafter cited as DODD 3200.15 (Dec. 18, 

2013)).

2 According to a DOD official, the Sustainable Ranges Initiative is tri-chaired by the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness), Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations, 

Energy, and Environment), and Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. 

3 Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 366 (2002), amended by National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 311 (2013). In addition the act included a 

provision for GAO to review the annual reports submitted to Congress. See also, GAO, 

Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements in Its 2016 Sustainable 

Ranges Report , GAO-16-627 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2016).

4 Training ranges and testing ranges refer to what DOD calls “live training domain” and 

“live test domain,” respectively. DOD defines a live training domain as the environment 

where DOD executes training, with or without the use of munitions, under field conditions 

to achieve and sustain proficiency on training requirements. A live test domain is defined 

as the actual field environment (land, air, water) where DOD conducts testing in 

anticipation of the military’s use of any weapons, equipment, munitions, systems, or their 

components. DODD 3200.15 (Dec. 18, 2013).

Letter
incompatible with the installation’s military mission, such as residential 

development within accident potential zones around airfields, and seeking

ways to reduce the operational impacts on adjacent land. For the 

purposes of this report, we are also using the term “incompatible land 

use” to refer to encroachment.

Page 2 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

5

The House Committee on Armed Services report accompanying a bill for 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 included a 

provision that we review DOD’s activities to prevent and mitigate 

encroachment at training ranges. In December 2014, we issued a report 

assessing the acquisition of assets or conducting of business by foreign 

entities near test and training ranges, which we referred to as “foreign 

encroachment.”6In this follow-on review, we assessed DOD’s ability to 

identify and mitigate effects from incompatible land use, including urban 

growth, on and around its installations in the United States. Specifically, 

we assessed: (1) how DOD considers incompatible land use, including 

urban growth, when making decisions related to stationing units and 

assets; (2) the extent to which policies, procedures, and approaches exist 

that DOD, the military services, and installations used to identify and 

mitigate incompatible land use at their installations; and (3) the extent to 

which DOD’s guidance and actions to collaborate with certain civilian 

federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-government 

entities in order to manage and mitigate the effects of incompatible land 

use are consistent with key considerations for implementing interagency 

collaborative mechanisms.

To address our objectives, we reviewed applicable DOD and military 

department guidance pertaining to encroachment management. To 

provide illustrative examples of the influence of site-specific planning; 

policies, procedures, and approaches employed by military installations; 

and collaborative efforts, we selected installations to visit based on (1) 

 

5 For this report, we discuss incompatible land use due to urban growth and related issues 

such as, endangered species and critical habitat, airborne noise, and climate change. We 

identified these incompatible land use factors based on a review of DOD and military 

department documents, including the JLUS encroachment factors and military 

departments’ encroachment management program instructions. We do not discuss radio 

frequency spectrum encroachment in this report. 

6 GAO, Defense Infrastructure: DOD Has Made Limited Progress in Assessing Foreign 

Encroachment Risks on Federally Managed Land, GAO-16-381R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

13, 2016) and Defense Infrastructure: Risk Assessment Needed to Identify if Foreign 

Encroachment Threatens Test and Training Ranges, GAO-15-149 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 16, 2014). 
size of the installation, (2) existence of an incompatible land use 

mitigation project, (3) being an installation of interest because of the 

existence of or potential for future incompatible land use, and (4) 

projected population growth in adjacent counties.

Page 3 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

7 Using these factors, we 

selected nine installations, from a population of 187 military installations, 

for site visits: two installations from each military service8—Naval Air 

Station Patuxent River, Maryland; Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Georgia; Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia; Marine Corps Air Station 

Beaufort, South Carolina; Robins Air Force Base, Georgia; MacDill Air 

Force Base, Florida; Fort Carson, Colorado; and Fort Knox, Kentucky—

and one joint base—Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. Our 

observations from these installation visits are not generalizable to all DOD 

installations, but provided illustrative examples of the potential 

implications of incompatible land use issues at the installation level.

To assess how DOD considers incompatible land use, including urban 

growth, when making unit stationing decisions and managing its

installations, we reviewed statutes, regulations, and guidance pertaining 

to DOD’s basing process and incompatible land use. We interviewed 

DOD headquarters officials in Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment; the Office of 

Economic Adjustment;9the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness; Office of the Director, Test Resource Management 

 

7 Site selection criteria included (1) size of installation—medium or large—as defined in 

DOD’s Base Structure Report; (2) existence of an incompatible land use project, such as a 

JLUS, Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration program, or Sentinel 

Landscapes partnership; (3) being an installation of interest, i.e., being an installation 

where (a) DOD officials identified the installation as having incompatible land use issues, 

(b) incompatible land use issues at the installation had been discussed in Defense 

Communities 360 articles or (c) the installation is included on the Office of Economic 

Adjustment’s list of major growth projects or increased by more than 1,000 personnel as a 

result of base realignment and closure in 2005; and (4) projected population growth. The 

installations we visited were selected from a universe of 187 installations located in the 

United States that DOD considers medium or large because the real property assets at 

these sites had plant replacement value (the calculated cost to replace the current 

facilities and supporting infrastructure using today’s construction costs and standards) of 

$1.0 billion or greater. See appendix 1 for a more detailed discussion of our site selection 

process.

8 We did not include the U.S. Coast Guard in our review.

9 The Office of Economic Adjustment is responsible for supporting state and local 

government's response to defense program changes, such as base closures, base 

restructuring, or realignment; incompatible civilian development that may impair military 

operations; and other issues that can impact the economy of a region. 
Center; and the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, to 

identify how they assess whether an installation experiences incompatible 

land use, the extent to which incompatible land use is considered when 

making basing decisions, and the challenges that exist regarding the 

basing process and training for installation employees related to 

incompatible land use. We also reviewed installation master plans and 

interviewed officials from nine installations that we visited for illustrative 

examples of how incompatible land use is considered during the planning 

process at the installation level.

To assess the extent to which policies, procedures, and approaches to 

identify and mitigate incompatible land use exist at DOD, the services, 

and installations, we reviewed applicable policy documents, directives, 

instructions, and other guidance documents. We also reviewed 

documents, such as JLUS reports, to identify approaches and strategies 

employed at the installation level. In addition, we interviewed Office of 

Economic Adjustment officials, as well as officials at the nine installations 

we visited, to discuss the approaches and programs available to the 

installations, the authority under which the installations use and execute 

these approaches and programs, and how, if at all, the installations 

benefit from these approaches and programs.

To assess the extent to which DOD’s guidance and actions to collaborate 

with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and nongovernment entities to manage and mitigate the effects of incompatible 

land use are consistent with leading practices for interagency 

collaboration, we reviewed DOD regulations, policies, and other relevant 

documents related to DOD’s approaches to identify and mitigate 

incompatible land use. Based on this review, we determined that the 

JLUS process generally incorporates these approaches into a single 

effort. Consequently, for the purposes of our analysis, we focused on the 

Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual and JLUS reports that 

had been completed at eight of the nine installations that we visited. In 

addition, we interviewed officials at the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture to gain insight into the type and frequency of collaboration that 

occurs with DOD to address various types of incompatible land use on 

and around installations.

Page 4 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

10 We also interviewed officials from the nine 

 

10 The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are the two federal agencies 

collaborating with DOD on the Sentinel Landscapes partnership program, which is 

designed to identify areas where the conservation efforts of the Departments of 

Agriculture and the Interior are compatible with the efforts of DOD to preserve their 

training, testing, and operating activities. 
installations we visited to understand their collaborative efforts with the 

aforementioned agencies and the communities surrounding the 

installations. In order to better understand the collaboration and 

coordination that occurred between the DOD installation officials and local 

public officials, we interviewed representatives from the local government 

agencies that were involved with the JLUS process when possible at

each of the installations. Finally, we compared the information we 

gathered to key considerations for implementing interagency collaboration 

mechanisms identified by our prior work to determine whether DOD’s 

guidance and actions were consistent with these key considerations.

Page 5 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

11

Appendix I provides further information on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to November 2016, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Encroachment, as defined by DOD, refers to external, as well as internal, 

DOD factors and influences that constrain or have the potential to inhibit 

the full access or operational use of the live training and test domain.12 In 

addition, encroachment can also affect operating installations that are not 

designated as either training or test ranges, including four of the nine 

installations we visited (Fort Knox, Naval Submarine Base King’s Bay, 

MacDill Air Force Base, and Robins Air Force Base). Furthermore, DOD 

and the military services have identified a number of compatibility factors 

and encroachment challenges related to incompatible land use on and 

near their installations. For the purposes of this report, we have 

 

11 GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2014).

12Department of Defense Directive 3200.15, Sustaining Access to the Live Training and 

Test Domain (Dec. 18, 2013). 

Background

Types of Incompatible 

Land Use
summarized these factors and challenges into a list of types of 

incompatible land uses. These include, but are not limited to:

Page 6 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

13

· Urban development – growth in the communities surrounding an 

installation can result in restrictions on the training, testing, and 

operations of the installation because of noise, safety, or other 

reasons related to the surrounding population.

· Threatened or endangered species – the presence of threatened or 

endangered species requires that an installation consult with the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine 

Fisheries Service, to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the installation are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or threatened species, unless the 

installation has been granted an exemption for such action.14 In 

addition, some states have enacted legislation related to endangered 

and threatened species and maintain a listing of species of concern or 

importance from the state perspective.

· Critical habitat – DOD must consult with the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the installation are not likely to result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of lands determined to be critical habitat, 

unless the installation is subject to an integrated natural resources 

management plan.15

· Historic sites – DOD must identify historically significant sites within 

its installations’ boundaries and conduct evaluations of the sites to 

determine if the sites are eligible for the National Register of Historic 

 

13 We identified seven incompatible land use factors based on a review of DOD and 

military department documents including, the JLUS encroachment factors and military 

departments’ encroachment management program instructions. We did not include 

electronic frequency spectrum encroachment in this report because spectrum use is 

managed by the Federal Communications Commission and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration. See GAO, Spectrum Management: 

Federal Relocation Costs and Auction Revenues, GAO-13-472 (Washington, D.C.: May 

22, 2013). 

14 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); DOD Manual 4715.03, Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP) Implementation Manual, enclosure 4 (Nov. 25, 2013). 

(Hereinafter cited as DODM 4715.03, enclosure 4 (Nov. 25, 2013)).

15 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); DODM 4715.03, enclosure 4 (Nov. 25, 2013).
Places.

Page 7 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

16 The National Historic Preservation Act requires DOD to take 

into account the effect of an undertaking—such as testing, training, or 

operating activities—on any historic property, and that DOD consult 

with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and other 

consulting parties.

· Cultural sites – DOD must identify culturally significant sites, such as 

archaeologic sites and cemeteries, within its installations’ boundaries 

and conduct evaluations of the sites to determine if the sites are 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.17 The National 

Historic Preservation Act requires DOD to take into account the effect 

of an undertaking—such as testing, training, or operating activities—

on any historic property, which may include culturally significant sites, 

and that DOD consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation 

Officer and other consulting parties.

· Airborne noise – noise from training, testing, and operating activities 

frequently affects nearby communities around the installations. In 

some instances, installations adopt restrictions on their activities to 

avoid creating noise during certain periods of the day.

· Climate Change – future climate changes resulting from natural 

factors and human activities that influence long-term atmospheric 

conditions can affect testing, training, and operating activities.

In addition, there are also instances where DOD’s decisions have an 

effect on its ability to accomplish its training, testing, and operating 

activities. These types of instances include, but are not limited to:

· Stationing decisions that bring new military organizations or 

missions to an installation can increase the amount of training or 

change the type of training occurring on the installation. This, in turn, 

can lead to increased complaints from citizens living close to the 

installation, which can lead to restrictions being placed on the type of 

or times when training can be accomplished.

· New weapon systems and capabilities can affect the ability of an 

installation to conduct testing, training, and operational activities. 

Specifically, weapon systems with greater firing distance or speed 

 

16 National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 306102 (generally requires each federal 

agency to establish a preservation program); see also DOD Instruction 4715.16, Cultural 

Resources Management (Sept. 18, 2008). (Hereinafter cited as DODI 4715.16 (Sept. 18, 

2008)).

17 54 U.S.C. § 306102; see also DODI 4715.16 (Sept. 18, 2008).
capabilities can exceed the range and speed limitations of the existing 

ranges, which could limit the ability to test or train the full capabilities 

of the weapon system.

· Changes in deployment schedules of units assigned to an 

installation can affect the training, testing, and operating activities of 

the installation. For instance, with a decrease in the deployment 

schedules, more units will be conducting training activities at their 

home stations, which can lead to more training noise being generated 

on an installation. More noise could also increase the number of noise 

complaints received from citizens living near the installation, which 

could lead to restrictions on training activities.

· Unexploded ordnance and munitions present safety issues to 

installations that can result in restrictions to the use of land, including 

not being able to use the affected areas for training, where there are 

unexploded ordnance and munitions.

A number of federal civilian agencies have authorities that can create or 

mitigate incompatible land use. These authorities include entering into 

formal agreements—such as the memorandum of understanding between 

the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and the Interior that governs the 

Sentinel Landscapes partnership

Page 8 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

18—and regulatory authorities held by 

agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, which reviews 

determinations on obstructions to air navigation, navigational aids, or 

navigational facilities. Consequently, close coordination between DOD 

and these federal agencies can be beneficial to DOD in its efforts to 

identify and mitigate incompatible land use and to encourage and provide 

incentives to maintain existing compatible land use. These agencies 

include, but are not limited to:

· U.S. Department of Agriculture, which promotes the sustainment of 

natural resources through the U.S. Forest Service, the Farm Service 

Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The 

Department of Agriculture participates in the Sentinel Landscapes 

partnership, in conjunction with DOD and the Department of the 

Interior, to leverage resources of each agency to promote natural 

resource sustainability surrounding military installations. This prevents 

 

18The Sentinel Landscapes partnership program is designed to identify areas where the 

conservation efforts of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are compatible with 

the efforts of DOD to preserve their training, testing, and operating activities.

Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies and State and 

Local Governments 

Related to Incompatible 

Land Use
development near the installations, thereby enabling DOD to continue 

its training, testing, and operating activities.

· Department of the Interior, which is, among other things, 

responsible for protecting endangered and threatened species of 

plants and animals through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

Department of the Interior participates in the Sentinel Landscapes 

partnership, in conjunction with DOD and the Department of 

Agriculture. Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service has worked 

with DOD to avoid designating military lands as critical habitat in 

cases where the military installation in question is subject to an 

Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service determines that the plan benefits the protected 

species. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management and DOD have 

an established protocol for working together to facilitate compatible 

land use through cooperative planning of wind energy projects on 

Bureau-administered lands.

· Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for conducting 

aeronautical studies of planned projects for construction, alteration, 

establishment, or expansion of any structure or landfill that may result 

in an obstruction of the navigable airspace or an interference with air 

navigation facilities and equipment or the navigable airspace. In 

addition, the FAA has developed procedures to obtain DOD’s 

comments and recommendations prior to FAA issuing an official 

determination on proposed structures that DOD has an interest in 

reviewing.

There are also a variety of state and local governments that have roles in 

efforts to manage incompatible land use near installations. State 

departments of natural resources and commerce and state historic 

preservation offices collaborate with military installations concerning 

compatible land use. At the local level, city, town, county, and regional 

groups are among the government organizations that collaborate with 

installations concerning issues related to compatible land use.

Page 9 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use
The military departments have processes to determine where to locate 

units and weapon systems intended to satisfy DOD and military 

department requirements that consider incompatible land use. The Army 

process is to use a methodology that includes all appropriate staff offices 

to ensure that all feasible stationing alternatives are identified, analyzed, 

and evaluated. This methodology is to consider planning factors including 

environmental, training, and local community impacts that could identify 

issues related to incompatible land use.

Page 10 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

19 The Navy process is to follow a 

two phased approach to identify, evaluate, and implement stationing 

decisions. According to Navy guidance, the first phase—the 

developmental phase—is to consider DOD and Navy strategic guidance 

as well as Navy plans for ships and aircraft, and results in a proposed 

plan for the homeporting, homebasing, and hub assignments of the 

Navy’s operating forces.20 Next, the integration-assessment phase then is 

to analyze the proposed distribution of Navy assets using specific criteria, 

including a consideration of environmental compliance that could identify 

issues related to incompatible land use. Finally, the Air Force strategic 

basing process is to consider factors across the entire organization. It 

utilizes a consistent process for decision-making to ensure basing actions 

involving Air Force units and missions support Air Force mission 

requirements and comply with all applicable environmental guidance.21

Once a requirement is identified, the responsible Air Force major 

command is to develop basing criteria for the decision process.22 The 

command then is to develop a list of candidate bases. After approval of 

the candidate base list, the major command is to complete site surveys 

and environmental analyses, which could identify issues related to 

incompatible land use, to support the steering committee in making 

recommendations for basing locations. Final basing decisions are then to 

be made at the Air Force headquarters level.

 

19 Army Regulation 5-10, Stationing (Aug. 20, 2010).

20 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3111.17, Strategic Laydown and 

Dispersal Plan for the Operating Forces of the U.S. Navy (Nov. 22, 2013). We do not 

specifically discuss the Marine Corps basing process due to the relatively few training and 

operating bases within the Marine Corps for stationing units and weapon systems.

21 Air Force Instruction 10-503, Strategic Basing (Sept. 27, 2010).

22 This criteria is reviewed and evaluated by the Air Force Strategic Basing - Executive 

Steering Group, which is chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Installations with the United States Air Force, Director of Programs as vice-chair.

DOD Has Basing 

Processes to 

Consider 

Incompatible Land 

Use that Can 

Potentially Restrict 

DOD Activities
In addition to the military departments’ planning processes, DOD 

instruction 4165.70 requires that each installation have a base master 

plan or comprehensive plan based on a strategic assessment of the 

operational mission and expected use of the installation.

Page 11 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

23 This plan is to 

cover at least a 10-year period, be updated every 5 years, and include a 

specific, annual list of all construction projects, major repair and 

sustainment projects, and restoration and modernization projects. The 

specific requirements for the content and minimum requirements for the 

master planning documents are outlined in Unified Facilities Criteria 2-

100-01, which includes several references that indicate that both internal 

and external incompatible land use should be considered while 

developing the master plan.24 Specifically, a number of the identified 

purposes for conducting master planning relate to identifying, managing, 

and mitigating incompatible land use issues, including:

· Promoting cooperative and interactive intra- and inter-service and 

intergovernmental relationships;

· Incorporating cooperative environmental planning to identify 

environmental impacts and protect and enhance natural, cultural, and 

environmental resources while supporting mission requirements;

· Ensuring efficient and compatible land use and maximizing facility 

utilization;

· Sustaining ranges and training areas to meet training and testing 

missions on a consistent and long-term basis; and

· Encouraging policies and interaction with local communities to avoid 

encroachment and maximize opportunities for joint use while 

preserving mission capability and growth potential.

Our analysis of master planning documents from the nine installations 

that we visited revealed that issues related to the types of incompatible 

land use we identified—(1) historic assets, (2) archeological assets, (3) 

protected species, (4) protected habitat, (5) climate change, (6) urban 

development, and (7) airborne noise—were generally discussed in the 

planning documents. According to DOD Instruction 4165.70 and DOD’s 

Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01, installations are to develop their plans 

to take into account the effect that training, testing, and operating 

activities will have on cultural resources, environmental considerations, 

 

23 DOD Instruction 4165.70, Real Property Management (Apr. 6, 2005).

24 DOD, Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01, Installation Master Planning (May 15, 2012).
and development near the installation, as well as the effect these factors 

can have on training, testing, and operating activities. Specifically, our 

review found that the planning documents from all nine of the installations 

that we visited considered six of the seven incompatible land use issues 

identified above. The seventh issue, climate change, was considered in 

the planning documents of seven of the nine installations we visited.

For these nine installations, we saw evidence of how they took into 

consideration the effect that their testing, training, or operating would 

have on historic and cultural resources. For example, Fort Carson has a 

programmatic agreement with the Colorado State Historic Preservation 

Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to maintain 

training access to Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site while also protecting 

archaeological sites. For instance, there are areas where training is 

restricted to dismounted training and that wheeled and tracked vehicles 

are prohibited from entering. In these areas, boulders or similar barriers 

are placed to protect the archaeological site when frequent vehicular 

movements are expected to occur nearby. In other areas, fencing and/or 

signage are used when vehicle traffic is less likely due to infrequent use 

and natural barriers. Fort Carson officials told us that units utilizing Pinon 

Canyon are able to accomplish their training requirements despite the 

restrictions placed on the use of wheeled or tracked vehicles in certain 

areas.

The presence of threatened and endangered species and critical habitats 

can result in similar restrictions being placed on training, testing, and 

operating activities. For example, Fort Knox, in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act,

Page 12 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

25 must conduct training in a manner that will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat, an endangered 

species present on the installation. While this is a minor restriction that 

does not usually limit training activities, according to its Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan, Fort Knox must coordinate any tree 

removal or actions affecting the bat through the installation’s 

environmental office to ensure that this action will not adversely affect the 

 

25 Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
bats or their habitat.

Page 13 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

26 The installation has worked with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to develop and identify locations for the roost structures 

that have been placed to enhance the availability and quality of roosting 

habitat. According to an installation official, these actions may result in 

fewer restrictions on training activities on the installation. Similarly, Joint 

Base Lewis-McChord is currently involved in efforts to restore Puget 

Sound prairie habitat in areas of the installation as well as on lands near 

the installation in an effort to ease restrictions on heavily used training 

areas that contain this habitat.

In addition, the planning documents for all nine of the installations we 

visited discussed the effects of urban development and noise, which are 

related issues, on the training, testing, and operational activities of the 

installations. As discussed later in this report, DOD has programs 

designed to identify safety and noise issues related to military training, 

testing, and operational activities, and the effects these activities have on 

non-DOD land adjacent to and near installations. Communities around six 

of the nine installations we visited have adopted zoning regulations that 

limit development in areas affected by military operations. For example, 

according to a JLUS study in 2015, the communities around Marine 

Corps Air Station Beaufort—following the completion of an earlier JLUS 

study in 2004—adopted regulatory overlay zones that limit the type and 

density of development that could take place within the operating safety 

zones and areas affected by operating noise around the installation.27 At 

the time of our visit, the installation had completed an updated JLUS 

study (March 2015), which included updated noise contours associated 

with the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter to the installation. One 

recommendation in the updated JLUS report for this installation was that 

the local communities adopt the updated safety zones and noise contours 

 

26 We have previously reported on DOD compliance with environmental statutes including 

the Endangered Species Act and recommended that should DOD seek additional 

exemptions from environmental laws and it develop a sound business case to support the 

exemptions. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and anticipated submitting 

such support with any future requests for exceptions. DOD has not sought additional 

exemptions since our report was issued. See GAO, Military Training: Compliance with 

Environmental Laws Affects Some Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound 

Business Case for Additional Environmental Exemptions, GAO-08-407, (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 7, 2008).

27 The communities around Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina include, the 

county of Beaufort, the city of Beaufort, and the town of Port Royal. Type of development 

refers to the intended use of the property such as, residential, industrial, or commercial. 

The density of development refers to the amount of development allowed within a 

specified area such as, one dwelling per three acres.
in order to limit incompatible development in the future, thereby enabling 

the continued training and operating activities at the installation.

At five of the nine installations we visited, development around the 

installation has resulted in operational restrictions or safety issues. For 

example, residential development within the noise contours of an 

installation can result in restrictions on the hours during which live fire 

training can be conducted and ambient light from development near the 

installation can impair the effectiveness of night vision technology used 

during night training. Specifically, according to officials at Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord, night fire exercises are typically limited to specific times 

to avoid disturbing residential development that is within the noise 

contours of the installation. While this, according to installation officials, is 

not currently overly restrictive during winter months, when live fire 

typically occurs during the five hours between 5 pm and 10 pm, it creates 

greater challenges during the summer months, when live fire is restricted 

to the two hours between 10 pm and midnight due to light conditions. Any 

live fire activity after midnight must be approved by the installation 

commander. Similarly, according to installation officials, Fort Knox is 

working with the local community to establish requirements for the use of 

lighting sources that do not produce significant amounts of ambient light 

in order to reduce the impact that the development will have on night 

training operations.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, we identified one type of incompatible land 

use that was discussed in the planning documents at seven of the nine 

installations we visited; the effects of climate change. The climate change 

issues identified at the seven installations included the frequency and 

distribution of earthquakes, continued drought, flooding, and sea level 

rise. For example, according to officials at Fort Carson, the effects of 

continued drought conditions could limit the ability to perform maneuver 

training on the installation due to the dust that is produced during the 

training activities. According to these officials, the amount of dust 

produced by training that travels off the installation onto lands 

surrounding the installation is regulated by the Environmental Protection

Agency and closely monitored by the installation. During drought 

conditions, training activities can produce more dust that could potentially 

travel outside the boundaries of the installation. When this occurs, training 

activities have to be halted until conditions are more conducive, i.e., when 

dust is within the allowable levels. Similarly, the impact of sea level rise 

could undermine operations at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay. 

Specifically, while most of the installation and all mission critical facilities 

would not be affected by a 3-foot sea level rise, a 6-foot sea level rise 

Page 14 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use
would inundate much of the lower installation. In addition, increased 

storm surges along with the sea level rise could damage the installation’s 

infrastructure.

DOD, the military services, and individual military installations have 

multiple policies, procedures, and approaches through which they may 

identify and mitigate incompatible land use. These include broad-based 

efforts to identify and manage incompatible land use, generally, and 

targeted efforts to identify and mitigate specific types of incompatible land 

use. Based on our review of these policies, procedures, and approaches, 

collaboration with outside entities—such as other federal agencies, state 

governments, local communities, regional groups, or non-governmental 

organizations—is generally involved. (See figure 1)

Figure 1: Key Participants in Collaborative Efforts to Identify and Mitigate 

Page 15 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Incompatible Land Use

Through the Compatible Use program, administered by DOD’s Office of 

Economic Adjustment, completion of a JLUS is one collaborative 

approach a community may undertake, in partnership with the military 

installation, to identify incompatible land use that may impact military 

activities. This approach considers multiple sources of incompatible land 

use. According to DOD, as of August 2016, 130 JLUS studies had been 

completed. The program is designed to encourage local communities to 

engage with military installations in the process of land use planning to 

promote community land use that is compatible with continued military 

operations and seek ways to reduce the operational impacts of DOD 

DOD, the Military 

Services, and 

Installations Have A 

Number of Policies, 

Procedures, and 

Approaches to 

Identify and Mitigate 

Incompatible Land 

Use that Generally 

Involve Collaboration 

with Stakeholders

Broad-based efforts to 

identify and manage 

incompatible land use
activities on adjacent land.

Page 16 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

28 While commanding officers nominate their 

installations for participation in the JLUS process, one guiding principle of 

the program is that the JLUS process is to be sponsored by a local 

government or other entity agreed to by the affected stakeholders. Under 

the JLUS program, federal funds support local community participants as 

they lead the development of individual studies in conjunction with 

installation officials and an Office of Economic Adjustment advisor so that 

local communities take ownership of the process.29 Specifically, relevant 

participants from local community governments and organizations partner 

with the installation to identify local incompatible use issues and publish 

reports with actionable strategies and recommendations to mitigate 

identified issues. For instance, the JLUS for Marine Corps Air Station 

Beaufort recommended that the installation work with the local 

communities to formalize existing protocols by codifying local government 

coordination with the installation prior to land use planning and zoning 

actions.

Another approach used by DOD, the military services, and individual 

installations to prevent or mitigate incompatible land use from multiple 

sources is the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration 

program. Managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics, the program encourages the military services 

and installations to enter into cost-sharing agreements with conservation 

organizations and state and local governments to protect compatible land 

use and preserve habitats around military installations. Under the 

program, individual installations, in conjunction with conservation 

organizations or state or local governments, can partner with landowners 

willing to either sell their land or accept a conservation easement limiting 

its use for environmental reasons. According to DOD’s guide for state, 

local, and private partners, DOD relies on collaboration as a means to 

protect undeveloped land and also provide a buffer that protects 

installations from development that could present challenges to 

installation operations.30 According to DOD’s Readiness and 

 

28 At the time of our review, the ninth installation we visited—Fort Carson—was in the 

early stages of a JLUS, which officials there expected to be completed in about two years.

29 DOD obligated approximately $2.8 million and $5.7 million for project grants in fiscal 

years 2014 and 2015, respectively.

30 The Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration 

(REPI) Program Buffer Partnerships: A Guide for State, Local, and Private Partners (June 

2013). 
Environmental Protection Integration Program report to Congress, 88 

installations in the United States have participated in the program 

between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2015.

Page 17 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

31 During that time, DOD 

and partner organizations reportedly spent more than $1 billion to protect 

a total of 437,985 acres, with over $591 million of that cost being borne by 

DOD. For additional information concerning the implementation of this 

program and the benefits that installations we visited received, see 

appendix II.

DOD also has broad-based approaches intended to have an effect on a 

larger scale. In particular, in 2013, DOD—in conjunction with the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior—established the Sentinel 

Landscapes partnership to promote natural resource sustainability 

surrounding military installations. Sentinel landscapes are defined as 

places where preserving the working and rural character of key 

landscapes strengthens the economies of farms, ranches, and forests; 

conserves habitat and natural resources; and protects vital test and 

training missions conducted on those military installations that anchor 

such landscapes. Where shared interests can be identified, the 

partnership coordinates mutually beneficial programs and strategies to 

preserve, enhance, or protect habitat and working lands near military 

installations; reduce, prevent, or eliminate restrictions that inhibit military 

testing and training; and prevent incompatible development near military 

facilities. This partnership has a multi-federal agency memorandum of 

understanding where the agencies broadly agree to coordinate the 

delivery of federal programs to optimize the benefits of federal assistance 

to landowners whose working and natural lands also serve to protect the 

military mission. In addition, a DOD official responsible for the program 

stated that installation level implementing guidance was being developed. 

As of April 2016, the Sentinel Program officials have designated three 

installations as sentinel landscapes: Joint Base Lewis-McChord; Fort 

Huachuca, Arizona; and Naval Air Station Patuxent River.32

Finally, another effort that focuses on multiple types of incompatible land 

use near military test, training, and operating areas is the Sustainable 

 

31 DOD, 2016 Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program Report to 

Congress (March 2016).

32 In July 2016, three additional locations were designated as Sentinel Landscapes: Avon 

Park Air Force Range, Florida; Camp Ripley, Minnesota; and Eastern North Carolina (Fort 

Bragg, Dare County Bombing Range, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps 

Air Stations Cherry Point and New River, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base).
Ranges Initiative. This initiative was established as the overarching 

framework for policies, procedures, and approaches to identify and 

mitigate encroachment in order to ensure DOD’s access to vital training, 

testing, and operational resources over the long term. The goal of the 

initiative is to address encroachment and range sustainment through 

policy formulation, programming activities, leadership and organization 

structuring, legislative and regulatory initiatives, compatible land use 

activities, engagement and partnering efforts, and comprehensive 

reporting to Congress. The Sustainable Ranges Initiative’s resulting 

annual sustainable ranges report to Congress discusses the actions DOD 

is taking to provide for the long-term sustainability of its training ranges, to 

include how encroachment issues are being addressed.

Page 18 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

33 Although the 

annual report focuses on DOD training ranges only, it also touches on 

test and evaluation ranges to the extent those ranges are supporting 

training activities. The DOD test community separately reports on 

encroachment factors affecting research, development, test, and 

evaluation activities in its strategic plan for DOD test and evaluation 

resources.

There are also a number of DOD documents that are used by the military 

departments to identify incompatible land use issues at their installations 

that could be categorized as encroachment management plans and 

support the Sustainable Ranges Initiative. These include, but are not 

limited to:

· Range Complex Management Plans, which analyze and document 

current and future range operations, range requirements, and 

sustainment and investment needs of the range complex, and are 

used by Navy and Marine Corps ranges. Among other things, these 

plans identify existing (short-term) encroachment challenges on the 

range complexes, discuss their training impacts, and recommend 

mitigation measures. They also identify mid- and long-term 

encroachment challenges, particularly where introduction of new 

platforms, weapon systems, and mission areas will exacerbate 

existing encroachment pressures.

 

33In June 2015 we reported that DOD’s 2015 sustainable ranges report to Congress met 

the statutory reporting requirements in that it described DOD’s progress in implementing 

its sustainable ranges plan and described any actions taken or to be taken in addressing 

training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, or 

airspace. See GAO, Military Training: DOD’s Annual Sustainable Ranges Report 

Addressed Statutory Reporting Requirements, GAO-15-537, (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 

2015).
· Encroachment Action Plans/Encroachment Control Plans, which 

are used by Navy and Marine Corps installations, represent the action 

plans with strategies and management actions to prioritize the use of 

resources and initiatives that provide the best opportunities for 

success in addressing encroachment issues.

· Range Complex Master Plans, which depict an installation’s current 

range and training land assets, general siting of future range complex 

project requirements, and an installation’s requirements and 

constraints that may impact ranges or training lands, are used by 

Army ranges.

· Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action Plans, 

which represent the action plans to prioritize the use of resources and 

initiatives that provide the best opportunities for success in addressing 

encroachment issues, are used by Air Force Installations. These 

plans include four basic items:

· the identification of encroachment and sustainment challenges;

· the identification of resources and opportunities for overcoming 

identified threats;

· a plan to address each challenge as appropriate, and,

· a tracking tool for maintaining progress.

There are also stand-alone approaches designed to address specific 

types of incompatible land use. For example, DOD instruction 4715.03 

requires that all DOD natural resources program activities must work to 

guarantee DOD continued access to its land, air, and water resources for 

realistic military training, and testing and to sustain the long-term 

ecological integrity of the resource base and the ecosystem services it 

provides.

Page 19 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

34 The instruction further requires that all installations and ranges 

that contain significant natural resources, over which DOD has authority 

or control, prepare, maintain, and implement an integrated natural 

resource management plan. Each such plan shall:

 

34 DOD Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program (Mar. 18, 2011). 

(Hereinafter cited as DODI 4715.03 (Mar. 18, 2011)).

Approaches to identify and 

mitigate specific types of 

incompatible land use
(1) incorporate the principles of ecosystem-based management,

Page 20 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

35

(2) contain information needed to make appropriate decisions about 

natural resource management,

(3) maintain a relevant and updated baseline list of plant and animal 

species located at each installation for all pertinent taxonomic and 

regionally important groups,

(4) ensure that biologically and geographically significant or sensitive 

natural resources are monitored and managed for their protection 

and long-term sustainability, and

(5) ensure no net loss to the training and testing capability and 

capacity of the installation and range, and enhance those 

capabilities to the maximum extent practicable.

In addition, according to a DOD instruction, installations must coordinate, 

as appropriate, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state fish and 

wildlife agency offices, and when applicable, with National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, to ensure that plans are 

appropriately managing the natural resources present on the 

installation.36

Similarly, DOD Instruction 4715.16 requires that cultural resources under 

DOD control be managed and maintained in a sustainable manner

through a comprehensive program that considers the preservation of 

historic, archaeological, architectural, and cultural values; supports DOD 

missions; and results in sound and responsible stewardship.37 Further, 

the heads of the DOD components are responsible for ensuring that 

installations prepare, maintain, and implement provisions of their 

integrated cultural resource management plan in consultation with state 

historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, and other 

appropriate consulting parties.

 

35Ecosystem-based management is an integrated adaptive management approach to help 

consider tradeoffs in resource uses and protect and sustain diverse and productive 

ecosystems and the services they provide. Ecosystem-based management is a process 

that considers the environment as a complex system functioning as a whole, not as a 

collection of parts, and recognizes that people and their social and economic needs are a 

part of the whole.

36 DODI 4715.03 (Mar. 18, 2011).

37 DODI 4715.16 (Sept. 18, 2008).
According to DOD officials, one emerging area of concern for DOD with 

regard to incompatible land use is development that could present 

operational and safety concerns for aviation training and operations —

such as alternative energy projects. To address this issue, and in 

response to a requirement in the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,

Page 21 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

38 DOD created an organization to 

oversee efforts to prevent and mitigate incompatible land use issues 

related to alternative energy projects around installations with flight 

operations: the DOD Siting Clearinghouse. This effort to mitigate 

incompatible land use is done in collaboration with FAA. The FAA reviews 

applications for proposed projects to determine whether they will interfere 

with navigable airspace or interfere with air navigation facilities and 

equipment. In addition, the act required the Secretary of Defense to 

designate a senior official to conduct a review of proposed projects and a 

lead organization to serve as a clearinghouse for the review of projects 

that may interfere with air commerce. The Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is the senior official and the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and 

Environment is the lead organization within DOD.

According to federal regulations, DOD’s review process involves 

collaborating with others to mitigate adverse effects of proposed projects 

on military operations and readiness. When potential unacceptable 

mission effects are identified, the clearinghouse is to offer to discuss 

mitigation with the applicant. Since its inception in 2010, according to a 

DOD official, the DOD Siting Clearinghouse has overseen the review of 

about 10,000 energy projects and has had only one instance where 

differences between DOD and the developers of a proposed energy 

project could not be resolved. That case involved a proposed wind turbine 

farm on the eastern shore of Maryland, which officials at Naval Air Station 

Patuxent River were concerned could have an adverse impact on the 

sensitive test radars used at the installation. According to federal 

regulations, when DOD concludes that a proposed project presents 

unacceptable risk to national security, and all options have been 

exhausted without acceptably mitigating the predicted adverse effects on 

DOD’s mission, DOD may recommend that the FAA issue a 

determination of hazard in the Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace 

 

38 Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 358(b) (2011). 
Analysis process.

Page 22 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

39 The FAA is not bound to issue a determination of 

hazard based solely on a DOD objection of unacceptable risk. In this 

case, the DOD clearinghouse determined that the proposed wind turbines 

would have created conditions that would have impaired and degraded 

the performance of the sensitive test radars used to evaluate the cross 

sections of aircraft and DOD formally objected to the proposed project, 

arguing that the effects of the proposed 600-foot high wind turbines were 

incompatible with the installation’s mission. According to a FAA official, 

the developer of the project is no longer seeking approval for a wind 

turbine farm on the Maryland site.

Finally, there are several internal DOD programs designed to help 

installations identify incompatible land use through the evaluation of the 

effects that operations have on installations and the communities 

adjacent to installations. For example, under the Air Installations 

Compatible Use Zones and Range Air Installations Compatible Use 

Zones programs, installations are required to develop maps to educate air 

installation and range personnel and engage local communities on issues 

related to noise, safety, and compatible land use.40 Such maps can help 

clarify for communities what kind of development may be compatible with 

installations that have aviation missions, as well as identify those areas 

near installations that DOD believes are most vulnerable to risks of high 

noise levels or accidents. As shown in table 1, the type of development 

deemed compatible with an installation’s activities varies depending on 

the aircraft safety areas, and within noise zones and the type of use being 

proposed.

 

39 Only DOD’s designated senior officer, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, may convey to 

the Secretary of Transportation a determination that a proposed project would result in an 

unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 

358(e)(4) (2011); 32 C.F.R. § 211.5(a).

40 Completed JLUS reports include the most current air installation compatible use zones 

and/or range air installation compatible use zone reports prepared by the installation 

associated with the JLUS. 
Table 1: Summary of Compatible Uses for Accident Potential Zones (APZ) and Noise Zones

Page 23 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Compatible uses

in aircraft safety areas

Compatible uses in noise

zone ranges (as measured in day-night average

sound level or community noise equivalent level)

Type of use Clear 

zones

APZ I APZ II 65-69a70-74a75-79a80-84a85+ a

Residential No No No / some 

exceptions

No / some 

exceptions

No / some 

exceptions

No / some 

exceptions

No No

Manufacturing No No / some 

exceptions

Yes / 

Compatible 

w/ 

restrictions

Yes Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

No

Transportation, 

communications, 

and utilities

No / some 

exceptions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

No

Tradeb No No / some 

exceptions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

No / some 

exceptions

No

Servicesc No No / some 

exceptions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

No / some 

exceptions

No / some 

exceptions

Cultural, 

entertainment, and 

recreationald

No No / some 

exceptions

No / some 

exceptions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

Yes w/ 

restrictions

No / some 

exceptions

No No

Resource 

production and 

extractione

No / some 

exceptions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Yes / some 

restrictions

Undeveloped land, 

water areas

Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Legend: Type of land use is compatible with accident potential zones and/or noise zones.

Type of land use may be compatible with accident potential zones and/or noise zones, with certain restrictions.

Type of land use is not compatible with accident potential zones and/or noise zones, with certain exceptions.

Type of land use is not compatible with accident potential zones and/or noise zones.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD Instruction 4165.57 | GAO-17-86

aThese numbers refer to the decibel level of noise from air operations from an installation, measured 

in either day-night average sound level or community noise equivalent level.

b”Trade” refers to activities like lumberyards, hardware stores, paint stores, and farm equipment 

stores.

c”Services” refers to activities like finance, insurance, real estate, cemeteries, repair, and educational 

services.

d”Cultural, entertainment, and recreational” refers to activities like auditoriums, outdoor sports arenas, 

fairgrounds, and parks.

e”Resource production and extraction” refers to activities like agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining.

N/A = Not applicable

This process results in detailed maps of the clear zone, accident potential 

zones, and noise contours, where a variety of land uses are considered 
incompatible.

Page 24 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

41 DOD Instruction 4165.57 requires DOD components to 

ensure that their air installations engage state and local governments and 

communities to foster compatible land use and to establish effective 

working relationships.

42 Similarly, the Army’s Operational Noise 

Management Program is designed to assist installations to identify the 

effects that noise from military operations has on the local communities 

and develop noise contour maps to illustrate the effects. In instances 

where the operating noise affects land not on the installation, the 

installation should try to negotiate with the local communities and land 

owners to enact appropriate restrictions on development in these areas to 

avoid incompatible land use.

 

41Clear zones are areas at the end of runways in which no structures, buildings, or above 

ground utility and communication lines should normally be located. 

42 DOD Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) (May 2, 

2011) (incorporating change 1, effective Mar. 12, 2015).
DOD’s guidance and installation actions at the installations we visited 

associated with efforts to collaborate with external entities to identify and 

mitigate incompatible land use issues are generally consistent with key 

considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms.

Page 25 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

43

DOD, the military services, and installations consider collaboration to be 

critical to their encroachment management efforts. Our prior work has 

found that agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by 

engaging in key practices that foster leadership, trust, and organizational 

culture.44 Additionally, our prior work has found that collaborative 

mechanisms benefit from certain key features, which raise issues to 

consider when implementing these mechanisms.45 Specifically, we 

identified the following eight key considerations related to implementing 

collaborative mechanisms (see appendix III for a more detailed 

description of these key considerations):

· Outcomes - Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly 

defined?

· Accountability - Is there a way to track and monitor progress?

· Bridging Organizational Cultures - Have agencies agreed on 

common terminology and definitions?

· Leadership - Have parties determined how leadership will be 

sustained over the long term?

· Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities - Have participating agencies 

clarified roles and responsibilities?

· Participants - Have all relevant participants been included?

· Resources - How will the collaborative mechanism be funded and 

staffed?

 

43 While there are numerous approaches that DOD, the military services, and installations 

use to prevent and mitigate incompatible land use, the JLUS process generally 

incorporates these approaches into a single document. Consequently, for the purposes of 

our analysis, we focused on the Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual and the 

completed JLUS reports from the eight installations that we visited. Fort Carson, the ninth 

installation we visited, is just beginning the JLUS process. While our observations related 

to the eight completed reports are not generalizable, they do provide context concerning 

key considerations.

44 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

45 GAO-14-220.

Key DOD Guidance 

and Military 

Installation Actions at 

Locations Visited Are 

Generally Consistent 

with Key 

Considerations for 

Implementing 

Interagency 

Collaborative 

Mechanisms
· Written Guidance and Agreements - If appropriate, have 

participating agencies documented their agreement regarding how 

they will be collaborating?

Our review of the Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual—

DOD guidance that outlines a collaborative process for evaluating 

incompatible land use issues around installations and developing 

recommendations to mitigate these issues—found that this manual was 

consistent with each of the eight key considerations for implementing 

interagency collaborative mechanisms. For example, with respect to 

accountability, the proposed JLUS report structure contained in the 

manual indicates that the report should include a monitoring plan that 

includes identifying which parties are responsible for monitoring the 

implementation of recommendations and procedures for following up on 

implementation slippages. Similarly, the manual emphasized the 

importance of identifying the stakeholders at the onset of projects and 

provided general guidelines for determining which entities should 

participate in the study (see table 2 for a summary of the entities that 

participated in the eight JLUS studies that had been completed for the 

installations we visited).

Page 26 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use
Table 2: Summary of Participants in Joint Land Use Studies (JLUS) for Installations Visited

Page 27 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Legend: JLUS This type of organization did participate in the JLUS.

— This type of organization did not participate in the JLUS.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. | GAO-17-86

Note: Only Fort Carson had not completed a JLUS at the time of our review.

Moreover, our review of the eight completed JLUS reports from the 

installations we visited found that all eight of the reports were consistent 

with the key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative 

mechanisms.46 For example, with respect to outcomes, each of the eight 

reports included information, along with timeframes, on the 

implementation of recommendations. In addition, each of the eight reports 

addressed roles and responsibilities by identifying which organization was 

responsible for leading the JLUS efforts and the specific participants that 

were responsible for the specific recommendations proposed by the 

report.

DOD’s approach for dealing with the effects of incompatible land use, as 

outlined in DOD Instruction 3200.21, encourages early engagement and 

 

46 We focused our analysis on the completed JLUS reports from eight of the installations 

that we visited. Fort Carson, the ninth installation we visited, is just beginning the JLUS 

process. While our observations related to the eight completed reports are not 

generalizable, they do provide context concerning key considerations.

Installation

County 

governments

Cities/town

governments State government

Regional 

groups Non-governmental

Fort Knox, KY JLUS JLUS NO JLUS NO

Naval Air Station 

Patuxent River, MD JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS

Naval Submarine 

Base Kings Bay, GA JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS

Marine Corps Air 

Station Beaufort, SC JLUS JLUS NO JLUS JLUS

Marine Corps Base 

Quantico, VA JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS

Robins Air Force 

Base, GA JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS NO

MacDill Air Force 

Base, FL JLUS JLUS NO JLUS NO

Joint Base LewisMcChord, WA JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS JLUS
development of partnerships with stakeholders to identify and avoid or 

mitigate current and future incompatible land use. Officials from all of the 

installations we visited reiterated the importance of early and frequent 

engagement with local communities to their efforts to identify and avoid or 

mitigate incompatible land use. In addition, representatives from local 

communities we spoke with also mentioned the importance of early and 

frequent interaction with the installations when dealing with incompatible 

land use issues. The military services rely on the installations to 

implement many of the approaches that identify and avoid or mitigate 

incompatible land use. According to military service officials, the Army 

and Air Force assign the duties to individuals within related functional 

areas within the Department of Public Works, such as community 

planners and environmental compliance specialists. The Navy and Marine 

Corps took the approach of creating positions to be responsible for 

coordinating with state and local communities, non-governmental 

organizations, and other external entities related to incompatible land use 

for the installation.

Page 28 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

47

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, and the Interior for comment. In its written comments, which are 

reproduced in appendix IV, DOD thanked GAO for the opportunity to 

comment on the report and noted that it had provided technical 

comments, as well. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior also 

provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air 

Force; and the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-4523 or Leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our office 

 

47 According to Navy officials, the Community Planning and Liaison Officer position 

typically falls under the community planner series or the general business and industry 

series. According to Marine Corps officials, the Community Plans and Liaison Officer 

position is considered interdisciplinary and includes duties associated with community 

planners, environmental protection specialists, real estate specialists, and management 

and/or program analysts.

Agency Comments
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

Brian J. Lepore

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management

Page 29 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use
List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 30 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Our objectives were to assess (1) how the Department of Defense (DOD)

considers incompatible land use, including urban use, when making 

decisions related to stationing units and assets; (2) the extent to which 

policies, procedures, and approaches exist that DOD, the military 

services, and installations use to identify and mitigate incompatible land 

use at their installations; and (3) the extent to which DOD’s guidance and 

actions to collaborate with certain civilian federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and non-government entities in order to manage and 

mitigate the effects of incompatible land use are consistent with key 

considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms.

Page 31 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

48

To address our objectives, we reviewed applicable DOD and military 

department guidance pertaining to DOD’s basing process and compatible 

land use management. To provide context concerning base master 

planning; approaches and strategies employed by military installations to 

identify, prevent, and mitigate incompatible land use; and collaboration 

efforts among DOD, military installations, state and local governments, 

and other interested parties, we selected nine installations to visit based 

on a combination of factors.

1. Installation size – We narrowed our list of potential sites to visit 

based on the size of the installation as determined by DOD’s Base 

Structure Report. Specifically, we included installations in the United 

States that had a reported plant replacement value of $1.0 billion or 

greater. Our universe consisted of 187 installations located in the 

United States.

2. Incompatible land use management activities – We further 

narrowed our list of potential sites to visit based on whether 

incompatible land use management activities had ever been 

conducted at the installation. Specifically, we considered whether the 

installation had (a) conducted a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), (b) 

participated in a Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration 

project, or (c) been designated as a Sentinel Landscapes partnership. 

This step reduced the potential sites for visitation from 187 

installations to 89.

 

48 For this report, we discuss incompatible land use due to urban growth and related 

issues, such as endangered species and critical habitat, airborne noise, and climate 

change. We specifically do not discuss radio frequency spectrum encroachment. We also 

do not discuss foreign encroachment in this report because we recently issued reports on 

this subject. See GAO-16-381R and GAO-15-149.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

3. Installation of interest – We again narrowed our list of potential sites 

to visit based on whether the installation was currently considered an 

installation of interest because of either the existence of current 

incompatible land use, or the potential for future incompatible land 

use. We considered installations to be of interest if (a) the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense or military department headquarters officials 

identified the installation as having incompatible land use issues, (2) 

incompatible land use issues at the installation had been discussed in 

Defense Community 360 articles,

Page 32 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

49 or (3) either the Office of 

Economic Adjustment identified the installation as associated with a 

major growth project or the installation gained more than 1,000 

personnel as a result of Base Realignment and Closure 2005 actions. 

This further reduced the number of potential sites for visitation from 89 

installations to 33.

4. Projected population growth – The final factor used to identify the 

sites that we visited was the projected population growth in counties 

adjacent to the installations. Specifically, using data from appropriate 

state agencies, such as the state departments of commerce and state 

universities, we compared the projected 2020 population to the 

population from 2015 for counties adjacent to the 33 installations 

remaining for potential visitation to identify the installations in areas 

projected to experience the greatest growth rates (see table 3).

 

49 Defense Communities 360 is an e-newsletter for defense communities’ leaders, 

installation managers and defense industry professionals, which provides the latest news 

on topics such as community-military collaboration and base redevelopment. This enewsletter is published by the Association of Defense Communities.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Table 3: Projected Population Growth at 33 Selected Installations (2015 to 2020) 

Page 33 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Service Installation Percent growth

Army Fort Huachuca 3.19%

Fort Bragg 4.06%

Fort Benning 5.61%

Fort Irwin 5.23%

Fort Carson (visit) 7.26%

Fort Hood 4.87%

Fort Bliss 5.26%

Fort Riley 3.25%

Fort Knox (visit) 6.12%

Fort Lee 3.61%

Fort Rucker 1.50%

Aberdeen Proving Ground 2.64%

Fort Sill 1.47%

Navy Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay (visit) 18.04%

Naval Air Station Patuxent River (visit) 9.88%

Naval Air Station Pensacola 1.50%

Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New 

Orleans

6.97%

Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake 6.81%

Marine Corps Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune 3.92%

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 4.04%

Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort (visit) 7.73%

Marine Corps Base Twentynine Palms 5.23%

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point 4.02%

Marine Corps Base Quantico (visit) 24.13%

Air Force Eglin Air Force Base 7.52%

Robins Air Force Base (visit) 8.50%

MacDill Air Force Base (visit) 10.16%

Andrews Air Force Base 1.57%

Cannon Air Force Base 3.72%

Langley Air Force Base -1.54%

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 4.81%

Joint Bases Joint Base Lewis-McChord (visit) 5.77%

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson 3.61%

Legend: Installation selected for visit.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and U.S. Census Bureau data | GAO-17-86
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Based on these factors, we selected two installations from each military 

service, excluding the Coast Guard, and one joint base to visit during our 

review, focusing on installations with the highest population growth rates 

of the 33 installations remaining for potential visitation. Although our 

observations and the information we obtained from these installation visits 

are not generalizable, they do provide illustrative examples needed to 

understand the kinds of challenges, initiatives, partnerships, and actions 

that installations may take to identify, monitor, or mitigate incompatible 

land use issues. The installations we selected were:

· Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland;

· Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia;

· Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia;

· Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina;

· Robins Air Force Base, Georgia;

· MacDill Air Force Base, Florida;

· Fort Carson, Colorado;

· Fort Knox, Kentucky; and

· Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

To assess how DOD considers incompatible land use, including urban 

use, when making decisions related to stationing units and assets, we 

reviewed regulations and guidance pertaining to DOD’s basing process 

and incompatible land use at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

military department levels to identify whether these documents discussed 

issues related to incompatible land use. At the installation level, we 

reviewed installation master plans to evaluate whether the plans 

considered seven incompatible land use factors—urban development, 

threatened or endangered species, sensitive habitat, historic and cultural 

sites, airborne noise, and climate change—that we had identified.

Page 34 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

50

Specifically, we evaluated whether the installation master plans identified 

these factors as issues that needed to be considered during the master 

planning process or had the potential for affecting operations on the 

installation. We interviewed DOD headquarters officials in the Office of 

 

50 We identified seven incompatible land use factors based on a review of DOD and 

military department documents, including the JLUS encroachment factors and military 

departments’ encroachment management program instructions.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and 

Environment; the Office of Economic Adjustment; the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Office of the Director, Test 

Resource Management Center; and the Office of the Director, 

Operational Test and Evaluation, to identify how each organization 

assesses whether incompatible land use exists, the extent to which 

incompatible land use is considered when making basing decisions, the 

challenges that exist within the basing process, and challenges related to 

training employees to identify, prevent, and mitigate incompatible land 

use. We also interviewed officials with each of the military services and at 

the installations that we visited to determine how the military services 

consider incompatible land use factors when they are considering where 

to station units and weapon systems and how the installations consider 

incompatible land use factors when determining how to support basing 

decisions.

To assess the extent to which policies, procedures, and approaches exist 

that DOD, the military services, and installations used to identify and 

mitigate incompatible land use at installations, we reviewed applicable 

policy documents, directives, instructions, and other guidance documents 

that relate to DOD, military service, and installation efforts related to 

incompatible land use. We also reviewed documents, such as JLUS 

reports and Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration projects, 

to identify approaches and strategies employed at the installation level. In 

addition, we interviewed DOD headquarters officials in the Office of 

Economic Adjustment, as well as officials at the military services and the 

nine installations we visited, to discuss the approaches and programs that 

are available to the installations, the authority under which the 

installations use and execute these approaches and programs, and how, 

if at all, the installations benefit from these approaches and programs.

To assess the extent to which DOD’s guidance and actions to collaborate 

with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and nongovernment entities to manage and mitigate the effects of incompatible 

land use are consistent with key considerations for implementing 

interagency collaborative mechanisms,

Page 35 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

51 we reviewed DOD regulations, 

policies, and other relevant documents related to DOD’s approaches to 

identify and mitigate incompatible land use. Based on this review, we 

 

51 GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

determined that the JLUS process generally incorporates these 

approaches into a single effort. Consequently, for the purposes of our 

analysis, we focused on the Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance 

Manual and the completed JLUS reports from the installations that we 

visited.

Page 36 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

52 In addition, we interviewed officials in other federal agencies that 

DOD interacts with concerning incompatible land use, such as the 

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, to gain insight into the type 

and frequency of collaboration that occurs to address various types of 

incompatible land use on and around installations. We also interviewed 

officials from the nine installations we visited to understand the nature of 

the collaborative efforts with the aforementioned agencies and the 

communities surrounding the installations. These officials included the 

community plans and liaison officers, installation planning officials, 

environmental compliance officials, range management officials, and 

public affairs officers. In order to better understand the collaboration and 

coordination that occurred between the DOD installation officials and local 

public officials, we interviewed representatives from the local government 

agencies who were involved with the JLUS process when possible at 

each of the installations. Because the local officials participating in the 

JLUS process varied with the type of local government involved, such as 

a city or county, these interviews were with a varied combination of 

mayors, county commissioners, city or county managers/administrators, 

and planning/development directors. In addition, for a few of the 

installations, we also had the opportunity to conduct supplementary 

interviews with additional stakeholders who had been involved in the 

JLUS process, such as regional governmental group leaders, a state 

representative, a state chief of real estate, a director of a conservation 

alliance, and a land conservation specialist. We compared the information 

we gathered to key considerations for implementing interagency 

collaboration mechanisms identified by our prior work to determine 

whether the DOD’s guidance and actions were consistent with these key 

considerations.53

 

52 While there are numerous approaches that DOD, the military services, and installations 

use to prevent and mitigate incompatible land use, the JLUS process generally 

incorporates these approaches into a single document. Consequently, for the purposes of 

our analysis, we focused on the Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual and the 

completed JLUS reports from eight of the installations that we visited. Fort Carson, the 

ninth installation we visited, is just beginning the JLUS process. While our observations 

related to the eight completed reports are not generalizable, they do provide context 

concerning key considerations.

53 GAO-14-220.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to November 2016, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Page 37 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use
Appendix II: Implementation of the Readiness 

and Environmental Protection Integration 

Program at Installations Visited

The Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration program is 

managed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics and encourages the military services and installations to 

enter into cost-sharing agreements with conservation organizations and 

state and local governments to promote compatible land use and 

preserve habitats around military installations. Seven of the nine 

installations that we visited have participated in this program, which has 

provided a variety to benefits to both the military installations and the local 

communities. For example, according to Fort Carson officials, Fort 

Carson, in partnership with the Nature Conservancy, acquired 

conservation easements on two large parcels of land: 22,294 and 960 

acres, respectively, to protect undeveloped land in Pueblo County. In the 

case of Marine Corps Base Quantico, the installation, in conjunction with 

the Prince William Conservation Alliance and the Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries, acquired the Merrimac Farm wildlife 

management area adjacent to the installation to ensure the land remains 

wild and serves as productive wildlife habitat in the face of development, 

and to serve as a buffer for the installation. Similarly, in 2011, according 

to Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort officials, Marine Corps Air Station 

Beaufort, in partnership with the Beaufort County Rural and Critical Lands 

Preservation Program, acquired the development rights and a 

conservation easement on a 584-acre Coosaw Plantation to prevent 

future development within the installation’s Air Installations Compatible 

Use Zones. As shown in table 4, there are a variety of benefits that have 

been achieved through the program at these seven installations.

Table 4: Summary of Benefits Reported by Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Projects at Installations 

Page 38 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Visited

Installation

Acres 

preserved Military benefits Community benefits

Fort Carson 26,536 · Preserves live-fire, helicopter, and 

maneuver on-installation training 

capacity

· Improves operational safety

· Preserves working ranch lands and local 

character

· Supports existing regional planning objectives

Fort Knox 468 · Preserves live-fire, maneuver, 

helicopter, and night flying training

· Prevents workarounds that would 

have otherwise limited training 

capacity

· Provides future mission growth

· Protects working lands and maintains local 

character

· Protects habitat for endangered species

· Provides recreational opportunities

Appendix II: Implementation of the 

Readiness and Environmental Protection 

Integration Program at Installations Visited
Appendix II: Implementation of the Readiness 

and Environmental Protection Integration 

Program at Installations Visited

Page 39 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Installation

Acres 

preserved Military benefits Community benefits

Naval Air Station 

Patuxent 

River/Atlantic Test 

Ranges

3,699 · Preserves night flying and helicopter 

capacity

· Reduces lost test and training days 

and the need for less-realistic 

workarounds

· Reduces electromagnetic 

interference

· Provides for future mission growth 

and multi-service missions

· Preserves working lands and local character

· Supports existing regional planning

· Provides recreational opportunities

· Provides habitat and connects to an existing 

wildlife corridor

Marine Corps Air 

Station Beaufort

3,609 · Preserves training capacity for fixed 

wing aircraft and night flying

· Prevents workarounds that would 

reduce training realism or 

effectiveness

· Allows for future mission growth

· Protects working lands

· Supports regional planning objectives

· Alleviates safety concerns

· Provides habitat for threatened and 

endangered species

· Protects water quality

· Preserves local character

Marine Corps Base 

Quantico

417 · Preserves live-fire training capabilities

· Protects helicopter training and 

operations

· Brings together new partners

· Protects working lands and water resources

· Provides recreational opportunities

Robins Air Force 

Base

736 · Protects maneuver capabilities

· Provides for future mission growth

· Supports coordination with existing regional 

planning efforts

· Supports implementation of a Joint Land Use 

Study

· Protects lands that provide economic benefit

· Protects public health, safety, and welfare

Joint Base LewisMcChord2,026 · Preserves on-installation live-fire and 

maneuver training capability

· Reduces the need for less-realistic 

workarounds

· Provides for future mission growth 

and multi-service missions

· Supports the Sentinel Landscapes partnership

· Supports new and existing regional planning 

objectives

· Provides habitat for candidate, threatened, and 

endangered species

· Preserves working lands that benefit the local 

economy

· Provides recreational opportunities

Source: DOD information. | GAO-17-86
Appendix III: Key Considerations for 

Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms

As our prior work has shown, the mechanisms used to effectively 

implement collaborative mechanisms all benefit from certain key features, 

which raise issues to consider when implementing these mechanisms. 

According to our prior work, these key features fall into the categories of

outcomes; accountability; bridging organizational cultures; leadership; 

clarity of roles and responsibilities; participants; resources; and written 

guidance and agreements.

Page 40 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

54

Table 5: Summary of Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaboration

Key feature Key consideration Description

Outcomes Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly defined?

As we reported in 2008, we interviewed experts in collaborative 

resource management.aBased on these interviews, we found that 

most of the experts emphasized the importance of groups having 

clear goals. They explained that, in a collaborative process, the 

participants may not have the same overall interests—in fact, they 

may have conflicting interests. However, by establishing goals 

based on what the group shares in common, rather than on where 

there is disagreement among missions or philosophies, a 

collaborative group can shape its own vision and define its own 

purpose. When articulated and understood by the members of a 

group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to 

participate in the process.

Accountability Is there a way to track and monitor 

progress?

As we reported in 2005, agencies that create a means to monitor, 

evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts can better 

identify areas for improvement.b

Bridging organizational 

cultures

Have agencies agreed on common 

terminology and definitions?

As we reported in 2012, different agencies participating in any 

collaborative mechanism bring diverse organizational cultures to 

it.cAccordingly, it is important to address these differences to 

enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the mutual 

trust required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort. To 

address these differences, we have found that it is important to 

establish ways to operate across agency boundaries. This can 

involve measures such as developing common terminology.

Leadership Have parties determined how 

leadership will be sustained over the 

long term?

As we reported in 2012, leadership models range from identifying 

one agency or person to lead, to assigning shared leadership over 

a collaborative mechanism.cExperts explained that designating 

one leader is often beneficial because it centralizes accountability 

and can speed decision-making.

Clarity of roles and 

responsibilities

Have participating agencies clarified 

roles and responsibilities?

As we reported in 2012, clarity can come from agencies working 

together to define and agree on their respective roles and 

responsibilities, as well as steps for decision-making.c Clarity about 

roles and responsibilities can also be codified through laws, 

policies, memoranda of understanding, or other requirements.

 

54 GAO-14-220 and GAO-06-15.

Appendix III: Key Considerations for 

Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms
Appendix III: Key Considerations for 

Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms

Page 41 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Key feature Key consideration Description

Participants Have all relevant participants been 

included?

As we reported in 2012, it is important to ensure that the relevant 

participants have been included in the collaborative effort.cThis 

can include other federal agencies, state and local entities, and 

organizations from the private and nonprofit sectors.

Resources How will the collaborative mechanism 

be funded and staffed?

As we reported in 2005, collaborating agencies should identify the 

human, information technology, physical, and financial resources 

needed to initiate or sustain their collaborative effort.b Many 

experts have emphasized that collaboration can take time and 

resources in order to accomplish such activities as building trust 

among the participants, setting up the ground rules for the process, 

attending meetings, conducting project work, and monitoring and 

evaluating the results of work performed. Consequently, as we 

reported in 2008, it is important for groups to ensure that they 

identify and leverage sufficient funding to accomplish the 

objectives.a

Written guidance and 

agreements

If appropriate, have participating 

agencies documented their agreement 

regarding how they will be 

collaborating?

As we reported in 2005, agencies that articulate their agreements 

in formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working 

collaboratively.bAs we reported in 2011, having a clear and 

compelling rationale to work together is a key factor in successful 

collaborations. Agencies can overcome significant differences 

when such a rationale and commitment exist.d

Source: GAO analysis of GAO reports | GAO-17-86

aGAO, Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in 

Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions, GAO-08-262 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2008).

bGAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration 

among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

cGAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

dGAO, Next Generation Air Transportation: Collaborative Efforts with European Union Generally 

Mirror Effective Practices, but Near-Term Challenges Could Delay Implementation, GAO-12-48 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 3, 2011).
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 42 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Maria Storts, Assistant Director; 

Patricia Farrell Donahue; Shahrzad Nikoo; Ashley Rawson; Eli Yani; 

Michael Willems; and John Wren made key contributions to this report.

Page 43 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Appendix VI: Accessible Data

Page 44 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Mr. Brian Lepore

Director, Defense Capabilities Management

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548 Dear Mr. Lepore :

OCT 19, 2016

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 

Report, GAO- 17-86, "DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE : DoD Efforts to 

Prevent and Mitigate Encroachment at Its Installations, " dated 

September 22, 2016 (GAO Code 352025). The Department provided 

technical comments and corrections directly to GAO during the period 

October 11-13, 2016 . Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft 

report. Should you have questions, please contact Ms. Kristin 

Thomasgard -Spence, at 571-372-6835, kristin.j.thomasgardspence.civ@mail.mil.

Sincerely,

Peter Potochney

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations , 

and Environment)

Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, 

Installations, and Environment)

Appendix VI: Accessible Data

Agency Comment 

Letter

Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Related GAO Products

Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements in Its 2016 

Sustainable Ranges Report, GAO-16-627. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 

2016.

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Has Made Limited Progress in Assessing 

Foreign Encroachment Risks on Federally Managed Land, 

GAO-16-381R. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2016.

Military Training: DOD’s Annual Sustainable Ranges Report Addressed 

Statutory Reporting Requirements, GAO-15-537. Washington, D.C.: June 

17, 2015.

High Risk: 2015 Update. GAO-15-290. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 

2015.

Defense Infrastructure: Risk Assessment Needed to Identify If Foreign 

Encroachment Threatens Test and Training Ranges, GAO-15-149. 

Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2014.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 

14, 2013.

Military Training: Compliance with Environmental Laws Affects Some 

Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for 

Additional Environmental Exemptions. GAO-08-407. Washington, D.C.: 

March 7, 2008.

Page 45 GAO-17-86 Incompatible Land Use

Related GAO Products

(352025)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.