Military Training: Compliance with Environmental Laws Affects Some Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for Additional Environmental Exemptions
Published: 2008-03-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A fundamental principle of military readiness is that the military must train as it intends to fight, and military training ranges allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to accomplish this goal. According to DOD officials, heightened focus on the application of environmental statutes has affected the use of its training areas. Since 2003, DOD has obtained exemptions from three environmental laws and has sought exemptions from three others. This report discusses the impact, if any, of (1) environmental laws on DOD's training activities and military readiness, (2) DOD's use of statutory exemptions from environmental laws on training activities, (3) DOD's use of statutory exemptions on the environment, and (4) the extent to which DOD has demonstrated the need for additional exemptions. To address these objectives, GAO visited 17 training locations; analyzed environmental impact and readiness reports; and met with officials at service headquarters, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, federal regulatory agencies, and nongovernmental environmental groups.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Compliance with environmental laws has caused some training activities to be cancelled, postponed, or modified, and DOD has used adjustments to training events, referred to as "workarounds," to accomplish some training objectives while meeting environmental requirements. Some DOD trainers instruct units to pretend restricted training areas are holy grounds, mine fields, or other restricted areas in theater, simulating the need to avoid specific areas and locations when deployed. GAO's review of readiness data for active duty combat units did not confirm that compliance with environmental laws hampers overall military readiness. Since 2006, the Navy has twice invoked the Marine Mammal Protection Act exemption to continue using mid-frequency active sonar in training exercises that would otherwise have been prevented. DOD's exemption from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, authorizing the taking of migratory birds, eliminated the possibility of having to delay or cancel military training exercises, such as Navy live-fire training at the Farallon de Medinilla Target Range. The exemption to the Endangered Species Act, which precludes critical habitat designation on DOD lands, enables DOD to avoid potential training delays by providing greater autonomy in managing its training lands. On the basis of meetings with officials within and outside DOD and visits to 17 training ranges, GAO found no instances where DOD's use of exemptions from the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act has adversely affected the environment, but the impact of the Marine Mammal Protection Act exemption has not yet been determined. The services employ a variety of measures and conservation activities to mitigate the effects of training activities on the natural resources located on DOD lands. Additionally, regulatory officials GAO spoke to said DOD has done an effective job protecting and preserving endangered species and habitats on its installations. However, some nongovernmental organizations have expressed concern that the Endangered Species Act exemption allowing DOD to avoid critical habitat designations may weaken oversight from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. DOD has not presented a sound business case demonstrating the need for the proposed exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Best practices and prior GAO work recommend that agencies develop a business case that includes, among other things, expected benefits, costs, and risks associated with a proposal's implementation. However, DOD has not provided any specific examples showing that training and readiness have been hampered by requirements of these laws. Meanwhile some federal, state, and nongovernmental organizations have expressed concern that the proposed exemptions, if granted, could harm the environment. Until DOD develops a business case demonstrating the need for these exemptions, Congress will lack a sound basis for assessing whether to enact requested exemptions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A fundamental principle of military readiness is that the military must train  as it intends to fight, and military training ranges provide the primary  means to accomplish this goal. New advances in technology, coupled with  the ongoing shift in force posture, mean that the Department of Defense  (DOD) needs to continually update and maintain its training ranges.  Military training ranges vary in size from a few acres for small arms  training to over a million acres for large maneuver exercises and weapons  testing, as well as broad open ocean areas that provide for offshore  training and testing. Like other federal, state, local, and private facilities,  DOD installations are required to comply with environmental and other  laws that are intended to protect human health and the environment from  harm. However, according to DOD officials, a slow but steady increase in  restrictions affecting the use of these areas, such as heightened focus on  the application of environmental statutes and other encroachment  pressures, has limited the use of military training areas for realistic  training activities. DOD officials report that the gradual accumulation of  these limitations will increasingly threaten readiness.
Most existing environmental laws allow for national security exemptions,  which DOD may request on a case-by-case basis when compliance with  specific environmental requirements is shown to have an impact on the  paramount interests of the United States. However, DOD has seldom  invoked these case-by-case exemptions, asserting that the number of  training exercises it conducts and the need to periodically reapply for  most exemptions makes obtaining them on a case-by-case basis onerous  and time consuming. In 2002, DOD submitted to Congress an eight- provision legislative package known as the Readiness and Range  Preservation Initiative, which contained six provisions that sought to  modify the applicability of certain environmental statutory requirements to  DOD, in light of concern that these statutes could limit realistic  preparations for combat and negatively affect military readiness. Pursuant  to the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003  and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the  Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative provisions revising the  Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine  Mammal Protection Act were enacted into law. Since 2002, DOD has  repeatedly but unsuccessfully sought enactment of the three remaining  provisions, which would exempt DOD from certain requirements of the  Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and  the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act (CERCLA). The case-by-case exemptions and each of the Readiness  and Range Preservation Initiative provisions are discussed in greater detail  in the background section of this report.
Over the past several years, we have produced a body of work describing  the effects of encroachment on DOD’s training activities, including  encroachment from endangered species. For example, in 2002 we reported  that DOD’s readiness reports did not indicate the extent to which  environmental requirements restricted training activities and that these  reports indicated a high level of military readiness overall. We also noted  individual instances of environmental requirements affecting training at  some military installations and recommended that DOD’s readiness  reporting system be improved to more accurately identify problems for  training that might be attributed to the need to comply with statutory  environmental requirements. In 2003, we testified that environmental  requirements were only one of several factors that affected DOD’s ability  to carry out training activities but that DOD was still unable to broadly  measure the effects of encroachment on readiness. In a 2005 report, we  found that DOD continued to face various difficulties in carrying out  realistic training at its ranges.
House Armed Services Committee Report 110-146, which accompanies the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, directed us to  review the extent to which environmental laws, regulations, and  exemptions are affecting DOD’s training activities, military readiness, and  the environment. This report discusses the effects, if any, of (1)  environmental laws on DOD’s training activities and military readiness, (2)  DOD’s use of exemptions from environmental laws on training activities,  and (3) DOD’s use of exemptions on the environment. Lastly, the report  evaluates the extent to which DOD has demonstrated the need for its  proposed exemptions from the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA as  means of achieving its training and readiness goals.
In performing this review, to directly observe the effects, if any, of  environmental laws and DOD’s use of exemptions to the Migratory Bird  Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection  Act on training activities, military readiness, and the environment, we  judgmentally selected 17 military training installations which included  training sites from each military service component. The installations we  selected were identified based on our previous work involving some  installations experiencing encroachment and sustainable training range  issues. DOD concurred that the installations we selected continue to have  problems in this area and stated that these locations would provide an  important perspective of some of the challenges DOD faces to comply  with environmental laws. Because the installations were judgmentally  selected, the specific challenges faced at these selected locations cannot  be generalized across all of DOD. We also obtained and reviewed  documents and reports describing the effects of environmental laws and  statutory exemptions on training and readiness and the need for  workarounds to meet training requirements from DOD and military service  officials responsible for managing military training. In addition, we  reviewed unit readiness data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, which  included some commander comment summaries describing, when  applicable, why a unit had not met its unit training requirements. Our  review of these data allowed us to assess whether environmental  restrictions imposed on DOD installations had an impact on unit  readiness. To determine the effect of DOD’s use of the exemptions on the  environment, we reviewed related reports and studies, and some  installation management plans to determine how natural resources, such  as migratory birds, marine mammals, and endangered species and their  habitats are protected on DOD lands during military training exercises. We  also interviewed officials from nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that  are involved in endangered species protection efforts and wildlife  oversight issues to obtain their perspectives on how well DOD has done to  protect the natural resources on its lands. We interviewed officials from  the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); the Departments of the  Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Marine Corps; other federal  agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the  National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS) to discuss the effects of environmental laws and statutory  exemptions on military training activities. We also discussed with these  officials the potential benefits and problems associated with the proposed  statutory exemptions to the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA on training  activities, military readiness, and the environment. In addition, we  reviewed documents that provided the perspectives of NGOs and federal  and state regulatory agencies on the potential impact of the proposed  exemptions on the environment.
On the basis of information obtained from the military services on the  reliability of their unit readiness data, our discussions with DOD, military  service, and NGO officials, and our review and analysis of documents and  reports describing the effects of environmental requirements and statutory  exemptions on training activities, military readiness, and the environment,  we believe that the data used in this report are sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. The time periods encompassed by the data used in this report  vary for each of our objectives depending on the date ranges for which  each type of data was available. We conducted this performance audit  from June 2007 through March 2008 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 obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A  more thorough description of our scope and methodology is presented in  appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: One of DOD’s goals is to prepare its combat units for wartime operations  by providing units with the most realistic training possible. DOD operates  and maintains hundreds of training ranges located throughout the country.  Its combat units use training areas located in a wide variety of climates  and include the full scale of training terrains, such as ocean areas, desert  and mountainous regions, and jungle-like environments, which provide  DOD combat units the opportunity to train in environments they will most  likely operate in once deployed for wartime operations. These training  areas also encompass critical habitat and are home to a variety of  endangered species.
subsections: section_title: Several Environmental Statutes Include National Security Exemptions
paragraphs: Like other federal, state, local, and private facilities, DOD installations are  generally required to comply with environmental and other laws that are  intended to protect human health and the environment from harm.  However, several environmental statutes include a national security  exemption that DOD may invoke to ensure the requirements of those  statutes would not restrict military training needs that are in the  paramount interest of the United States. These exemptions require a case- by-case determination by an authorized decision maker and provide  authority for suspending compliance requirements for actions at federal  facilities, including military installations. To date, DOD has received or  invoked exemptions under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),  Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and RCRA.  Although seldom made, DOD’s requests for exemption have been  approved in every case. Table 1 presents the environmental statutes that  authorize case-by-case exemptions and the approval standards.
section_title: DOD’s Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative Proposed Revisions to Six Environmental Statutes
paragraphs: In 2002, DOD submitted to Congress an eight-provision legislative  package, referred to as the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative,  proposing revisions to six environmental statutes on the basis of DOD’s  concerns that restrictions in these statutes could limit realistic  preparations for combat and negatively affect military readiness. DOD  also requested two additional provisions that would allow DOD to  cooperate more effectively with third parties on land transfers for  conservation purposes. To date, Congress has enacted five of the  Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative provisions.
The fiscal year 2003 defense authorization act directed the Secretary of  the Interior to prescribe regulations for issuing permits for the “incidental  takings” of migratory birds during military training exercises authorized by  the Secretary of Defense and provided an interim exemption from the  Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s prohibition against taking, killing, or  possessing any migratory birds except as permitted by regulation, until the  implementation of new regulations. DOD had been concerned about the  effects of a court decision holding that certain military readiness activities  resulting in migratory bird takings violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Interior department regulations published in February 2007 allow for the  Armed Forces to take migratory birds incidental to military readiness  activities, provided that for those activities the Armed Forces determine  may result in a significant, adverse effect on a population of migratory bird  species, they must confer with the FWS to develop and implement  appropriate conservation measures to minimize or mitigate those effects.  The Secretary of the Interior retains the power to withdraw or suspend the  authority for incidental takings of migratory birds for particular activities  under certain circumstances. Two additional provisions enacted in the  fiscal year 2003 defense authorization act authorized the Secretary of a  military department to enter into an agreement with a state or local  government or any private organization committed to the conservation,  restoration, or preservation of land and natural resources to address  encroachment issues and to convey any surplus real property under the  Secretary’s administrative control that is suitable and desirable for  conservation purposes to any state or local government or nonprofit  organization committed to conservation of natural resources on real  property.
The fiscal year 2004 defense authorization act enacted two of the five  remaining Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative provisions by  authorizing DOD exemptions from the Endangered Species Act and the  Marine Mammal Protection Act. One of the revisions to the Endangered  Species Act precluded the Secretary of the Interior from designating as  critical habitat DOD lands that are subject to an approved integrated  natural resources management plan, if the Secretary makes a written  determination that such a plan provides a benefit to the species being  designated. DOD, like other federal agencies, is still required to consult  with the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, to  ensure that actions it performs, authorizes, funds, or permits are not likely  to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely  modify its critical habitat. In DOD’s view, this statutory revision was  needed to avoid the potential of any future critical habitat designations  that could restrict the use of military lands for training. The other revision  to the Endangered Species Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to  consider effects on national security when deciding whether to designate  critical habitat, but does not remove DOD from being subject to all other  protections provided under the act. The revision to the Marine Mammal  Protection Act authorized the Secretary of Defense to exempt for a  specific period, not to exceed 2 years, any action or category of actions  undertaken by DOD or its components from compliance with the act’s  prohibition against illegal takings of marine mammals, if the Secretary  determines it is necessary for national defense. The revision also amended  the definition of “harassment” of marine mammals, as it applies to military  readiness activity, to require evidence of harm or a higher threshold of  potential harm, and required the Secretary of the Interior to consider the  impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity in the  issuance of permits for incidental takings. In DOD’s view these  amendments were needed to prevent restrictions on the use of the Navy’s  sonar systems.
Similar to previous years since fiscal year 2003, DOD included in its  proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 the  three remaining Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative provisions  which provide exemptions from certain requirements of the Clean Air Act,  RCRA, and CERCLA. As with previous Congresses, the 110th Congress did  not include these provisions in the version of the bill that went before both  houses for final vote. Descriptions of the three remaining proposals  follow:    First, the proposed revision to the Clean Air Act would have deferred  emissions generated by military readiness activities from conforming to  applicable state clean air implementation plans for achieving federal air  quality standards and allowed DOD up to 3 years to satisfy these  requirements. To be in conformity, a federal action must not contribute  to new violations of the standards for ambient air quality, increase the  frequency or severity of existing violations, or delay timely attainment  of standards in the area of concern. DOD proposed this revision to  provide flexibility for transferring training operations to areas with  poor air quality without restrictions on these operations due to  generated emissions. In addition, the revision would have required EPA  to approve a state plan even if emissions from military readiness  activities would prevent a given area within the state from achieving  clean air standards.
Second, DOD’s proposed revision to RCRA would have amended the  definition of “solid waste” to exclude munitions that are on an  operational range incident to their normal use, thereby excluding such  munitions from regulation under RCRA. RCRA governs, among other  things, the management of hazardous wastes, including establishing  standards for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Third, the proposed revision to CERCLA, under which entities  responsible for releases of hazardous substances are liable for  associated cleanup costs, would have similarly amended the definition  of “release.” CERCLA defines release as any spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,  dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the  abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed  receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or  contaminant).
DOD’s view is that the proposed revisions to RCRA and CERCLA would  clarify existing regulations EPA finalized in its 1997 Military Munitions  Rule, pursuant to which “used” or “fired” munitions on a range are  considered solid waste, subject to disposal requirements, only when they  are removed from their landing spot. DOD sought this revision to eliminate  the possibility of legal challenges to the rule, which might have resulted in  an active range being closed to require the removal of accumulating  munitions and cleanup of related contamination, thus restricting training.
section_title: Defense Readiness Reporting System
paragraphs: To the extent that encroachment adversely affects training readiness,  opportunities exist for the problems to be reported in departmental and  military service readiness reports. DOD defines readiness as the ability of  U.S. military forces to fight and meet the demands of the national military  strategy. Readiness is the synthesis of two distinct but interrelated levels:  unit readiness (the ability of each unit to provide capabilities required by  the combatant commanders to execute their assigned missions) and joint  readiness (the combatant commander’s ability to integrate and  synchronize ready combat and support forces to execute his or her  assigned missions).
DOD has stated that the goal of any readiness reporting or assessment  system is to reveal whether forces can perform their assigned missions.  Historically, DOD has inferred this ability from the status of unit resources  via the Global Status of Resources and Training System. This system is the  primary means for units to report readiness against designed operational  goals. The system’s database indicates, at selected points in time, the  extent to which units possess the required resources and training to  undertake their wartime missions. DOD found, however, that these input- based assessments do not yield direct information on whether a force can  actually perform an assigned mission despite potential resource shortfalls.
In the spring of 2002, DOD announced plans to create a new Defense  Readiness Reporting System that would provide commanders with a  comprehensive assessment of the ability of capable entities to conduct  operations without the command having to research and examine  numerous databases throughout DOD, such as the Global Status of  Resources and Training System and the service-specific readiness  reporting systems. According to DOD, this new system is expected to be  able to seamlessly integrate readiness data with planning and execution  tools, providing a powerful means for rapidly assessing, planning, and  executing operations. This system expands the readiness reporting  process from simple resource-based reporting to the use of near real-time  readiness information and dynamic analysis tools to determine the  capability of an organization to execute tasks and missions. Specifically,  the system represents a shift from (1) resources to capabilities—inputs to  outputs; (2) deficiencies to their implications; (3) units to the combined  forces; and (4) frontline units to all units contributing to front line  operations.
section_title: Our Prior Work
paragraphs: This report is a continuation of a series of reports that we have issued on  matters related to training constraints as a result of encroachment factors  on DOD’s training ranges. The following summarizes key issues from these  reports:  In June 2002, we reported that DOD’s readiness reports did not indicate  the extent to which environmental requirements restricted training  activities, and that these reports indicated a high level of military  readiness overall. We also noted individual instances of environmental  requirements at some military installations and recommended that  DOD’s readiness reporting system be improved to more accurately  identify problems for training that might be attributed to the need to  comply with statutory environmental requirements. We found that (1)  despite the loss of some capabilities, service readiness data did not  indicate the extent to which encroachment has significantly affected  reported training readiness; (2) though encroachment workarounds  may affect costs, the services had not documented the overall impact  of encroachment on training costs; and (3) the services faced  difficulties in fully assessing the impact of training ranges on readiness  because they had not fully defined their training range requirements  and lacked information on the training resources available to support  those requirements.
In April 2003, we testified that environmental requirements were only  one of several factors that affected DOD’s ability to carry out training  activities, but that DOD was still unable to broadly measure the effects  of encroachment on readiness. We found that (1) encroachment  affected some training range capabilities, required workarounds, and  sometimes limited training, at all stateside installations and major  commands that we visited; (2) service readiness data in 2002 did not  show the impact of encroachment on training readiness or costs, and  though individual services were making some assessment of training  requirements and limitations imposed by encroachment,  comprehensive assessments had yet to be done; and (3) although some  services reported higher costs because of encroachment-related  workarounds for training, service data systems did not capture the  costs comprehensively. We recommended a more comprehensive plan  that clearly identified steps to be taken, goals and milestones to track  progress, and required funding.
In June 2005, we found that DOD continued to face various difficulties  in carrying out realistic training at its ranges. We reported that  deteriorating conditions and a lack of modernization adversely affected  training activities and jeopardized the safety of military personnel. We  observed various degraded conditions at each training range visited,  such as malfunctioning communication systems, impassable tank trails,  overgrown areas, and outdated training areas and targets. DOD’s  limited progress in improving training range conditions was partially  attributable to a lack of a comprehensive approach. We found that (1)  while the services had individually taken a varying number of key  management improvement actions, such as developing range  sustainment policies, these actions lacked consistency across DOD or  focused primarily on encroachment without including commensurate  efforts on other issues, such as maintenance and modernization; (2)  though the services could not precisely identify the funding required  and used for their ranges, range requirements had historically been  inadequately funded; and (3) although DOD policy, reports, and plans  had either recommended or required specific actions, DOD had not  fully implemented these actions.
section_title: Requirements to Comply with Environmental Laws Have Affected Some Training Activities, but Readiness Data Do Not Confirm that These Laws Hamper Military Readiness
paragraphs: The requirement to comply with environmental laws has affected some  training activities and how they are conducted, but our review of DOD’s  readiness data does not confirm that compliance with these laws hampers  overall military readiness. During our visits to training ranges, we found  some instances where training activities were cancelled, postponed, or  modified in order to address environmental requirements. However, DOD  officials responsible for planning and facilitating training events may  implement adjustments to training events, referred to as “workarounds,”  to ensure training requirements are still accomplished. Our discussions  with officials responsible for readiness data and our review of these data  did not confirm that military readiness has been hindered because of  restrictions imposed by environmental laws. OSD and each of the military  services are currently in the process of developing systems that will  provide DOD leadership and outside stakeholders a better understanding  of how external factors, such as environmental laws, affect the  department’s training and readiness.
subsections: section_title: Compliance with Environmental Laws Has Affected Some Training Activities and How They Are Conducted
paragraphs: Compliance with various environmental laws has created restrictions on  how DOD manages, plans, and conducts training exercises on its  installations. Military training areas are subject to environmental laws  which are intended to help the survival and preservation of the natural  resources located on these training lands. Many of these training areas are  home to endangered species; thus, areas that could be used for training or  had been used for training on DOD installations are restricted and blocked  off to prevent units from disturbing or harming the habitat of the  endangered species, as the following examples illustrate.
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California Because of competing  land use and various environmental restrictions, officials at the base  have reported that Marine combat units can use only about 6 percent  (less than 1 mile) of its 17 miles of sandy beaches along the coast of the  Pacific Ocean for major amphibious landing training exercises. Two of  the environmental restrictions cited were for the threatened San Diego  fairy shrimp, the endangered Coastal California gnatcatcher and its  habitat. Another restriction involved the nesting season for the  endangered bird called the California least tern (see fig. 1). Camp  Pendleton officials said closing one beach during the nesting season  introduces some artificiality into its training events because  commanders would be limited in the number of landing areas available  to them during offensive operational exercises.
Barry M. Goldwater Range, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona Training  officials stated that in calendar year 2004, about 8 percent (72 cases out  of 878) of the F-16 training exercises were cancelled due to the  presence of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn species present on the  training range impact area.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Installation officials told us that  on eight different occasions between April 2003 and June 2006, training  exercises for the Naval Special Warfare Combatant Command were  cancelled unexpectedly, due to the presence of new bald eagle nests in  the training area and concerns that harm to the eagle population could  have legal repercussions. In order to accomplish the required training  requirements, the Navy official responsible for scheduling these  exercises told us that the expeditionary force teams had to reschedule  their training exercises for later dates or alternate locations, which  were not as beneficial as the training area provided at Aberdeen  Proving Ground.
Naval Base Coronado, San Clemente Island, California Training  officials told us that during the fire season the Navy is prohibited from  firing illumination rounds on the shore bombardment area at San  Clemente Island, which is used by the Navy for surface ship live-fire  exercises. The exact dates for fire season vary from year to year,  depending on the weather, but are generally for 8 months. According to  Navy officials, some sailors do not receive this type of training until  after they are deployed.
Army National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California Installation  officials said the presence of the threatened desert tortoise caused  trainers and commanders to plan training activities around areas  designated and blocked off for the protection of this protected species.
Some military commanders believe that compliance with environmental  laws protecting the natural resources may cause them to design training  programs and scenarios that differ from what units would face once  deployed for wartime operations. However, we found no evidence that  combat units are unable to accomplish their training requirements despite  the requirement to comply with various environmental laws. Furthermore,  some officials we spoke with at these installations indicated that training  areas available after protected zones had been established for these  endangered species are sufficient to train units.
Some OSD officials and other officials within DOD expressed the view  that, although combat units can satisfy training requirements and may be  deemed ready for combat deployments, compliance with environmental  laws can significantly degrade the intended “realistic training” these units  receive. According to those officials, when commanders and trainers are  required to deviate from original training plans and procedures in order to  comply with various environmental laws, combat units may not receive  training experiences that mirror situations they might experience in a  wartime scenario. These officials acknowledged the difficulty in  measuring the impact environmental restrictions have on training, but they  said constant deviation from realistic training scenarios has the potential  to create an ill-prepared force and could possibly leave combat units  vulnerable once deployed for combat missions.
section_title: Use of Workarounds Allows DOD to Meet Training Requirements
paragraphs: Despite having to comply with environmental restrictions, DOD is able to  meet its readiness and training requirements through adjustments or  modifications to training activities, known as workarounds. Usually  trainers and planners know in advance the environmental restrictions they  are faced with prior to a training event and plan accordingly to ensure  required training tasks are completed. For example, at Camp Pendleton,  California, officials said that to protect San Diego fairy shrimp habitat and  archaeological cultural sites, Marines plant flags to represent foxholes  instead of digging foxholes on the beach. Marine Corps officials said this  workaround allows them to meet its training requirement, but limits their  ability to conduct realistic training. Similarly, to accomplish training  requirements and to protect aquatic and bank-side habitat for an  endangered salmon species, officials at the Yakima Training Center,  Washington, said vehicle traffic is limited to the use of bridges instead of  allowing units to drive through creeks which would better approximate  actual battlefield conditions.
Officials acknowledged that complying with environmental laws can make  it difficult at times to plan and conduct training events; however, these  officials also acknowledged that military operations will always be subject  to external restrictions whether units operate within the United States or  abroad. For example, DOD officials said when units are deployed they may  be restricted from damaging religious sites, such as churches or mosques,  or may have to avoid dangerous operating areas like mine fields, so  learning to deal with restrictions is standard operating procedure and the  military has adapted to dealing with these requirements. In many cases,  officials responsible for scheduling and facilitating training events  incorporate environmental restrictions into planned training scenarios.  For example, Fort Stewart, Fort Lewis, and Marine Corps Base Camp  Pendleton officials said trainers instruct units to pretend restricted  training areas are holy grounds, mine fields, or any other restricted area in  theatre and advise them to avoid these areas. According to DOD officials,  implementing these types of workarounds allows the department to  accomplish its training requirements while ensuring natural resources are  sustained and protected and offers an element of realism in terms of the  need to avoid certain venues when units are actually deployed.
section_title: Readiness Data and Reports Did Not Confirm that Military Readiness Was Hindered
paragraphs: Readiness data we reviewed for active duty combat units did not confirm  that military readiness was hindered because of restrictions imposed by  various environmental laws. In order to determine whether combat units  are capable and ready to deploy for wartime missions, DOD and the  military services use their unit readiness reporting systems to, among  other things, report on whether a unit has received an adequate amount of  training to perform its assigned mission prior to deployment. Two of the  systems used to track unit readiness reporting are the Status of Resources  and Training System, which is a DOD-wide readiness rating system, and  the Army Readiness Management System. In the Status of Resources and  Training System, if a unit is not adequately trained and is unable to  perform its assigned mission, commanders record a less than satisfactory  assessment score into the system and may include a brief summary in the  “commanders comments” section within the system that explains why the  unit is unable to perform its assigned mission.
Our review of these reports for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007,  including a review of the written commanders comments for Army, Navy,  and Marine Corps active duty combat units, revealed that when units had  not received an adequate amount of training, it was for a variety of  reasons, such as not having enough assigned personnel or equipment.  However, environmental restrictions did not appear as reasons why units  were not adequately trained. Although we did not independently review  readiness data for Air Force units due to data availability and time  constraints, officials responsible for managing and maintaining these data  told us that environmental restrictions generally did not appear as reasons  why units were not adequately trained.
DOD officials responsible for planning and facilitating DOD unit combat  training at the installations we visited stated that a unit’s readiness is  generally not affected by environmental restrictions imposed on the  installations. According to some officials, environmental restrictions may  in fact hinder a unit from receiving adequate training, but DOD’s readiness  reporting system does not capture the ability of individual ranges to  support training or the effects of endangered species and their habitat,  wetlands, air quality, water quality, and other encroachment factors on  range availability. According to one official responsible for managing data  reported in the readiness system, there is no requirement to report  environmental restrictions in the system, even though commanders have  the option to do so. DOD officials said many commanders do not record  environmental restrictions as a barrier to training because they use  workarounds to ensure training tasks are accomplished, even if the  environmental restriction caused them to alter or delay a training event.
section_title: OSD and Services Are Developing Systems to Measure the Effects of Encroachment
paragraphs: OSD and the services currently have efforts underway to develop systems  to measure the effects encroachment factors, including environmental  restrictions, have on an installation’s ability to meet its training mission.  For example, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness has begun to develop a new functionality within its Defense  Readiness Reporting System that would provide DOD leadership and  outside stakeholders, such as Congress, a better understanding of how  external factors, such as environmental laws, affect training activities and  readiness. Additionally, over the last few years, the services have  spearheaded separate initiatives to track and report the encroachment  factors that are affecting training on their installations. OSD officials said  they will use these systems as data feeds into the new functionality within  the Defense Readiness Reporting System.
subsections: section_title: Defense Readiness Reporting System
paragraphs: DOD is currently working to update and improve its Defense Readiness  Reporting System that will assess constraints a military range faces when  facilitating training for combat units. According to DOD officials we met  with who are responsible for the development, update, and  implementation of the Defense Readiness Reporting System, this system is  expected to soon have the capability to identify the extent to which  encroachment factors affect a range’s ability to support various  operational capabilities, such as combat, combat support, and combat  service support. Although this system is in early stages of development,  DOD plans to pilot test this new functionality during calendar year 2008.  According to DOD officials, there are still ongoing discussions with the  services to solidify and agree on all the factors that will be measured.  These officials told us they expect decisions to be finalized in the early  part of fiscal year 2008, but at the time of this review OSD and the services  had not come to a final agreement.
section_title: Army’s Installation Status Report (Natural Infrastructure) and Encroachment Condition Module
paragraphs: Over the last few years, the Army has been working to introduce systems  to report and track factors affecting training on its installations. The  Army’s Installation Status Report (Natural Infrastructure) is a new  decision-support tool used by Army leadership to assess the capability of  an installation’s natural infrastructure to support mission requirements. In  addition, the Army has developed an Encroachment Condition Module  that quantitatively evaluates the impact of eight encroachment factors— threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, cultural resource  sites, wetlands, air quality regulations, Federal Aviation Administration  regulations, noise restrictions, and frequency spectrum—in order to assess  measurable impact to training and testing at the installation and range  level.
Although the Army has made progress developing these systems, at the  time of this review the Army was still in the process of field-testing these  systems and thus had not finalized and released these systems throughout  the Army. During discussions with multiple officials at the Army  installations that we visited, concerns were expressed that some of the  reports generated by the Installation Status Report (Natural  Infrastructure) appear to exaggerate the factors affecting the installations’  ability to support training requirements. In addition, these officials were  also concerned that the data generated from the Encroachment Condition  Module do not reflect the actual environmental restrictions placed on the  installations, which appear to significantly limit the installations’ ability to  provide unit-level training. Some of these installation officials have also  written memorandums expressing their concerns that the installation  status report does not provide an accurate picture of the mission readiness  of installations and suggested steps Army headquarters should take to  ensure this system is more useful. On the basis of our review of summary  data from the encroachment conditions module, we believe that  discrepancies exist between the data on encroachment restrictions and  the actual areas available for training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and Fort  Stewart, Georgia. According to Army officials, at the time of our visits to  these installations, the Army was in the process of working with  installation officials to ensure that these data were accurate and current  enough to enable decision makers to plan training events.
section_title: Navy’s Encroachment Database
paragraphs: The Navy has an effort underway to develop a web-oriented installation  and range encroachment database that will assist it in identifying how  encroachment factors affect unit training on its training ranges across the  United States. For example, in August 2006 the Navy completed the initial  development of a Navy-wide encroachment database to include  encroachment issues identified by installations, ranges, and commands  throughout the Navy. The Navy intends to finalize database development  and link this information to its established repositories in order to begin  generating reports for Congress. The Navy expects to have a user-friendly  database available for use on its installations and ranges by June 2008.
section_title: Marine Corp’s Training and Range Encroachment Information System
paragraphs: The Marine Corp’s Training and Range Encroachment Information System  was developed as a part of an encroachment quantification study done at  Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in 2003. This system is a tool intended  to assess an installation’s ability to support required training, rather than  assess the readiness of an individual Marine or Marine unit going through  the training. According to Marine Corps officials, this system represents a  prototype solution for collecting and quantifying encroachment effects  that has the potential to be applied to other Marine Corps ranges and  bases. However, according to these officials, this system has not been  fielded and implemented across the Marine Corps because of questions  about the amount of resources that would be required. As a result, Marine  Corps officials have stated that more work needs to be done before this  system will be released.
section_title: Air Force’s Natural Infrastructure Assessment Tool
paragraphs: In January 2008 the Air Force completed the development of its Natural  Infrastructure Assessment Guide, which will provide Air Force leadership  with a tool to manage the encroachment factors affecting its training  ranges. This assessment tool will assist installation commanders in  effectively managing their natural infrastructure, such as air space,  through the identification of deficiencies and opportunities, correlated to  affected operation, to enhance operational sustainability. This tool will  also establish baseline information using a set of quantitative and  qualitative measures that provide a comparison of needed resources to  available resources, and will identify the incompatibilities and constraints  on air, space, land, and water resources resulting from environmental  encroachment pressures such as environmental restrictions.
section_title: DOD’s Use of Exemptions Has Allowed Some Training Activities to Continue and Enabled Others to Avoid Potential Delays
paragraphs: DOD has used the exemptions from the Marine Mammal Protection Act  and Migratory Bird Treaty Act to continue to conduct training activities  that might otherwise have been prohibited, delayed, or canceled, and the  Endangered Species Act exemptions have enabled DOD to avoid potential  training delays by providing it greater autonomy in managing its training  lands. The Navy has twice invoked exemptions from the Marine Mammal  Protection Act to continue using mid-frequency active sonar in its training  exercises that would otherwise have been prevented. DOD’s exemption to  the Migratory Bird Treaty Act eliminated the possibility of having to cancel  military training exercises, such as Navy live-fire training exercises at the  Farallon de Medinilla Target Range in the Pacific Ocean. The Endangered  Species Act revisions provide that FWS consider the impact to national  security when designating critical habitat on DOD lands and provide  alternatives to critical habitat designation.
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Marine Mammal Protection Act Exemption Has Twice Allowed the Navy to Continue Mid- Frequency Active Sonar Training Activities
paragraphs: Since 2006, the Navy has twice invoked its exemption from the Marine  Mammal Protection Act to continue using mid-frequency active sonar  technology in military training exercises, which would have otherwise  been prevented by the law’s protection of marine mammals, such as  whales and dolphins that may be affected by the technology. In both cases,  DOD granted the exemption after conferring with the Secretary of  Commerce, upon a determination that the use of mid-frequency active  sonar was necessary for national defense.
Mid-frequency active sonar is used by the Navy to detect hostile diesel- powered submarines used by the nation’s adversaries. According to Navy  officials, the use of mid-frequency active sonar is a vital component of its  underwater submarine warfare training program. Without these  exemptions the Navy would have been prevented from using sonar  technology during its training exercises, potentially causing a readiness  issue within the Navy. For example, during the 2006 multinational Rim of  the Pacific training exercise, which was conducted near the Hawaiian  Islands, the Navy was prohibited from using mid-frequency active sonar  for 3 days because of an injunction imposed concerning the effects the  sonar could have on the marine mammals. In June 2006, DOD granted the  Navy a six-month exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act for  all military readiness activities that use mid-frequency active sonar during  major training exercises or within established DOD maritime ranges or  operating areas. In January 2007, DOD granted a two-year exemption for  these same activities. However, during both exemption periods, DOD was  and is required to employ mitigation measures developed with and  supported by the National Marine Fisheries Service. According to DOD  officials, the two-year period provides the Navy the time needed to  develop its environmental impact statements for ranges where mid- frequency sonar is used.
Although DOD granted the Navy an exemption to the Marine Mammal  Protection Act to continue its training exercises, Navy officials told us that  the primary reason it would have been prevented from using sonar  technology was because it had not prepared an environmental impact  statement for its training locations that use mid-frequency active sonar  during training exercises. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of  1969 (NEPA), agencies evaluate the likely environmental effects of  projects they are proposing using an environmental assessment or, if the  projects likely would significantly affect the environment, a more detailed  environmental impact statement. In addition, the Marine Mammal  Protection Act requires consultation between DOD and the National  Marine Fisheries Service to determine the impact on marine mammals  when conducting military readiness activities.
According to NRDC, an NGO that filed suit against the Navy to prevent it  from using its sonar technology, the Navy failed to prepare an  environmental impact statement and proper mitigation strategies in  advance of using its sonar technology. NRDC is concerned that the use of  mid-frequency active sonar has had a detrimental effect on marine  mammals in the nation’s oceans and waterways. Thus, it is the NRDC’s  view that until the Navy prepares the required environmental  documentation and implements appropriate mitigation measures, these  sonar activities should be stopped. The Navy has prepared notices of  intent to prepare environmental impact statements for 12 ranges and  operational areas. According to Navy officials, all 12 environmental impact  statements will be completed, and the Navy is expected to be in  compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act by the end of  calendar year 2009.
section_title: DOD Used the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Exemption to Help the Navy Accomplish Live-Fire Training
paragraphs: DOD’s exemption to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act authorizing the  incidental taking of migratory birds during military readiness activities  eliminated the possibility of having to delay or cancel military training  exercises. In response to litigation in 2000 and 2002, DOD became  concerned that environmental advocates could initiate further litigation  against the department, causing delays or cancellation of future training  activities. For example, in March 2002, in response to a lawsuit brought by  the Center for Biological Diversity, a federal district court ruled that Navy  training exercises at the Farallon de Medinilla Target Range within the  Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean, which resulted in the incidental  taking of migratory birds, violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The 2003 enactment of DOD’s exemption changed the Migratory Bird  Treaty Act to allow DOD to conduct military readiness exercises that may  result in incidental takings of migratory birds without violating the act.  DOD officials we spoke to told us that the exemption has not affected how  training activities are conducted; rather, it codified and clarified how the  act would be applied to military training missions, and it enabled DOD to  avoid potential legal action that could have significantly affected training  and readiness exercises at Farallon de Medinilla and other DOD  installations. According to officials we met with during our visits to other  installations with migratory bird populations, training activities at those  locations generally do not affect migratory birds.
section_title: Endangered Species Act Exemption Provides DOD More Autonomy over the Management of Its Training Lands
paragraphs: The Endangered Species Act exemption has enabled DOD to avoid  potential training delays by providing it greater autonomy in managing its  training lands. The exemption, enacted in the fiscal year 2004 defense  authorization act, provides DOD two means of avoiding critical habitat for  threatened or endangered species designated on its lands by the FWS. One  method of avoiding critical habitat designation for the endangered or  threatened species found on its land is through the use of an approved  integrated natural resources management plan, which the FWS or the  National Marines Fisheries Service agrees provides a benefit to the  species. According to DOD officials, these management plans provide it  with the flexibility needed to perform readiness activities while  simultaneously protecting the natural resources located on its  installations. Secondly, in a case where critical habitat designation is  proposed on a military installation, DOD can request the Secretary of the  Interior take into consideration whether national security concerns  outweigh the benefits of the designation.
Although FWS officials stated that these exemptions codified their  practice of generally not designating critical habitat on military lands  when the lands were managed under appropriate conservation plan, DOD  officials believed the department needed these them to avoid future  designations that could restrict its training lands and cause potential  delays in training while the required administrative consultations with  FWS are completed. According to DOD officials, not having critical habitat  designated for endangered or threatened species found on military lands  gives DOD more flexibility and greater autonomy over the management of  its lands used for its training activities. However, according to FWS  officials, critical habitat designations would only require an additional  level of consultation, which would have had very minimal, if any, effect on  DOD’s ability to use its lands for training purposes. DOD officials said that  the increased level of consultation required between the department and  outside stakeholders, such as the FWS, would take away the time and  resources required to plan and execute its training activities. Furthermore,  according to DOD officials, growth in endangered species populations on  some installations has increased the challenges they face in completing  their required training activities while simultaneously protecting the  species and their habitats. In addition, some range managers and trainers  at installations we visited said that they believe that designating critical  habitat on military lands could require them to avoid using critical habitat  areas, which would take away potentially valuable training areas.  However, now that DOD has the authority to use its approved integrated  natural resources management plans, which are ultimately approved by  the FWS, in lieu of critical habitat designation, trainers and range  managers feel less restricted from using their training ranges.
section_title: Endangered Species and Migratory Bird Act Exemptions Have Not Adversely Affected the Environment, and the Effect of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Exemption Has Not Been Determined
paragraphs: On the basis of meetings with officials within and outside DOD and visits  to 17 training ranges, we found no instances where DOD’s use of  exemptions from the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act  has adversely affected the environment; however, the impact of the Marine  Mammal Protection Act exemption has not yet been determined. We found  no instances where DOD’s use of the Endangered Species Act exemption  has negatively affected populations of endangered or threatened species.  Moreover, the services employ a variety of measures and conservation  activities to mitigate the effects of training activities on endangered  species, some of which have helped to increase the populations of certain  endangered species. However, NGO officials we spoke with were  concerned that DOD’s use of its integrated natural resources management  plans in lieu of critical habitat designations may weaken oversight of  endangered species found on military lands. Similarly, we found no  instances where DOD’s use of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act exemption  has significantly affected the populations of migratory birds. However, the  overall effect of the Navy’s use of mid-frequency active sonar on marine  mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act is unclear  and is still being studied.
subsections: section_title: DOD’s Use of the Endangered Species Act Exemptions Have Not Adversely Affected Species Populations
paragraphs: DOD, federal regulatory agency, and NGO officials, and officials at the  military training ranges we visited said that there were no instances where  DOD’s use of the Endangered Species Act exemptions have adversely  affected the populations of endangered or threatened species. Moreover,  the services employ a variety of measures and conservation activities to  mitigate the effects of their training activities on endangered species  populations on their lands. We also found instances where DOD  environmental stewardship of its natural resources have achieved some  positive results with regard to increases in the population of certain  endangered species. In addition, FWS officials told us that DOD has taken  positive steps to manage and preserve its natural resources and provided  several examples of DOD’s proactive steps to manage threatened or  candidate species.
subsections: section_title: Services Employ Measures to Mitigate Effects of Training on Endangered Species
paragraphs: The services have taken steps on their installations to minimize the effects  of their training activities on their endangered species populations, as the  following examples illustrate.
At Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, nests for the threatened green sea  turtle and Atlantic loggerhead turtle are relocated away from training  beaches by Camp Lejeune environmental management personnel.
At Yakima Training Center, Washington, endangered fish species are  protected by the installation declaring aquatic and riparian habitat off  limits to all but foot traffic except at hardened crossings, such as  bridges.
At the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona, range officials employ  spotters to ensure that resident endangered Sonoran pronghorn are not  present in munitions impact areas prior to exercises.
section_title: DOD’s Stewardship of Natural Resources Has Achieved Some Positive Results
paragraphs: DOD’s management of its natural resources has achieved some positive  results with increases in the population of certain endangered species. At  five of the installations we visited, we were provided data that showed an  increase in the populations of three endangered species, as the following  examples illustrate.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Since the mid-1990s, the red-cockaded  woodpecker populations at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Eglin Air Force  Base, Florida, have increased. In addition, Fort Stewart has served as a  source of red-cockaded woodpeckers for repopulation efforts on  nonmilitary lands. Figure 2 shows trend data and projected increases in  red-cockaded woodpecker potential breeding groups from calendar  year 1994 through calendar year 2016 for Fort Stewart and Eglin Air  Force Base. On the basis of the data, Fort Stewart and Eglin Air Force  Base are both projected to meet their recovery goals of 350 potential  breeding groups by 2011.
Loggerhead Shrike At Naval Base Coronado, San Clemente Island,  California, the Navy, in partnership with FWS and the San Diego Zoo,  has developed a captive breeding program that has increased the  population of the Loggerhead Shrike, an endangered bird species, on  San Clemente Island. This endangered bird population has increased  from approximately 18 in 2000 to more than 88 in 2007 due partly to  this conservation measure. According to the environmental planner for  San Clemente Island, approximately 60 birds are retained for breeding  purposes, while all other birds are released once it is determined that  they can survive in the wild. Figure 3 shows a Loggerhead Shrike  captive breeding facility.
Sonoran Pronghorn According to data from the Arizona Game and Fish  Department provided to us by Air Force officials, there were 68  Sonoran pronghorn, an endangered species, on the Barry M. Goldwater  Range as of December 2006, up from an estimated 58 pronghorn in  2004. Air Force officials also provided us with information on  pronghorn recovery efforts, which include a semicaptive breeding  program located at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Air  Force officials told us that semicaptive breeding is an important  component of their recovery effort. Officials said they plan to release  up to 20 captivity-bred animals annually beginning in 2008. Air Force  officials told us that the creation of artificial forage enhancement plots  are a key component in enhancing pronghorn survivability during  periods of drought. Additionally, these officials said they locate these  plots away from target areas to minimize the impact of training  activities on the pronghorn population.
section_title: DOD’s Proactive Management of Threatened Species and Species Being Considered for Protection
paragraphs: FWS officials told us that DOD has taken positive steps to manage and  preserve its natural resources and has been proactive in the management  of its threatened species and species being considered for protection  under the Endangered Species Act, as the following examples illustrate.
Fort Carson, Colorado, provided a dedicated area for the threatened  Greenback Cutthroat Trout that affords eggs for restoration efforts,  opportunities for research, and recreational fishing opportunities for  soldiers. In addition, Fort Carson participated in and funded research  on American peregrine falcons (a recovered species) and threatened  Mexican spotted owls that seasonally use the installation.
Fort Wainwright, Alaska, worked to identify areas where the  installation lacked natural resource data (e.g. fish species abundance  and diversity in streams and spawning areas), and with assistance from  the FWS, then linked projects to achieve its goal of collecting the  needed resource data.
The U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado, holds most of the remaining  Arkansas River drainage population of the threatened Preble’s Meadow  Jumping Mouse. The Academy is represented on the recovery team, has  funded tasks identified in the recovery team draft plan, and has  conducted and funded research on the monitoring of habitat and  populations.
section_title: NGOs Have Expressed Concerns about Oversight of Endangered Species on Military Lands
paragraphs: Although the NGOs we spoke with varied in their opinions about the  effectiveness of DOD’s use of integrated natural resources management  plans in lieu of critical habitat designations, all of the officials we spoke  with were concerned about the extent to which the FWS would be able to  exercise its regulatory authority under the Endangered Species Act, thus  weakening its oversight of the management, protection, and preservation  of endangered species found on military lands. Furthermore, officials from  these organizations expressed concerns that the exemption could  safeguard DOD from potential litigation involving critical habitat  designation and lessens the public’s ability to comment on how DOD plans  to manage the endangered species located on its installations.
DOD installation officials responsible for developing the department’s  natural resources management plans acknowledged changes in the public  comment process from the one traditionally used when a critical habitat  designation is proposed. These officials also stated that they publicly  announce the development or revision of these management plans, notify  local conservation groups of the development or revision of the  management plans to ensure their views are taken into consideration  during the process, and take all public comments under consideration  when finalizing the management plans.
Officials from various NGOs had differing opinions on DOD’s use of its  integrated natural resources management plans to protect and preserve  endangered species on military land, and some were concerned that  DOD’s use of these plans in lieu of critical habitat designation may weaken  the oversight FWS has under the Endangered Species Act, as the following  examples illustrate.
Officials of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility  (PEER)—a national nonprofit alliance of federal, state, and resource  employees—and the Endangered Species Coalition—a nonpartisan  organization focused on endangered species issues—were generally  satisfied with DOD’s efforts to protect endangered species on its  installations, and stated that DOD’s implementation of its integrated  natural resources management plans appeared to be an effective tool  for managing its natural resources.
Officials of the Center for Biological Diversity—a nonprofit  organization focusing on species and habitat conservation—questioned  whether allowing DOD to take the lead on endangered species  management on its own lands was the best strategy. One official from  the Center for Biological Diversity stated that, unlike critical habitat  designation, integrated natural resources management plans would  only provide a limited benefit to endangered species and  implementation of these plans vary by installation. Additionally, this  official stated that the formal process of designating critical habitat  provides more comprehensive protection and benefit to endangered  species.
Officials of NRDC stated that DOD’s management plans are not an  adequate substitute for critical habitat designation because the quality  of the plans varies, the successful implementation of the plan is largely  dependent on an installation’s leadership, and there are no quantifiable,  measurable goals that can be enforced.
DOD officials told us that they view integrated natural resources  management plans as a tool focused on the management of an ecosystem  as opposed to a tool for managing individual species. In addition,  according to DOD officials, these management plans are a more cost  effective way to manage an installation’s natural resources and reduce the  likelihood of a significant adverse impact on species. None of the NGO  officials we interviewed could provide us with data to illustrate that DOD’s  use of an integrated natural resources management plan has caused an  endangered species population to decline or harmed their habitat.
section_title: Use of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Exemption Has Not Significantly Affected Bird Populations
paragraphs: DOD, federal regulatory agencies, and NGO officials, and officials at the  military training ranges we visited all said that there were no instances  where DOD’s use of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act exemption has  significantly affected the populations of migratory birds. Since February  2007, when FWS issued the final rule authorizing incidental takings of  migratory birds during military readiness activities, officials from DOD nor  FWS were not able to provide instances where a military training activity  was assessed and determined to have a significant adverse effect on a  migratory bird population. In addition, DOD employs various measures to  mitigate the potential impact of its training activities on migratory bird  populations. For example, Navy officials told us that an additional zone  was established in which only inert munitions may be used, which is  located directly below a no bomb zone at Farallon de Medinilla Target  Range within the Mariana Islands, as an additional mitigation measure for  the island’s migratory bird population. In addition, at Naval Air Station  Fallon, Nevada, aircraft maintain a minimum altitude of 3,000 feet when  flying above the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge to avoid migratory bird  populations.
section_title: Effects of Mid-Frequency Active Sonar on Marine Mammals Are Unclear and Are Still Being Studied
paragraphs: The effects of the Navy’s use of mid-frequency active sonar on marine  mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act are unclear  and are still being studied. The Navy, in conjunction with external  researchers, is conducting studies in an attempt to determine the effects  mid-frequency active sonar has on marine mammals. According to  documents provided to us by Navy officials, differing interpretations of  scientific studies on behavioral changes among marine mammal  populations have complicated compliance with the Marine Mammal  Protection Act. Thus, additional coordination between the Navy and the  National Marine Fisheries Service is required to resolve the regulatory  uncertainty as to the “biological significance” of the effects of mid- frequency active sonar on marine mammals. The Navy employs mitigation  measures, such as establishing marine mammal lookouts, ensuring there  are no marine mammals within a certain radius of ships using sonar, and  reducing the power of the ships’ sonar systems to lessen the possible  impact mid-frequency active sonar may have on the marine mammal  populations. The Navy has also begun reporting stranded marine mammals  to the National Marine Fisheries Service. National Marine Fisheries  Service officials have characterized their working relationship with the  Navy as collaborative and constructive in that they have the opportunity to  review and comment on the effectiveness of the Navy’s mitigation  measures, such as the adequacy of the training that marine mammal  lookouts receive. These measures are in effect during the 2-year period  beginning in January 2007 in which mid-frequency active sonar activities  are exempt from the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
In its February 2008 report to Congress, the Navy stated that in 2007 it  had completed 12 major training exercises employing mid-frequency  active sonar and found no marine animals within the range of injury (10  meters) of any transmitting vessel during these exercises. The Navy  requires that units participating in these major exercises report the  number of marine mammals sighted while these exercises are conducted.  If a marine mammal is sighted, participating ships, submarines, and  aircraft are required to report the date, time, distance from unit, and action  taken by the unit, if any. On the basis of the results of the after-action  reports for these exercises, the Navy concluded that the various training  activities did not kill or injure any marine mammals. Although the Navy  acknowledges that it is not possible to account for the mammals that were  not observed, it also noted that the low number of marine mammal  sightings qualitatively indicates that the likelihood of an effect on the  population level of any marine mammal species is further reduced.
However, NGO officials have told us they believe that the Navy’s  mitigation measures are insufficient, and they do not believe that the Navy  has adequately quantified the impact of prohibitions on sonar on its ability  to train. Additionally, according to NRDC representatives, a report  completed in 2004 by a scientific committee of leading whale biologists  established by the International Whaling Commission, has convincing and  overwhelming results linking mid-frequency active sonar with the deaths  of beaked whales. These officials are also uncertain whether the Navy  would be in compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act when the  exemption expires in January 2009. Further, these NGO representatives  acknowledged that the nature of certain marine mammal populations  creates difficulties in establishing a scientific basis for the effects of mid- frequency active sonar on marine mammals. DOD acknowledges that,  under certain circumstances and conditions, exposure to mid-frequency  active sonar may have an effect upon certain species, but the causal  connection between whale strandings and exposure to mid-frequency  active sonar is not known.
section_title: DOD Has Not Presented a Sound Business Case for the Three Proposed Exemptions
paragraphs: DOD has not presented a sound business case demonstrating a need for  the proposed exemptions from the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA to  help achieve its training and readiness requirements. DOD has outlined  some anticipated benefits of the proposed exemptions and has provided  Congress with a description of the features and scope of its Readiness and  Range Preservation Initiative, but the department has not made a sound  business case testing these assertions or provided any specific instances in  which the movement of forces or equipment, training on an operational  range, or its use of munitions on an operational range has been hindered  by the requirements of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, or CERCLA, respectively.  Therefore, Congress lacks a sound basis for assessing the need to enact  the three remaining proposed exemptions.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Presented Some Elements of a Business Case but Has Not Demonstrated a Need for the Remaining Exemptions
paragraphs: DOD has not presented a sound business case demonstrating a need for  the remaining three exemptions proposed in its Readiness and Range  Preservation Initiative. In order to advise decision makers on a proposed  project, policy or program, best practices and our prior work recommend  that agencies develop a business case whereby they can assess and  demonstrate the viability of proposed initiatives. A business case is a  substantiated argument that includes, among other things, the problem or  situation addressed by the proposal, the features and scope of the  proposed initiative, the anticipated outcomes and benefits, the options  considered and the rationale for choosing the solution proposed, the  expected costs, and the expected risks associated with the proposal’s  implementation. DOD presented the features and scope of the three  remaining Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative provisions in  proposed language for the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill.  DOD officials also outlined some possible benefits of the proposed  exemptions. For example, in its 2006 annual sustainable ranges report,  DOD stated that without these additional exemptions the department was  vulnerable to legal challenges that could threaten its ability to use  operational ranges for readiness training and testing. DOD officials also  stated that some possible benefits of the proposed exemptions include  facilitating (1) the movement of forces and equipment, (2) training on an  operational range, and (3) the use of munitions on an operational range.  However, DOD has not provided any of the other elements of a sound  business case.
subsections: section_title: Proposed Clean Air Act Exemption
paragraphs: According to DOD officials, the proposed exemption from requirements of  the Clean Air Act would provide the department flexibility in replacing or  realigning forces and equipment in nonattainment areas, which do not  meet certain EPA air quality standards, but they have not provided  evidence to support the need for the exemption. Moreover, DOD could not  cite any case where Clean Air Act requirements prohibited the movement  of troops or equipment into nonattainment areas. OSD’s Office of General  Counsel officials told us that the Clean Air Act provision grew out of the  1995 base realignment and closure round, when the movement of aircraft  into these areas became a problem. For the 2005 base closure round, OSD  asked the services if moving activities into nonattainment areas would be  an issue, and the answer was that it would not be. In its 2006 report on  sustainable ranges, DOD stated that, while the Clean Air Act’s general  conformity requirement had the potential to threaten the deployment of  new weapon systems, the requirement had not yet prevented any military  readiness activities.
Officials of state and local agencies, and NGOs, such as the Center for  Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO), NRDC, and PEER, have  expressed concern that the proposed exemptions could increase air  pollution and potentially result in greater contamination, higher cleanup  costs, and a threat to human health. Opponents of DOD’s proposed  exemptions from the Clean Air Act include state and local air pollution  control program officials, state environmental commissioners, state  attorneys general, county and municipal governments, and environmental  advocates. They contended that granting the exemption could increase air  pollution, posing a threat to human health. Opponents also claimed that  the proposed exemption is unnecessary as the Clean Air Act already  contains a provision that would allow DOD to request a case-by-case  exemption if necessary, which DOD has never invoked. In addition, an  EPA official we spoke with expressed similar concerns about the  proposed Clean Air Act exemption. He also stated that because DOD has  an extensive planning process, and readiness activities are generally  planned ahead, DOD should have time to mitigate the emissions, or work  with the states to establish a budget within the states’ implementation  plans so that an exemption to the Clean Air Act would not be needed.
section_title: Proposed RCRA Exemption
paragraphs: According to DOD’s 2006 sustainable ranges report, existing ambiguity  over whether the RCRA definition of “solid waste” is applicable to military  munitions located on operational ranges had generated litigation by  private plaintiffs seeking to curtail or terminate munitions-related training  at operational ranges. The report also asserted that future litigation of this  nature, if successful, could force remediation at operational ranges,  effectively precluding live-fire training. However, DOD was not able to  provide any examples of where a private citizen’s RCRA lawsuit had  affected training on an operational range. Although live-fire training  restrictions have been imposed at the Eagle River Flats Impact Area at  Fort Richardson, Alaska, the restrictions were not the result of any  litigation. The Army imposed the firing restrictions in 1991 following  completion of an environmental assessment that established a link  between firing munitions containing white phosphorus and waterfowl  mortality at Eagle River Flats. We discussed DOD’s concerns about RCRA  and the definition of “solid waste” with officials of EPA’s Office of Federal  Facilities Enforcement and Office of Federal Facilities and Restoration.  These officials told us that, to address DOD’s concerns, EPA developed  the 1997 Military Munitions Rule, which states that military munitions are  not considered to be solid waste when they are used for their intended  purpose on an operational range. The EPA officials also said that to date  they have never required DOD to clean up an operational range, unless  contamination is migrating off the range, which could occur through  polluted groundwater.
With regard to the proposed exemption from RCRA, opponents have  included state attorneys general and NGOs such as CPEO, NRDC, and  PEER. They have asserted that granting DOD the exemptions could  weaken federal and state oversight. Specifically, in written comments to  the Office of Management and Budget on DOD’s 2004 legislative proposals  for the National Defense Authorization Act, EPA stated that it was  concerned that the exemptions would result in states’ oversight agencies  having to wait for human health and environmental effects to occur  beyond the boundaries of the operational range before taking action. This  delay could increase the costs and time to respond. Other organizations  expressed similar concerns about the exemptions preempting federal or  state authority. The opponents also noted that the exemptions were not  needed, as RCRA contains national security provisions allowing the  President to exempt DOD facilities from any statutory or regulatory  authority on a case-by-case basis. However, DOD has not invoked this  case-by-case exemption for training or readiness-related activities.
section_title: Proposed CERCLA Exemption
paragraphs: DOD officials said the department is concerned that the firing of munitions  on operational ranges could be considered a “release” under CERCLA,  which could then trigger CERCLA requirements that would require  removal or remedial actions on operational ranges. However, DOD  officials could not provide any examples of when this had actually  occurred. On the contrary, DOD officials told us that EPA and the states  generally do not seek to regulate the use of munitions on operational  ranges under RCRA or CERCLA. Cognizant EPA officials also told us that  EPA generally did not impose regulatory requirements on operational  ranges. Further, EPA, in written comments to the Office of Management  and Budget on DOD’s 2004 legislative proposals for the National Defense  Authorization Act, stated that it had been judicious in the use of the  various authorities it has over operational ranges.
Opponents from states and NGOs such as CPEO, NRDC, and PEER, have  similar concerns with DOD’s proposed exemption from CERCLA as they  do with the RCRA exemption discussed previously. They contend that  granting DOD the exemptions could weaken federal and state oversight  and may delay any remediation action. They also note that the proposed  exemption is not needed, as CERCLA contains a case-by-case exemption,  which has not been invoked by DOD. In addition, similar concerns were  expressed by EPA in its written comments to the Office of Management  and Budget on DOD’s 2004 legislative proposals for the National Defense  Authorization Act.
section_title: Congress Lacks a Sound Basis for Assessing the Need to Enact the Three Proposed Exemptions
paragraphs: Because DOD has not provided any specific examples to support  assertions that its training activities have been hindered by the  requirements of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, or CERCLA, Congress lacks a  sound basis for assessing the need to enact these three remaining  exemptions. Also, DOD has not demonstrated that it considered any other  options that could provide the benefits it desires. Nor has the department  provided any data related to the expected costs and risks—financial,  environmental, or otherwise—of the proposed exemptions. Similarly, DOD  has not demonstrated the cost of any workarounds necessitated by the  need to comply with the Clean Air Act, RCRA, or CERCLA, and it has thus  far not been able to show any risks to military readiness or national  security if the exemptions are not granted. Until DOD develops a  substantiated argument in support of its proposed exemptions from the  Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, it will have little on which to base  these requests.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD’s commitment to being a good neighbor to the communities where  many servicemembers and their families live, the desire to avoid litigation,  and the need to maintain its training areas in good condition provide DOD  with incentives to be a good environmental steward. In addition, there is  little evidence to suggest that the exemptions to environmental laws that  DOD has already been granted have had adverse consequences for animal  species or their habitat on military installations. Nevertheless, there is also  little evidence to support the position that providing DOD additional  environmental exemptions, such as those that have been proposed from  provisions of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, would benefit DOD  training activities or improve military readiness. Without a sound business  case that demonstrates the benefits and adverse effects on training and  readiness, costs, and risk associated with the proposed exemptions, DOD  will have little on which to base any further requests, and Congress will  have difficulty determining whether additional exemptions from  environmental laws are warranted.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: Should DOD plan to pursue exemptions from the Clean Air Act, RCRA,  CERCLA, or other environmental laws in the future, we recommend that  the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for  Installations and Environment and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense  for Readiness to jointly develop a sound business case that includes  detailed qualitative and quantitative analyses assessing the associated  benefits, costs, and risks of the proposed exemptions from environmental  laws.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, the Principal Deputy within  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness  partially concurred with our recommendation, agreeing that a sound  business case with good qualitative and quantitative analysis should be  developed in association with future environmental provisions. However,  DOD believes that past provisions involving clarifications to  environmental laws were largely supported with the rationale and  supporting information necessary to constitute a sound business case and  does not accept the premise that the readiness and training imperatives or  associated risks were not conveyed to the extent feasible for the Clean Air  Act, RCRA, and CERCLA provisions. As our report clearly stated, DOD has  not provided any specific examples to support its assertions that its  training activities have been hindered by the requirements of the Clean Air  Act, RCRA, or CERCLA. Also, DOD has not demonstrated that it  considered any other options that could provide the benefits it desires.  Nor has the department provided any data related to the expected costs  and risks—financial, environmental, or otherwise—of the proposed  exemptions. Our report does not discuss the rationale and information  used to support past provisions. We continue to believe that DOD has not  provided adequate support for its assertion that its training activities have  been hindered by the requirements of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and  CERCLA. We stand by our recommendation that DOD needs to present a  sound business case, including associated benefits, costs, and risks should  it pursue future exemptions from these or other environmental laws.
DOD strongly disagreed with our use of the term “exemptions” as applied  to its Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, which it believes  unnecessarily reinforces the perception that DOD has sought to avoid its  environmental stewardship responsibilities. First, the term “exemption” is  not defined in the body of environmental law relevant to this report. Our  intent is to use a single term throughout the report for consistency and  readability, although we recognize that each of the Readiness and Range  Preservation Initiative provisions affect change by various means in  various environmental laws. We describe each of those provisions on  pages 2 and 3, pages 13 through 17, and in footnotes 6 through 12. Second,  our report acknowledges that DOD’s environmental stewardship of its  natural resources has achieved positive results and that it has been  proactive in its management of endangered and threatened species.
DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. DOD also provided  technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretaries of Defense,  Commerce, and the Interior; the Administrator of the Environmental  Protection Agency; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air  Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of  Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon  request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our Web  site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the effects, if any, of environmental laws and the  Department of Defense’s (DOD) use of exemptions to the Migratory Bird  Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered  Species Acton training activities and military readiness, we judgmentally  selected and visited 17 military training locations throughout the  continental United States, which included training sites from each military  service component, to directly observe the effects of environmental laws  and DOD’s use of exemptions on training activities, military readiness, and  the environment. These locations included Aberdeen Proving Ground,  Maryland; Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Naval Station  Norfolk, Naval Air Station Oceana, and Dam Neck Annex, Virginia; Naval  Air Station Fallon, Nevada; Fort Irwin, Naval Base Coronado, Naval Air  Station North Island, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island,  and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California; Marine Corps Base  Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Avon Park Air Force Range and Eglin Air  Force Base, Florida; and Luke Air Force Base and Barry M. Goldwater  Range, Arizona. These installations were identified and selected based on  our previous work involving some installations experiencing  encroachment and sustainable training range issues. DOD concurred that  the installations we selected continue to have problems in this area and  stated that these locations would provide an important perspective of  some of the challenges DOD faces to comply with environmental laws.  Because the installations were judgmentally selected, the specific  challenges faced at these selected locations can not be generalized across  all of DOD. We obtained documents and reports describing the effects of  environmental laws and exemptions on training and readiness and the  need for workarounds to meet training requirements from DOD officials  responsible for managing military training. We compared and contrasted  data on training requirements with actual training activities to identify  examples—in terms of the number of training days, types of training  activities, unit readiness ratings, and costs—where training was affected  by environmental requirements and DOD’s use of environmental  exemptions. We also met with service officials responsible for managing  readiness data for each service. These officials provided us with unit  readiness data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, which included some  commander comment summaries describing, when applicable, why a unit  had not met its unit training requirements. Our review of these data  allowed us to assess whether environmental restrictions imposed on DOD  installations had an impact on unit readiness. Furthermore, we conducted  literature searches, and reviewed studies completed by other audit  agencies and research companies such as the Congressional Research  Service, the Center for Naval Analysis, and the RAND Corporation, to  review previous findings and conclusions of how environmental laws may  have affected military training and readiness. In addition, we met with  officials responsible for planning, managing, and executing unit training to  gain an understanding of how these officials assisted military units to meet  training requirements while addressing environmental laws. We also met  with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and  headquarters officials from each of the military services to obtain their  perspectives on the effects of environmental laws and the use of  environmental exemptions on military training activities and readiness.
To determine the effects, if any, of DOD’s use of exemptions from the  Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the  Endangered Species Act on the environment, we visited the 17  installations mentioned, reviewed related reports and studies, and  examined some installations’ integrated natural resources management  plans to determine how natural resources, such as migratory birds, marine  mammals, and endangered species and their habitats are protected on  DOD lands during military training exercises. We also met with officials  from other federal regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), to determine how these regulatory agencies  were overseeing and managing natural resource conservation activities  conducted on military training areas and to obtain their perspective of  how well DOD is doing in protecting its natural resources. We also met  with officials from OSD and service offices, such as officials from the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the  Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and  Environment; the Office of the General Counsel for Environment and  Installations, OSD; the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for  Environment, Safety and Occupational Health; the Office of the Assistant  Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; the Operational  Environmental Readiness and Planning Branch and the Training Ranges  and Fleet Readiness Branch, Chief of Naval Operations; the Environmental  Management Program Office, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps; the Deputy  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety, and  Occupational Health; the Air Force Center for Engineering and the  Environment; and the Ranges and Air Space Division, Headquarters U.S.
Air Force. During these meetings, we discussed the statutory  environmental requirements DOD must follow when conducting military  training activities at its installations and training areas. To obtain a  balanced perspective on the progress DOD has achieved in managing  natural resources on its lands, we met with officials from  nongovernmental organizations, such as the Natural Resources Defense  Council (NRDC), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility  (PEER), the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Public  Environmental Oversight, the Endangered Species Coalition, and the  RAND Corporation. These officials provided us with their perspective on  how well DOD has done in protecting the natural resources, such as  endangered species and their habitat located on DOD lands, migratory  birds, and marine mammals.
To assess the extent to which DOD has demonstrated that proposed  statutory exemptions from the Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act would help the department to achieve its  training and readiness goals, we reviewed the department’s most recent  annual sustainable range reports, its Readiness and Range Preservation  Initiative, and other documents for elements of a sound business case. In  addition, we reviewed documents that provided the perspective of federal  and state regulatory agencies, such as EPA, state and local air pollution  control program officials, state environmental commissioners, state  attorneys general, county and municipal governments, and  nongovernmental organizations, such as the Center for Public  Environmental Oversight, NRDC, and PEER, on the potential impact to the  environment if these exemptions were granted. We also discussed the  topic with officials from OSD, the military services, and EPA. During these  meetings, we discussed the potential benefits and problems associated  with the proposed statutory exemptions. During our visits to the military  installations identified previously, we also obtained military service  officials’ perspectives on the potential effects of using the proposed  statutory exemptions on training activities, military readiness, and the  environment. Additionally, we compared the elements of a sound business  case and what DOD provided to Congress to assess whether DOD had  demonstrated a need for the three remaining exemptions.
On the basis of information obtained from the military services on the  reliability of their unit readiness data, our discussions with DOD, military  service, and NGO officials, and our review and analysis of documents and  reports describing the effects of environmental requirements and statutory  exemptions on training activities, military readiness, and the environment,  we believe that the data used in this report are sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. The time periods encompassed by the data used in this report  vary for each of our objectives depending on the date ranges for which  each type of data was available. We conducted this performance audit  from June 2007 through March 2008 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 obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Mark A. Little, Assistant Director;  Vijaykumar Barnabas; Susan Ditto; Jason Jackson; Arthur James; Richard  Johnson; Oscar Mardis; Patricia McClure; Jacqueline Snead McColl;  Anthony Paras; Charles Perdue; and Karen Thornton made major  contributions to this report.