Encroachment Concerns
Asst. Secretary of the Navy H.T. Johnson
Major Initiative launched to protect our quality of life!
___________________
Sign & Circulate the Petition!
Email SanteeCitizens@cox.net
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment)
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350-1000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Navy on the World Wide Web
A service of the Navy Office of Information, Washington DC
send feedback/questions to comments@chinfo.navy.mil
The United States Navy web site is found on the Internet at
http://www.navy.mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF
H. T. JOHNSON
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
BEFORE THE MILITARY READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENCROACHMENT ISSUES
14 MARCH 2002
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am H. T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the Department of the Navy's (DON) environmental and encroachment concerns.
Sustained Readiness
Military readiness is essential to the security of the United States, to the protection of the lives and well-being of our citizens, and to the preservation of our freedoms, economic prosperity, and our national heritage. A well-trained military is a principal component of military readiness. To be well-trained and prepared, Sailors and Marines must train in the same manner as they fight. Military lands and training ranges (including land, sea and air training and operating areas) exist to ensure military preparedness by providing realistic training opportunities, including the use of live ordnance.
Having experienced combat firsthand, I can assure you that there is no substitute for training. Studies from past military campaigns have shown that aviation combat losses drop significantly after a pilot has experienced the first five decisive engagements. While there can be no substitute for combat experience, effective, realistic training is, surprisingly, quantifiably more valuable. The ratio of enemy aircraft shot down to U.S. aircraft lost in aerial combat in Vietnam improved from less than 1-to-1 to 13-to-1 after the Navy established its Navy Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as TOPGUN. More recent data shows aircrews that have recently received realistic training in the delivery of precision guided munitions, like those being used against terrorist encampments in Afghanistan, have twice the hit to miss ratio. Effective, realistic training is what melds our highly motivated Sailors and Marines with their advanced weapons and weapons systems into America's superior military force.
In a world where advanced weapons and sensors are available for the right price, no amount of technology, hardware, personnel or leadership can substitute for realistic training. When ground forces ashore call for gunfire or close air support in future combat, we cannot afford to have the ship or aircraft crew learn on the job. We must ensure that our men and women are prepared to succeed from the first moment they come under enemy fire.
Population growth, economic development, increased land use, expansion of conservation and recreational areas, and urban and suburban sprawl, along with state and federal environmental laws and regulations, have significantly restricted the military's access to and use of military lands, training ranges, and at-sea Operating Areas (OPAREAS), and limited its ability to engage in live-fire training. This phenomenon – sometimes referred to as "encroachment" – has markedly restricted the military's ability to train realistically and, unless checked, promises to produce further restrictions in the future.
Access restrictions have already affected the way we train our forces, sacrificing rigor and realism and will continue to erode it unless this trend is reversed. In some cases, the application of certain environmental laws and regulations to military lands and training ranges challenges their primary mission as locations for military training.
Military Environmental Stewardship
Our goal is to enhance readiness, not to roll back environmental protection. We are not looking for an exemption for everything the military does, but a balanced approach between environmental concerns and unique military readiness needs.
The DON makes a considerable investment in its environmental stewardship. Our environmental budget request for FY-2003 is $1.2 billion, the same as the amount appropriated in FY-2002. This funding supports basic environmental compliance, conservation and pollution prevention functions at our bases. It also funds environmental
research and development of new technologies, and cleanup of contamination at active and reserve bases, as well as those bases closed under previous Base Closure and Realignment authority.
Among the elements of our national heritage protected by the shield of military readiness is our Nation's environment – our land, air, and water, as well as the fish, wildlife, and plant species that inhabit them. In addition to defending against foreign threats, the military acts as trustee, helping to protect the environment by its prudent and conscientious management of natural resources. Largely as a result of this stewardship, military lands present favorable habitats for plants and wildlife, including protected species.
The DoD is a recognized leader in environmental stewardship and will continue to protect the Nation and the environment. We must have the flexibility to use military lands and at-sea (OPAREAS) for national defense as the first priority. There are numerous examples of environmental considerations that limit training opportunities, and increase the challenge of sustaining readiness.Let me describe in more details some specific examples of particular interest to the DON.
Endangered Species Act
The designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can undermine the purposes for which military lands have been setaside. Under the ESA, if an agency action may affect critical habitat,that agency is required to ensure that its action does not destroy oradversely modify designated habitat. We believe that designation of critical habitat on lands under military control will adversely affectmilitary readiness. The courts have held that critical habitat isintended for species recovery. Hence, the designation of criticalhabitat is a bar to any land use, including military training, that diminishes the value of that land for species recovery.
The DoD is already obligated under the Sikes Act to develop IntegratedNatural Resource Management Plans (INRMP) for lands under militarycontrol. These INRMPs address management of natural resources in thecontext of the military mission for which the lands were placed underthe control of the military services. Because INRMPs are prepared incooperation with FWS and state agencies, these agencies recommend waysfor DoD installations to better provide for species conservation andrecovery. The Sikes Act, however, preserves the principal purpose ofproviding the military with lands on which to test, train, and supportmilitary readiness.
Nowhere is the potential impact of critical habitat designation on theuse of military lands for military training more apparent than inSouthern California and especially with respect to Marine Corps basesin that locale. In February and March 2000, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) proposed designation of 16,000 acres (more than half) ofMarine Corps Air Station, Miramar for critical habitat. Areas proposedfor designation included runways and other structures, although therunways and facilities themselves were not included. FWS also proposedcritical habitat designation on about 57 percent of Marine Corps Base,Camp Pendleton, an installation of 126,000-acres. At Miramar, theMarines were able to convince FWS that the INRMP provided sufficientspecies protections; therefore, no formal critical habitat designationwas made. At Camp Pendleton, FWS determined that the harm to militaryreadiness was greater than the value of critical habitat designation,and scaled back its designation. Non-federal entities are unhappy withthese results, however, and are challenging these decisions in court.
If the challenges are successful, critical habitat designation atMiramar could impede the construction and use of ground supportfacilities, such as a rifle range. The Marine Corps will also have toconsult with FWS for the use of existing runways and other aviationsupport facilities. At Camp Pendleton, a loss could require the MarineCorps to consult on training on 57 percent of the base. The Corps is already modifying training on that portion of the base currently designated as critical habitat: Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) amphibious landing exercises are seasonally restricted to only one beach at Camp Pendleton. In March 2000, the 13th MEU was restricted to 500 yards out of 17 miles of beach because of a number of encroachment restrictions, including endangered species. Instead of a realistic night time amphibious landing, units coming ashore on Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) vehicles were off-loaded at the LCAC facility before moving inland to continue the exercise. They did not go through the full kinds of training required to prepare to take a hostile beach. This was a very serious degradation of training.
The Navy has worked hard to ensure that its training needs and those of endangered species such as the Western snowy plover can co-exist. Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado has been home to Navy frogmen and SEALs since their inception in World War II. All of the basic skills from diving to hydrographic reconnaissance have been taught on the beaches and in the bays surrounding the base. Since 1996, the Navy has spent about $675,000 per year on conservation and management programs for the birds. That effort has successfully increased nesting by almost 300 percent. Nonetheless, the Navy's stewardship efforts resulted in the loss of training area. Due to encroachment, including the increase in the Western snowy plover and the Least tern population, and the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific population of the Western snowy plover by FWS in December 1999, NAB Coronado has lost the use of over 80 percent of its training beaches. The Navy has had to substantially alter training activities or to conduct them elsewhere, both of which disrupt training cycles, increase costs and the already considerable time Sailors must spend away from their families before leaving for 6-month deployments.
Rather than allowing successful stewardship to evolve into an infringement on training, there must be incentives that encourage continued conservation efforts. The Navy implemented a protection program for the endangered California Least tern and Western snowy plover at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, CA. Nests were relocated or marked, and areas with marked nests were avoided during training exercises. Over the period of 1993 through 2001, the number of Least tern nests increased 600 percent and the number of snowy plover increased 300 percent. However, the FWS continues to allow the Navy an incidental take only 10 Least tern nests and one snowy plover nest annually. The Navy has had to move, scale back or drop its amphibious training exercises because of the potential to exceed the number of incidental takes allowed. The Navy has requested an increase in the number of these unintentional takes. This would allow more effective training while continuing our successful stewardship of these endangered species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Litigation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may result in restrictions on training at ranges and operating areas. MBTA was enacted more than 80 years ago to regulate commercial duck hunting and conservation of migratory birds. Since a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, the MBTA has been viewed by some as a vehicle for regulating a wide range of activities that affect nearly every species of bird.
Based on the Circuit Court decision, third parties have filed suit challenging the unintentional taking of migratory birds incidental to military training. The Navy has been sued over its use of a small, uninhabited island in the Western Pacific as a target range because the Navy does not have a permit for indirect take of migratory birds. We are concerned by the potential impact of these MBTA claims on training ranges and activities and are working within the Administration to address this issue.
The basic competition between military and conservation interests in the use of on-base resources highlights one area where we have a strong common interest: preservation and enhancement of undeveloped off-base land, water and air resources. Both military and conservation interests have a major stake in preserving and enhancing the remaining open space surrounding military installations. Recognition of this common interest has led to discussions with state and local governments, as well as non-governmental organizations to develop a partnership approach to addressing our mutual concerns.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Access for military purposes is an issue at sea, as well as ashore. The Marine Mammal Protection Act's definition of "harassment" has been a source of confusion since the definition was included in 1994 amendments to the statute. The statute defines "harassment" in terms of "annoyance" or the "potential to disturb," vague standards that are difficult to interpret. The definition of harassment and its application are pivotal because an authorization to harass marine mammals must be obtained in advance of any activity that would be deemed to constitute harassment. The Navy has had to alter or halt its training and research efforts to eliminate even the possibility that a training event will disturb a marine mammal to avoid the delays and uncertainty with getting a permit under this ambiguous standard. A clearer definition of harassment is needed. We are working with other interested Departments on a legislative proposal to clarify the definition of harassment. The recent recommendations of the National Research Council that focus harassment on significant disruptions to behaviors critical to survival and reproduction may be a worthy approach for this Administration to consider. Military training plans could then incorporate these standards in a consistent, balanced manner.
Balancing Military Readiness and the Environment
The DoD is working within the Administration to identify ways to sustain the readiness of our forces. We must ensure the appropriate balance between military readiness and the environment, clarifying ambiguous statutory and regulatory requirements, finding more flexible ways to protect the environment, and working with conservation organizations to protect the environment within, as well as outside the fence of our bases.
We began discussions about sustained readiness with senior
representatives within the Administration early this year, including the Office of Management and Budget, the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, and the Environmental Protection agency. These discussions continue as we seek to inform these agencies of the difficulties that we are experiencing and seek the best solutions for the Nation.
We recognize that there are many stakeholders outside the federal government who will have a voice in arriving at an appropriate balance between military readiness and the environment. We will reach out to these groups. We are beginning discussions with States and interested parties to explain the difficulties we face in sustaining readiness and to hear their thoughts. Those efforts will accelerate once the Administration has a unified position and proposed solution.
While efforts continue within the Administration, we are working to develop better methods to gauge the impact of different factors on readiness. Because many measures of readiness are dependent on the judgment of senior commanders with the requisite expertise, this has proven to be a difficult task. The problem is further compounded by the seasonal nature of some restrictions and the need to have our forces trained and ready to respond when called on by the President. Nevertheless, we are developing some promising new ideas to examine the problem. While access restrictions have already affected the way we train our forces, our goal is to find objective methods that measure the access our forces have to the training they need when they need it, as well as the quality and fidelity of that training.
Cooperative Research
Part of the solution is a better understanding of wildlife and marine mammal behaviors that share the environment in which we train and operate. The Navy has taken a very active role in sharing its relevant data and research findings with academia, and funding studies to broaden the scientific base.
For example, the Navy has an extensive research program with prominent academic institutions such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Cornell University, University of Washington, University of Hawaii, and Oregon State University to study the effects of underwater sound on the marine environment. The Navy plans to spend over $8 million this year, continuing efforts begun six years ago to broaden the scientific base.
In a similar vein, two years ago the Navy initiated an Effects of Sound on the Marine Environment Program. This effort brings together field experts from all levels of academia. All stand to gain from a better understanding of underwater acoustics.
The Navy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Marine Mammal Commission will sponsor a conference on shipping noise this fall. We hope to attract shipping companies, shipbuilders and shipowners. NOAA will discuss studies that raise concerns about increases in overall ocean ambient noise levels, while the Navy will share acoustic databases and types of ship quieting technologies that could be considered by commercial fleets.
Perhaps one of the best examples of cooperation is the
interagency and interstate effort to protect the Northern right whale along the eastern seaboard. Navy has funded aerial surveys and used its underwater sensors to collect information on right whale movements, and disseminates this information through a coordination center established at Naval Station Jacksonville, Florida to Naval, commercial, and private vessel operators.
Real Property Used for Natural Resource Conservation
Another part of the solution may involve new approaches to management of real estate. The DoD is considering a number of proposals dealing with the disposal and purchase of real estate that could address encroachment issues.
In other cases, the military interest may best be served by legislative authority that allows the Department to work with conservation organizations to purchase land or easements that limit development and preserve natural habitat adjacent to military ranges and operating areas.
Section 1041 Report
Section 1041 of the FY-2002 Defense Authorization Act directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report to the President and the Congress on the need for a "Defense Impact Review Process." This process would, if enacted, provide the DoD the opportunity to review the proposed actions of other Federal agencies in order to identify those actions that may have an adverse impact on national defense. We believe that just as the DoD must consider resource protection and conservation when formulating programs or actions, so should other federal agencies consider national defense considerations. We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the other Services to prepare the required report.
CONCLUSION
We are working within the Administration to identify ways to sustain the readiness of our forces. Although military commanders do an outstanding job of protecting and restoring natural resources in the areas used to train our people, urbanization and rigid application of some environmental requirements threatens our ability to train our Sailors and Marines to be ready for combat when the President calls. And before they go into combat, we need to ensure they have the best training available, not only what is adequate. We need to ensure the appropriate balance between military readiness and the environment.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to working with the Committee and staff to best support our Sailors, Marines, and our Nation.