[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-64]
LAND-BASED RANGES: BUILDING
MILITARY READINESS WHILE
PROTECTING NATURAL AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-479 WASHINGTON : 2022
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ROB BISHOP, Utah
JASON CROW, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico MO BROOKS, Alabama
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
John Muller, Professional Staff Member
Sean Falvey, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.............................. 2
WITNESSES
Gillis, Jordan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Installations, Energy, and Environment, Department of the
Army........................................................... 3
Mellon, Todd C., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Energy, Installations, and Environment, Department of the
Navy........................................................... 5
Miller, Jennifer, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Installations, Environment, and Energy, Department of
the Air Force.................................................. 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Garamendi, Hon. John......................................... 27
Gillis, Jordan............................................... 30
Lamborn, Hon. Doug........................................... 28
Mellon, Todd C............................................... 35
Miller, Jennifer............................................. 44
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Letter from Representative Grijalva.......................... 51
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Haaland.................................................. 57
Ms. Torres Small............................................. 57
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Escobar.................................................. 63
Ms. Haaland.................................................. 66
Ms. Torres Small............................................. 63
LAND-BASED RANGES: BUILDING MILITARY
READINESS WHILE PROTECTING NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 12, 2020.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Garamendi. This committee will come to order.
A couple of things, some housekeeping, before I read a very
brief statement.
I expect to have some Representatives from Nevada joining
us. So, I ask unanimous consent that non-committee-members, if
any, be allowed to participate in today's hearing after the
committee members have the opportunity to ask questions, as
long as we get out of here by 3:30.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Amodei, it is based on
his good behavior. I will just--and I agree, I give consent.
Mr. Garamendi. To my knowledge, Mr. Amodei has never
displayed good behavior. We will keep that in mind.
So, without objection, non-committee-members will be
recognized at the appropriate time.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I call to order this hearing of
the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.
Our land-based training ranges are the foundation of the
military services' training and testing capability. They are
places where new weapons, tactics, and techniques are tested.
They are also places where our service members get vital
training prior to being deployed overseas.
We are told that, even with the advances in simulator and
virtual training technology, there is no place for live-fire
training evolution--no replacement. The associated feedback
from range instructors prior to deployment to a combat area is
absolutely essential.
While the importance of these ranges is paramount, as with
every military installation, the services must ensure that the
ranges are also good neighbors. Many have asked if readiness
and stewardship of the natural and cultural resources are
inherently incompatible. The answer is an unequivocal ``no.''
Effective communication, relationships, and use of tools
such as integrated natural resource management plans and on-
installation cultural resource managers and early consultations
with Tribes and other stakeholders will ensure that these
ranges meet readiness requirements and remain viable into
future generations.
This is especially true for the proposed expansion of two
of our Nation's premier air-to-ground training and testing
facilities. The Fallon Range Complex and the Nevada Test and
Training Range propose significant expansions and have
considerable implications for the surrounding communities,
including Native Americans.
Due to the size and the nature of the expansions,
stakeholders ranging from Governors to Tribal governments, to
environmental groups, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, have all
expressed concerns about the proposals. The services must
engage in effective communication and with all stakeholders so
that their concerns are at least understood and, if possible,
addressed.
Today's witnesses oversee the processes and the personnel
that attempt to balance these equities to ensure that the
services maximize readiness while still addressing the concerns
of non-military stakeholders. I look forward to hearing their
testimonies.
With that, I yield to my ranking member and friend, Doug
Lamborn of Colorado.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in
the Appendix on page 27.]
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that and for
having this hearing.
I am going to ask that my full statement be entered into
the record without me reciting it. However, I do want to stress
that, yes----
Mr. Garamendi. First, without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
And there are some definite Natural Resources Committee
issues here that we all respect, such as protecting the
environment, Tribal consultation, energy development, access to
hunting, and other kinds of issues.
I do want to say that Ranking Member Rob Bishop of that
full committee and myself on this subcommittee and maybe a few
others are on both committees. And we will work--and hopefully
there is a great working relationship with them as we go
forward on this, because they do have primary jurisdiction on
the reservation and expansion issue.
However, I want to stress, this is a unique public land.
There are national security implications for not doing the
expansion and withdrawal that I think would be very
detrimental.
So, yes, let's look at all of the concerns, but, to me,
first and foremost, there are national security concerns with
making sure that both of these ranges are fully functional
many, many years into the future.
And, with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn can be found in the
Appendix on page 28.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Before I move on to the witnesses, we did receive a letter
from Chairman Grijalva. We will put that into the record and
make sure that all the members have a copy of that letter.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 51.]
Mr. Garamendi. He did point out that, yep, they do have
primary jurisdiction in the House Natural Resources Committee.
He did also thank us for our work in collaborating with them.
He did express concerns about the many facets of the
current proposals, including their impact on natural resources
and Tribal lands. He asked that we continue to work closely
with them.
We may or may not have a double referral, depending upon
how well we are able to resolve the issues that are out there.
I would hope that we are able to resolve the issues, allow the
committee to review, and avoid a double referral. Okay?
With that, let's get on with the witnesses: Mr. Jordan
Gillis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Energy, Installations, and Environment; Mr. Todd Mellon,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy,
Installations, and Environment; and Ms. Jennifer Miller,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Energy, Installations, and Environment.
Your formal testimony will be in the record. I suggest you
not read the whole thing but summarize, and we will move along
here.
Which one of you would like to start? Army? Navy? Do we get
to fight that out?
Mr. Mellon. We will let the oldest go first.
Mr. Gillis. The oldest service, that is.
Mr. Garamendi. Yeah. Okay.
STATEMENT OF JORDAN GILLIS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND
ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Gillis. Thank you, sir. So, I will be brief and
summarize.
Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on this important topic. It is always an honor to be in
front of the subcommittee, and it is always a pleasure to
appear alongside my colleagues.
Land is the most important resource--or one of the most
important resources needed to accomplish Army training. It
provides commanders and units maneuver space and weapons range
complexes to execute individual, crew, collective, and unit
operational training requirements, as well as provide space to
conduct programs of instruction for Army institutional
locations.
For the Army, our ranges are more than just the places that
have ``range'' in their title. For example, in CONUS
[contiguous United States], two of our most important ranges
are the National Training Center [NTC] at Fort Irwin,
California, and the Joint Readiness Training Center [JRTC] at
Fort Polk, Louisiana.
And beyond that, then there are all of the training areas
around the country where units prepare for events like NTC and
JRTC and real-world operations.
I will just reiterate here that, to better illustrate that,
you all have open invitations to participate in--or, well,
probably witness--a parachute drop in Fort Bragg or ride in an
armored vehicle in the maneuver lanes at Fort Stewart or Fort
Riley or anything or anywhere else under the Army purview.
Mr. Garamendi. I would remind you, the committee has taken
extensive testimony on rollovers, and we are cautious.
Mr. Gillis. Sir, I understand.
The key drivers of Army training land requirements are
Department of Defense guidance, notably the National Defense
Strategy, and then evolving joint and Army doctrine and
training strategies and modernization efforts.
Based on those, since 2004, the Army has invested
approximately $3.5 billion in military construction projects
that have modernized, improved, and acquired Army ranges and
training lands.
That includes the successful acquisition of approximately
275,000 acres of new training land through a planning process
that assesses requirements against available land contiguous or
near existing Army installations.
Most installations were established decades ago, some well
over a century ago, at remote locations intentionally selected
to minimize impacts to the local community. Today, these
communities have grown. Our installations share a special bond
with them. Our soldiers and their families contribute to the
local economy and attend the local schools.
However, the growth of these communities has resulted in an
increase of encroachment issues that impact training. But the
Army is dedicated to working with the local communities to
mitigate encroachment challenges through numerous programs,
including the Army Compatible Use Buffer program and DOD's
[Department of Defense's] Readiness and Environment Protection
Integration Program.
At the installation level, the master planning process at
any installation with significant holdings includes an
integrated natural resources management plan and an integrated
cultural resources management plan. These plans and programs
demonstrate the Army's commitment to management strategies that
sustain Army readiness while we serve as stewards of natural
and cultural resources.
So, to summarize, or to conclude, readiness is the Army's
top priority. Ranges and training land are direct enablers of
readiness. We value what we have and strive to be good stewards
and good neighbors, while not losing sight of the fact that all
this is in support of our mission to provide an operationally
ready force.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
Thank you for your continued support of the Army's soldiers,
civilians, and families. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillis can be found in the
Appendix on page 30.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Mr. Mellon.
STATEMENT OF TODD C. MELLON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND
ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Mr. Mellon. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn,
distinguished members of the Readiness Committee, and other
congressional Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on the Department of the Navy's land-based ranges.
The use of land-based ranges is essential for us to meet
critical priorities outlined in the National Defense Strategy,
which, among other things, requires us to prepare for peer and
non-peer competitors. Congress has placed public lands in our
custody for this purpose.
To ensure we can train on these lands frequently,
repeatedly, we protect and manage the natural and cultural
resources entrusted to us. We believe that military readiness
and good stewardship go hand in hand, and the Department has an
excellent track record of balancing these priorities.
The Department of the Navy conducts training activities on
lands and in designated airspace across the country and in
cooperation with many partners, including State governments,
Tribal governments, and private landowners.
In particular, we value the collaboration with the
Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies. In
recent years, we have experienced a high level of partnership
to balance national security with the needs and goals of our
country to manage our natural resources.
The importance of our ordnance ranges for naval gunfire,
aviation, and combined arms training cannot be overstated.
Training in a real-world environment that is representative of
current and future weapons capabilities is essential in
ensuring our warfighters are fully prepared to survive in
combat.
While virtual and constructive training is an important
element in building warfighter skills, it cannot replicate all
the skills that must be honed prior to an actual enemy
engagement. Some of these skills can only be obtained through
hands-on, realistic training.
We recognize frequent and repeated use of live-fire ranges
has a potential to affect the environment. Those ranges also
provide an important habitat for wildlife, including endangered
species, and contain important cultural resources. To address
this, we consult and partner with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and State natural resource agencies to prepare and
implement robust, integrated natural resource management plans.
These partnerships have been very effective and beneficial to
improving wildlife populations and habitat.
With regard to cultural resources, we develop integrated
cultural resource management plans in partnership with State
historic preservation offices and Tribal leadership. We are
proud of our efforts to safeguard the many cultural sites on
our installations, which includes over 15,000 archeological
sites and over 20,000 historical structures.
The Department of the Navy is currently working on several
withdrawal actions, of which one is a land withdrawal extension
for El Centro Range Complex in California with no change in
area or purpose. On another, we are working with the Air Force
to extend the withdrawal for the Barry Goldwater Range in
Arizona. And, lastly, with regard to the Fallon Range Training
Complex, we are proposing an extension and expansion of the
complex and a change in purpose to include tactical ground
mobility training for Sea, Air, Land--SEAL--teams.
In closing, the Department has a proven track record of
environmental stewardship and working with our partners. We
remain committed to collaborating with State, local, Tribal,
and Federal Government agencies to deliver the range
capabilities the Department of the Navy requires to meet
present and future challenges of our peer and near-peer
competitors in a manner that protects natural and cultural
resources.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mellon can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Ms. Miller.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER MILLER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND
ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Ms. Miller. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to
represent airmen and senior Air Force leaders today.
My full written statement has been submitted for the
record. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic
vital to military readiness and national military strategy, the
withdrawal extension and expansion of the Nevada Test and
Training Range, or NTTR.
The Air Force understands that we are temporary stewards of
the NTTR and take seriously that responsibility with which we
are entrusted. It is through that lens that we look forward to
discussing proposals to meet our expanding requirements while
preserving this land for future generations.
The Air Force is currently working to withdraw two ranges,
the NTTR and the Barry M. Goldwater Range just mentioned, or
BMGR, in Arizona. We plan to use some of the best practices
from the BMGR as the basis for the upcoming NTTR renewal.
The NTTR is the crown jewel in Air Force test and training.
It is the best location in the world to train our warfighters.
Only at the NTTR can we integrate all aspects of air warfare in
a manner similar to what our airmen will see in real combat.
This is due to two factors: the sheer size and remoteness of
the NTTR and the huge $8 billion range infrastructure. We
maximize this NTTR investment with between 16- and 24-hour-a-
day operations. The NTTR cannot be replicated elsewhere.
The NTTR is over capacity. Without an expansion, the NTTR
will fail to meet military training requirements. This
extension can increase its capacity by up to 30 percent.
Five years ago, we began the process of developing a
legislative environmental impact statement, or LEIS, for the
NTTR withdrawal renewal. We used that process to balance
mission requirements with minimal impacts to the public,
environment, and the taxpayer.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of Energy, Nevada Department of
Wildlife, and the Nevada Association of Counties were all
formal cooperating agencies in this effort, as were 17 local
Tribes through the Consolidated Group of Tribes and
Organizations.
The Air Force has worked extensively with these and other
stakeholders over several years to develop a proposal with
almost no impact to the land or species. Our proposal would
restrict public access to some areas but only areas where
public access is already severely limited.
The NTTR currently has an 842,000-acre overlap with the
Desert National Wildlife Refuge, or the DNWR. We propose to
expand this overlap by an additional 284,000 acres to provide
public protection for the increased size of the new weapons
safety footprints.
It is important to note that we are not proposing to expand
any of the current bombing areas. The primary use of this
expansion is for this public safety buffer. It would leave the
land virtually untouched and pristine.
To increase the capacity and realism required for the high-
end fight and modern military mission, the Air Force is
proposing to allow low-impact ground access in the overlapping
portions of the DNWR.
However, in total, we plan to disturb less than 35 acres of
that potential expansion. This minor disturbance would be
limited to emplacing up to 15 equipment pads, maintaining the
existing roads, and using a dry lake bed for aircraft to drop
off small special forces teams for use in the area.
Under the current Fish and Wildlife Service restrictions,
the military cannot conduct this critical mission training in
the DNWR.
The Air Force has extensive environmental and cultural
resource programs for the NTTR. We will not only continue but
expand these programs. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not
currently spend money to manage the DNWR overlapping area.
Instead, the Air Force manages these lands in accordance with
the Sikes Act and through integrated natural and cultural
resources management plans. The Air Force spends, on average,
over $3.5 million annually on the environmental and cultural
management activities in this area.
The proposed withdrawal has been a collaborative,
multiyear, public process, weighing multiple equities to
propose the best, holistic way to manage emerging military
requirements and other Federal, State, private, and public
interests.
The Air Force modified our proposals based on requests that
we received throughout the LEIS process. We reduced the
proposed expansions to support identified recreational
activities. We will continue to enable the bighorn sheep hunts
and local Tribal access for cultural purposes. Finally, the Air
Force will support a public access program through the
cooperative development of an access management plan with
significant public input.
Thank you for inviting me to appear today and for your
continued support of our airmen. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the
Appendix on page 44.]
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller.
I note the arrival of Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
We had an extensive meeting with both the Navy and the Air
Force with regard to their proposals. Going forward, I believe
it entirely possible that we can accommodate the multiple needs
of both the military as well as surrounding community and other
interest groups.
It is going to take additional discussions and specificity
as to exactly what the military needs to do and where they need
to do it, as well as disturbances or activities that occur in
the key parts of the ranges that would make it difficult or
impossible for the military to carry out its task in either of
these two, Fallon and the Nevada Test and Training Range.
The final point I want to make is that there are solutions
to these questions. And we intend to hear from the members of
the committee about concerns that they may have, specifically
about these two that are on the table today, Fallon and the
Nevada Test and Training Range. There are other facilities that
members may be interested in, and when they have a chance to
talk, they should take that.
Mr. Lamborn, I will turn it over to you.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Ms. Miller, thanks for being here.
Thank you all for being here and what you do for our
country.
In your written testimony, you highlighted that the Nevada
test range could not accommodate some program requests due to
physical capacity constraints. Could you elaborate on that,
please?
Ms. Miller. Yes, sir. So, right now, even with operating
many days up to 24 hours a day, the Nevada Test and Training
Range does have limitations. We are turning away right now 16
percent of the programs requested to be flown on the NTTR that
we just cannot accommodate with capacity.
Each of those programs can involve hundreds of flights, so
you are talking about hundreds of sorties, and 16 percent of
those we have not been able to accommodate.
We believe with the expansion of the southern range for the
NTTR we could increase capacity by up to 30 percent, moving
some of those missions that we can now only perform in the
northwest end of the range down to be able to perform those in
the south.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Mellon, in a similar vein, it seems
counterintuitive at Fallon that we are using precision-guided
munitions and wanting to expand that use but that that requires
a larger complex, although more targeted munitions. Could you
explain what is going on there?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir. While they are much more accurate and
higher technology compared with many of our what we would
consider gravity bombs, the difference really has to do with
the delivery mode.
Due to the size constraints on the Fallon ranges today, a
typical strike mission for an air-to-ground integrated attack
would occur at altitudes of about 10,000 to 12,000 feet, and
they would be dropping ordnance from about 2 to 4 miles from
the target.
That is not at all representative of the current
operational environment, nor is it representative of the
altitude and distances we would actually employ for weapons
that we use today. Those altitudes change to closer to 30,000
feet. The speed you deliver goes from about 300 knots to about
600 knots. And the distance from target goes from that 2 to 4
miles I was discussing to 10 to 12 miles.
So, while the weapon itself is fundamentally more accurate,
the issue becomes that safety area surrounding that should
there be a mechanical failure of the weapon or the weapons
guidance system itself. It is really from a safety perspective,
should there be something that happens with the weapon or
something that happens in the procedure, to provide that
additional buffer.
The other point I will make is, our new weapons systems, in
particular the F-35, bring with it a different and higher power
targeting device in their EOTS [Electro-Optical Targeting
System] and laser system, and, with that, there is a larger
safety zone associated with what is called stray laser energy.
So, in order to protect the public from that laser targeting
system, those areas have to be larger as well.
So that is fundamentally the reason behind----
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you very much.
And my last question is for Mr. Gillis from the Army
perspective. You did mention in your, I believe, written
testimony the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. And one
thing that it did is it let the Army identify public opposition
to acquisition land down at Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, which
people at Fort Carson, which is in my district, go to train at,
although that is in another congressional district.
There is an issue now at Pinon Canyon having to do with a
natural gas pipeline that goes right through the middle of it,
and that restricts the ability to use live-fire exercises
unless you want a potential huge natural gas explosion.
So, if live-fire were added to the Pinon Canyon repertoire,
would that help readiness? And what is the Army doing to look
at solving the problem of the pipeline so that that readiness
could be enhanced?
Mr. Gillis. So, short answer, yes, sir, that would help,
and that would broaden the training that we can do at Pinon
Canyon.
To be fair, though, the pipeline was there when we acquired
the property, so we can't be too indignant about it.
What we would like to do, though, is work with the
community and work with the pipeline owners to get to a
solution that would potentially help us move the pipeline. I
think there are two ways to look at it.
There was an accident out there, not related to Army
training, where natural gas had to be routed around part of the
pipeline that goes through the training area. And, as far as I
know, that didn't disrupt supply, so I think that there is a
way to work it.
And then there may be a way to work whatever
recapitalization is required to address the issues that caused
the accident with the pipeline. We would like to be able to
work with the community to leverage that to see if there is a
way to reroute the pipeline when the capital improvements are
made.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Ms. Torres Small, you are next.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank----
Mr. Garamendi. Excuse me for a moment. We are going to go
to the 5-minute clock, and so--thank you.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a few quick questions.
One, for the Fallon Range, I noted that there is the
private transactions. If you are purchasing private land, would
that acquired land then be taken into the PILT [Payments in
Lieu of Taxes Program] and SRS [Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act] formulas for reimbursement to
compensate for local taxes impacted?
Mr. Mellon. I think we are working through that process. It
is certainly under consideration, from a Navy perspective. We
continue to work through the details of that with the county
governments on how we are going to approach that.
Many of the lands we are talking about purchasing are
actually State-owned. They are not necessarily private
landownership. But that is certainly something we are willing
to work with.
Ms. Torres Small. And is there any Tribal land that would
be impacted, whether it is in fee or trust or allotment?
Mr. Mellon. There is no direct impact on Tribal lands. I
think the big issue with most of the Tribal leadership has been
cultural resource and resource access.
Ms. Torres Small. That is great. That is my next question.
I was pleased to hear Ms. Miller speaking when it comes to the
NTTR, the consultation that has happened there. Can you just
briefly describe the consultation process that you have had?
Mr. Mellon. Yeah. We have been in ongoing consultation for
the last 2 or 3 years with local Tribal governments. I think
part of the challenge has been the consistency of that
engagement. And I don't mean consistency in terms of frequency,
but it is more consistency of representation and level of
representation. It wasn't apparent to me until mid last year
that there was an expectation of more senior leadership
engagement with the Department of the Navy as part of that
consultation process.
Ms. Torres Small. I think that is one of the challenges
with government-to-government consultation, is expecting the
highest levels for negotiation.
Mr. Mellon. Yeah. And we had a bit of that--actually, we
just had a meeting out there 2 weeks ago, and part of the
discussion we had is, from a Department of the Navy
perspective, our most senior local representation is that base
commander. So, from a Department perspective, when our base
commander goes, he is senior Navy leadership. I am not certain
that is always recognized the same way.
And we have had good discussions about that, and we
fundamentally changed that level of engagement. I have been
actively engaged since September/October of last year and
participated in four or five separate meetings with Tribal
leadership.
Ms. Torres Small. I deeply appreciate that, and I hope that
that continues.
Relatedly, I know that you are looking at acquiring new
land. White Sands Missile Range, which is in the district that
I represent, they have a different formula of call-up areas.
So, where they are planning to use that land, they have an
existing contract with the private landowner so that it will
change, kind of, access. Is that a model that you have looked
into?
Mr. Mellon. It is not a model we have looked into. Most of
the lands we are talking about acquiring are associated with a
range called B20, which is the northwestern corner of the
property. And if you look at that, that is actually a
checkerboard, when you look at a checkerboard. So, the, quote/
unquote, ``private lands'' or nongovernmental lands are
actually intermixed amongst a checkerboard of federally
controlled properties.
So, I think those kinds of things would be difficult, but I
don't know that they are impossible. It hasn't been proposed as
an alternative from anybody from Nevada at least, to my
knowledge, none of the meetings I have been in. We haven't had
any opposition to our proposal to go forward with the
acquisition of those properties.
Ms. Torres Small. Well, I mention it specifically in
relation to the challenges with Tribal consultation. If it is
about cultural access, if there is--instead, it is notifying
when that land will be in use, as opposed to acquiring all of
that land.
Mr. Mellon. Oh, I am sorry. I misunderstood your question.
We are actually proposing a full access management approach
for all cultural resources on the ranges. I think the question
becomes, how do you manage that? What is that level of access?
And we are actively engaged and want to continue to be engaged
with the Tribes to develop that plan.
Ms. Torres Small. Great.
And just because I have 40 seconds left, Ms. Miller, same
question for you. Have you considered the call-up model as an
alternative to your preferred alternative?
Ms. Miller. So, we have been very open with our current
cultural management plan, working extensively with the Tribes,
and have met with them. In fact, our Appendix K that we
submitted with the legislative environmental impact statement
was written by the Tribes.
Ms. Torres Small. Yes. And I apologize; specifically about
the call-up model. And perhaps for you it would be more
relevant in terms of the wildlife range.
Ms. Miller. Right. So, there is no private property
involved here, but here it is all Federal land right now. So,
we would continue to allow access for the cultural resources
and are happy to continue to work with the Tribes to the
maximum extent that we can.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I yield my time, Mr. Gillis, I understand you are
from Georgia?
Mr. Gillis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Did a little time at Fort Stewart? Third ID
[Infantry Division], I assume?
Mr. Gillis. Hooah.
Mr. Scott. And we just want to say hello and thank you for
your service. And when you get done at Washington, I hope you
will move back. Certainly we had hoped that you would select
Fort Benning instead of some lesser base in Kentucky this past
week.
But, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of
my time to Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Garamendi. I would prefer not to do that. The rules of
the committee being what they are, we are going to take
committee members first.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, then I will ask my questions.
Mr. Garamendi. So, go for your questions.
Mr. Scott. But since we were talking about his State, I
thought I would yield to him.
So, the range expansions support full operational test and
evaluation of future munitions----
Mr. Garamendi. Excuse me, Mr. Scott
Mr. Scott. Sir.
Mr. Garamendi. The keeper of the rules just tapped me on
your shoulder and said, ``Mr. Chairman, you are wrong.''
Mr. Scott. I knew you were wrong, but I didn't want to
argue with the chair.
Mr. Amodei, that means you have 3 minutes and 40 seconds.
Mr. Garamendi. We will restore the time. You have 4
minutes.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting anybody,
regardless of pedigree, sit in on the committee meeting today;
Mr. Ranking Member. I know the decision is provisional, so I
will attempt to behave as the committee is used to from its
regular members.
Ms. Miller, how are things going with the Fish and Wildlife
and all the folks on the sheep?
Ms. Miller. Particular to the bighorn sheep, there will be
no impact as a result of this proposal. So, we have worked very
effectively with them on this LEIS with the bighorn sheep.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Let me rephrase that then. Is anybody
from Fish and Wildlife or any wildlife groups going to show up
when Chairman Garamendi opens the hearings up, and are they
going to show up and say, ``We love what the Air Force did,''
and everything is going to be fine?
Ms. Miller. Sir, I would say probably not.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
Ms. Miller. We have worked extensively with Fish and
Wildlife. We were able to share our draft legislative
environmental impact statement with them and incorporated all,
100 percent, of their requests up through the Department of the
Interior to the current version that is with the Office of
Management and Budget.
We are also open to--and they had recommended a number of
things, even up to including, to the extent that we don't live
up to our obligations laid out with the access management plan,
that we would lose access to the withdrawal. And we will
continue to work with them.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Great.
Ms. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Has the Air Force evaluated or do they have any
position with whether or not amendments to the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act are okay once your bill gets to
Congress, in terms of trying to deal holistically with Clark
County? Is that something you folks have thought about at all
or care about?
Ms. Miller. Yes, sir. So, the challenge is that the
legislation passed in Nevada, we were not able to consult in
advance of that. We will continue to work with Nevada locally
and Fish and Wildlife nationally and locally to try to come up
with a consensus-type language for the withdrawal, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Mellon, first of all, thank you for what the Navy has
done in terms of being responsive. And I am not picking on the
Air Force; it is just that, since you are kind of in the middle
of my district, your folks have been very responsive. That is
not something that we take for granted, and I want to thank you
for that. And I know that there are a lot of moving parts in
that, but being absent from the discussion or being hard to get
a hold of is not one of them. So, thank you and to your staff
for that.
Moving on to maybe some of the stuff that my colleague from
New Mexico alluded to, to the extent that impact areas are
going to increase, even though the munitions are much more
precision, is it in your plan right now that, before you
start--and these are my words, nobody else's--bombing new
areas, that those are going to be cleared for all cultural
resource purposes?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir, Congressman. As a matter fact, all of
the proposed target sites for the new range expansion have all
had 100 percent pedestrian surveys done on them. So, any of the
proposed new target sites, we have already done those
pedestrian surveys. And we are positioned to go further based
on further consultation with the Tribes as we work through both
those target sites and additional surveys beyond that.
We are in the process of kicking off a study with them
which is going to drive us towards additional studies that will
need to be done before those ranges go operational.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Thank you.
And I will yield back what little time I have left.
Mr. Garamendi. No, you actually have another minute.
Mr. Amodei. Oh, okay. Then I won't yield it back. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mellon, the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone folks have got some
concerns about stuff within the existing boundaries of the
base, in terms of historical practices. Any thoughts on how to
remediate that, make that pot right, address those concerns?
Mr. Mellon. Yeah. So, we are moving forward with a couple
of different things.
First of all, we are in the process of hiring a full-time
Tribal liaison on the staff for NAS [Naval Air Station] Fallon.
Today, we have a community liaison, so it is beyond just Tribal
liaison, and then it is the skipper of the base. We want a
full-time individual whose pure focus is working those
relationships with the local Tribes to ensure we are doing the
things in their best interests.
Secondly, for access to cultural resources, we want to work
with them on a cultural resource management plan and strategy
as well as an access program. And we actually want to hire
Tribal representation as part of that access program to
essentially facilitate that access, help us manage those
schedules when the ranges aren't in use.
Mr. Amodei. Same kind of answer for the folks in the Walker
River Paiute Tribe?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. There are some preexisting issues, as well,
going forward. So, I am not going to think that they are taken
care of, but that is ongoing between now and as we go through
the process further?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir. I actually met with Walker River
about 2 weeks ago. We have put an idea on the table for them.
We have some more work to do with DOI [Department of the
Interior] and some other entities, but I think we actually have
a little bit of a path forward to help resolve some of those
old off-range ordnance issues with Walker River.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Great.
Now I would like you to----
Mr. Garamendi. No. At this time----
Mr. Amodei. I would like to yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Appreciate that, as does Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, you are next.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mellon, let me ask you a couple questions.
Goldwater Range. I understand that you are not talking
about expanding the footprint of that, just using the same
area, same mission, same everything else. If that were--and
that is up in 2024, right?
Mr. Mellon. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. So if that were to be extended in some way,
just for the existing range, existing conditions, everything
else, if this bill were to--if the NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act] were to extend that, how much would that
save the Air Force or how much would that save the Navy?
Mr. Mellon. I will defer the cost estimate for the LEIS to
the Air Force, and the Air Force has actually done the full
budget for the LEIS.
From a Department of the Navy perspective, we believe our
current resource management, our cultural management approach,
the custodial care we have done for those ranges has put us in
a good position.
I think the one thing we lose as part of that is that good
community engagement as part of the process. I don't know that
that should necessarily drive us to an LEIS, but I am not
certain that that lack of community engagement as part of the
extension shouldn't be accommodated.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Miller, what would the cost be?
Ms. Miller. Sir, the cost for the NTTR LEIS is $13 million.
That did include an expansion consideration, so you can
anticipate that it would be less than that for----
Mr. Bishop. Do you have one for Goldwater if you are not
talking about expansions, just renewal?
Ms. Miller. It would be much smaller, sir, but I don't have
the number. I will have to get back to you with that.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Well, I would guess half. In years past,
you know, it was about a $7 million cost for over several years
if you were just doing a simple renewal. So, it sounds like you
are back in the same ballpark on Fallon or Nellis.
Could you explain, if your proposal were to go through, how
would the desert habitat management be changed if Congress were
to support your position?
Ms. Miller. Sir, so we have a map that shows the hashed
area. I don't know if you have that in front of you. It is
somewhat of a helpful reference because it shows that there is
already a significant area between our range and the DNWR. Our
proposal is that, if there were an extension, it would be into
that same DNWR area.
What we would like is to have some of the restrictions
removed that currently don't allow us to do anything outside of
the small box impact areas and the smaller areas on the
withdrawn land. So, our proposal would be to enable certain
things, such as a landing on a small dry lake bed, special-ops-
type, and land overwatch navigation, irregular-warfare-type
operations outside the current boxed area.
Mr. Bishop. So, using Amodei's words, like, you are not
going to really bomb other areas. If you take on that habitat
responsibility, that is an additional task for the military to
deal with. Why would you want to expand to do that? I mean,
what are you really after here?
Ms. Miller. Yes, sir. So, it is less the management of the
land that is of interest to the Air Force and more the
operations that we can perform on the land.
Mr. Bishop. So, you are talking about the need for a
buffer?
Ms. Miller. Sir, there are two things. So, to the east, the
area that is hashed in pink on the map, is an area that is a
weapons safety footprint. That allows us to do more realistic
training, so that really is more of a buffer.
The area in the current DNWR that we would like to--
irrespective of the management of that, but to provide it to be
able to perform additional operations in, would be to be able
to go out there at all.
Right now, other than recreation and species management,
the Fish and Wildlife does not permit the Air Force to go out
into that area for any military operations, because it is
treated as though it is wilderness area. That is the way that
Fish and Wildlife currently treat it. It has been designated as
wilderness study area since 1974.
So, they are treating it as though it is wilderness area.
We cannot perform any military operations in that area. And
under no circumstances are we recommending it as an additional
impact area.
Mr. Bishop. So the reason, if I am hearing this correctly,
based on other stuff that we have, the reason that ranges, not
just the ones you are talking about, but, you know, real
ranges, like UTTR [Utah Test and Training Range], the reason
those ranges need additional space is primarily because of the
fifth-generation equipment that we now have.
Ms. Miller. Yeah.
Mr. Bishop. You are not going to bomb more area, but you
just need more space to get the work done.
Ms. Miller. Absolutely.
Right now, we can't train like we fight. We are unable to
put emitters out in the area to the east of the range. What
that means is that, right now, after our pilots fight through
the enemy, the red team, they would typically then have the
enemy IADS [integrated air defense system] there that would be
emitters. And so, what we would like to do is put these
footprints down, these up to 15 dirt footprints, where we could
do these mobile emitters to put them out there to simulate the
enemy.
Right now, additionally, without the weapons safety
footprint, our pilots have to say, ``I would release now,''
they continue flying at a different elevation, different range,
and then they are able to release their weapons. It is not
realistic combat training.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you.
Mr. Gillis, I wanted to touch on a few issues related to
Fort Drum.
First, I wanted to highlight the recent victory we had
locally with the continuation of the ReEnergy contract with
Fort Drum. As you know, Fort Drum is the only Army installation
that is 100 percent renewable energy. It is energy secure; it
is energy independent.
And for our viewers and the members in the audience today,
this is a biomass facility, and it creates many, many local
jobs. So, having that certainty, I think, is really important
for the base.
That is a comment. My question related to Fort Drum is, as
a part of the integrated natural resources management plan,
Fort Drum is actually the largest Fish and Wildlife Management
Act cooperative hunting area in the entire State. So, as the
ranges and capabilities of weapons increase, what is the impact
of that on the cooperative hunting areas like the one we have
on Fort Drum?
Mr. Gillis. Thanks for the question.
So, it really varies by installation. And what we have
seen, really across the board, is that we have been able to
maintain that partnership and that access to the land for
hunting. And it is not just the community that takes advantage
of it, but soldiers and their families do as well. So, it is
important for us to maintain that capability, and we seek to do
that wherever we can.
Ms. Stefanik. Absolutely. You know, we have many avid
sportsmen in my district, and that is really, really important.
And Fort Drum really is the model when it comes to the
community support for the base. It is something that we take
very seriously and we are very proud of.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Having completed all of the members, Mr. Amodei, if you
would like to ask another question, it is 5 minutes.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Wait, Mr. Chairman. Does that mean we have to
listen to him?
Mr. Garamendi. No, you don't. You could leave.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, okay. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would note the presence of the dean of the West and
just what a privilege it is to be sitting on the dais below the
dean of the West, for the record.
Mr. Mellon, I appreciate the fact that you guys have to get
the bill out of the Pentagon first before it comes up here. And
I think you guys know what I am talking about in terms of some
concerns, whether it is folks whose agricultural impacts are
going to be ones that perhaps your lawyers--and no offense to
your lawyers. And I realize that the young lady from the Air
Force is a former JAG [Judge Advocate General's Corps] officer
too, so no offense intended.
But it is like, in terms of doing the right thing by folks
who are going to be displaced, even if there is not statutory
authority, as long as those--theoretically, as long as trying
to make the pot right for some of those folks doesn't involve
operational objectives for the Navy in this expansion, I mean,
is that something that I would assume would be looked at with
an open mind, if we are not talking about operations?
Mr. Mellon. Sir, it absolutely is something we are looking
at with an open mind. So, everything from mining claims and how
we adjudicate or mine out certain claims--we have worked with
Bell Mountain on a proposal they had on how we can change the
survey, actually, for a particular area of B17 to accommodate
their mining. We have a proposal from them. It is an
evaluation. We believe we can make it work.
Similarly for grazing permits and the impact of loss of
grazing permits for some of those cattle ranchers. We have
developed a valuation process, we believe, that looks at it
more holistically. And we have a methodology that we believe is
going to be fair and reasonable that we have made available to
the public.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Thank you.
How are things going with Churchill County?
Mr. Mellon. We continue to make progress with Churchill
County. They still have a handful of sticking points. We just
got the State's consolidated position back. That came in late
Monday or early yesterday. Our team is still working through
that.
I have a meeting set up with Churchill County
representation when they are in town at the end of March--or, I
am sorry, the end of February, early March. So, I am going to
sit down and meet with them. We are going over to their spaces
here, and we are going to talk about where their proposal is.
My team will have our review done.
We have a couple of sticking points, I think, that are
going to be hard. Probably the hardest one is going to be
access to Pole Line Road and continued access for that. I think
the rest of them we can come to resolution on in one way,
shape, or form. I don't know that either side is going to get
100 percent of what they want.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
Since we are talking around 600,000 acres, and a lot of
that is the way you folks fight these days, in terms of not
looking down and hitting the--and pickling the ordnance off the
airframe and stuff like that, do you have an idea of--because a
lot of things, whether they are Native American, whether they
are the State's concerns, Churchill County concerns--like,
okay, so you need 600,000 additional acres to train in the way
you fight. And I know that you don't need them because you are
going to need that once every 3 weeks or something like that.
But do you feel like, in terms of providing access in those
times for those things that are very important to those State
and local governments, is access--how would you describe your
present plan as far as access for other folks who have
traditionally had access to the land for municipal or other
sorts of needs, Tribal?
Mr. Mellon. Yeah. So, one thing I want to--so the
additional withdrawal or acquisition of the 600,000 acres,
almost half of that is related to Dixie Valley and the
expansion of the Dixie Valley range. The Department of the Navy
is proposing no change in the access to those withdrawals
associated with Dixie Valley. And, in fact, those would
continue to be managed by BLM [Bureau of Land Management] in
the process.
The only thing the Department is looking for associated
with Dixie Valley is the management of lighting and associated
lighting resources for any future development, as well as an
ability to monitor and control the electromagnetic environment
in that region.
So, as an example, if a developer were to come in and say
they wanted to put 5G in the area----
Mr. Amodei. I don't----
Mr. Mellon. Sorry.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Mean to cut you off----
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. But I am about to get cut off, so
all I am going to say is this: Be careful what you ask for.
Because what you are asking for has sage hen habitat on it,
needs fuels reduction for fires if you are going to be a good
neighbor, and the ever-present wild horse.
So, I will be looking forward to seeing what the plans are
for your stewardship in those areas, among others.
Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Amodei, for joining us.
Ms. Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman.
And good afternoon, and thank you all so much for being
here today.
Assistant Secretary Mellon, I want to start off with a few
questions to make sure I follow the process here. In a few
weeks, the Navy plans to submit a request to Congress for
legislative action on a land withdrawal at the Fallon Range
Training Complex. Is that correct?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, ma'am, it is.
Ms. Haaland. And that request is pursuant to the end of a
20-year withdrawal last authorized by Congress in the 1999
NDAA. Is that correct?
Mr. Mellon. That is correct. Ma'am, I want to clarify. OMB
[Office of Management and Budget] will actually submit that
legislative proposal.
Ms. Haaland. Okay. Thank you for that.
It is also my understanding that the Navy plans to request
in that package that an additional 660,000 acres be withdrawn
in order to meet readiness needs. Is that correct?
Mr. Mellon. About 600,000 acres would be withdrawn; about
60,000 acres would be purchased.
Ms. Haaland. Okay. Thank you for that clarification as
well.
And has the military done cultural resource surveys for all
of the additional acreage included in that withdrawal?
Mr. Mellon. We have not done 100 percent pedestrian surveys
for all of those resources.
Ms. Haaland. So, you haven't done 100 percent. What have
you done? Twenty percent? Thirty percent?
Mr. Mellon. We have done 100 percent pedestrian surveys for
the proposed new target areas, and we will continue to expand
those based on additional studies and focus areas as we
continue to work with Tribes in the details of those cultural
resource management plans.
Ms. Haaland. Okay. So, I have a couple questions on that.
Can you share whether any Tribe--the Tribe, any Tribe--was
consulted and whether their use of the land or their cultural
resources were considered before the Navy began crafting this
proposal or only after the proposal was developed? In other
words, can you please provide me with a basic timeline? And
just note that I only have 3 minutes left.
Mr. Mellon. Yes, ma'am. I think what I would rather do is,
rather than try and recall from memory the specific engagements
for all of the Tribal engagements, if I can take that for the
record, I would be happy to get those details back to you.
Ms. Haaland. Yes. Please do that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 57.]
Ms. Haaland. And while you are doing that, I would like a
list of any Tribes that have offered written support of the
Fallon expansion. Do you know of any right now?
Mr. Mellon. I was just going to say, I think that is a
fairly short list because I do not believe there are any local
Tribes that are supportive of the expansion.
Ms. Haaland. Do you understand why?
Mr. Mellon. I do, ma'am.
Ms. Haaland. Tell me just in a few words.
Mr. Mellon. The predominant reason associated with their
objection to the expansion is driven by two things: One is
access to cultural resources, and the second one is potential
damage or loss of those resources as a result of future
training engagements.
Ms. Haaland. Right.
And so, it is just concerning to me that the Navy could
craft their end-product proposal, having it essentially ready
to come up here, and then call a few conversations with Tribal
leaders ``consultation.'' That is not consultation. It is not
just a box you can check.
These are sacred homelands and resources for Native
Americans, who have been on this land long before this was ever
a country. You understand that we are on Indian land right now,
and every single inch of this country was Indian land long
before it was ever the United States of America.
They have lived on the land since time immemorial. Their
ancestors are buried there. And I hope you understand that as
well, that when you have people buried, it becomes hallowed
ground. And the idea that this land that is hallowed ground
could be used for this type of training, it is really
sacrilegious, in a way, to the people whose lives you will
affect. So, I want to just be sure that you understand that.
And as chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, I have heard numerous complaints
that the military comes to the table with a finished product,
then asks for input. And it is not just the military; it is a
lot of, you know, departments and agencies in the Federal
Government. It is almost like Tribes are an afterthought, when
they should be a forethought. They should be the first people
that anyone thinks of before they decide to do something with
the land.
So, I recognize there are security concerns here, but to
the extent practicable, consultation and community engagement
has to come first, especially when sacred lands are involved.
And I know this may not seem relevant, but there is an assault
on sacred sites right now in our country. And I really, as the
daughter of a 30-year career Marine, I would like to think that
our military has the respect and the ability to be respectful
in this way.
So, I will look forward to the reports that you will bring
to this committee.
And I thank you all for being here.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Haaland.
We are going to a second round. We expect votes soon, at
which time we will, shortly after the call of votes, adjourn.
In the meantime--Mr. Lamborn?
Mr. Lamborn. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Garamendi. We are going to move to Ms. Torres Small. I
think you have another round of questions.
Ms. Torres Small. Yes, thank you. I only have one
additional question, Mr. Chair.
The same question for you, Ms. Miller: Do you have a
written list of any Tribes that have offered written support of
the NTTR plan?
Ms. Miller. So, while I don't believe that I have a written
list of plans, ma'am, what we have is, as mentioned before, we
included the Tribal perspectives in its entirety----
Ms. Torres Small. And just, are there any Tribes that have
offered written support for your----
Ms. Miller. If I can take that one for the record. I don't
know the answer to that, ma'am.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 57.]
Ms. Torres Small. Okay. And, again, when we talk about
meaningful consultation, having a list of who has approved of
the plan would be exceptionally helpful in a congressional
hearing.
Thank you, Ms. Miller.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Lamborn, you had a comment or question?
Mr. Lamborn. Yeah. I am going to ask Mr. Mellon, there was
a very heartfelt statement that was just made by Ms. Haaland,
and her time expired, so I just wanted to see, if you had any
kind of response that you wanted to share into the record, I
wanted to give you that opportunity.
Mr. Mellon. Thank you, sir.
My only--it is not a comment. My only perspective on that
is, I do know and understand--maybe not understand fully, but I
certainly do appreciate your comments.
I don't claim to have those kind of deep roots, and I
certainly don't claim to have that kind of lineage. But I can
tell you, the Department of the Navy is committed to doing the
absolute best we can to manage and protect those cultural
resources to the maximum extent that is our ability. I can't
account for accidents, nor can I account for mishaps that occur
as a result.
Having said that, I am also challenged with coming up with
potential solutions that meet the Navy needs in order to ensure
the readiness of our aviators, sailors, and Marines as they
prepare for combat. And finding that balance between the
military need and the local and Tribal aspects of it is
something we strive and continue to work towards, and I am
committed to absolutely continuing to do that.
Mr. Lamborn. And as a followup, could you talk about the
Native American officer who is helping with the planning?
Mr. Mellon. Yes, sir, I will.
So, I talked earlier--there were some questions. Department
of the Navy initiated the process to hire a full-time Tribal
liaison on staff at NAS Fallon.
In conjunction with that, we are developing a plan and a
strategy to work with local Tribal leaders to actually bring
them in to help us develop the details and updates to our
cultural management plan as a part of the expansion. Not just
bring them in as part of that, but to actually hire them on to
help us manage access and be part of that management access
program associated with those cultural and natural resources.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. We have completed this round of
questions.
Ms. Haaland, further questions?
Ms. Haaland. No, Chairman, I don't have any further
questions.
Mr. Garamendi. Very good.
Mr. Amodei?
Mr. Amodei. No, thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. Bishop?
Then we have completed our question period here. I want to
wrap this up with a couple of my own comments, and that is, for
these two ranges, this is a step in the process for the final
determination of what the legislation will be, what
restrictions, if any, there will be on it, what land will
actually be withdrawn, and how the military will move forward
with the concerns of the communities, of all kinds, around
these ranges, including both the environmental, the Native
American communities, and counties and States.
So, we will be conducting continued discussions
specifically with regard to both ranges in Nevada. And in those
days ahead, weeks ahead, if concerns are brought to the
attention of members of the committee, please bring them to Mr.
Lamborn and myself. The two of us will be engaged in those
discussions. We welcome the involvement of the full committee
and others, Representatives from the States involved.
Oh. You can whisper in ear; I won't hear. You can poke me
and point.
Ms. Haaland, you have a question.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman. I will absolutely
remember that.
I wanted to just--I mean, I am looking at this map, and
thank you for the map, but it doesn't have any, you know,
sacred--there is no boundary here for where the sacred sites
are. And I think that would be relevant to this discussion.
So perhaps you can get with the Tribes to look at a map and
overlay, you know, the sacred sites that they have in the area
so that we can see where they are on this map, and that would
help us tremendously.
And, also, Chairman, you may have said this in a way that I
just wasn't understanding, but I feel that we need to actually
hear from the Tribes here, or have their report in the record,
or something of that nature.
And I yield.
Mr. Garamendi. We would certainly welcome direct input from
all interested parties--Tribes, other communities, as well as
natural resource organizations. And, certainly, Ms. Haaland,
you and other members of the committee are more than welcome
and encouraged to continue to participate.
I would expect that we will complete this process in the
next 3 months, probably work this into the NDAA if we can do
so. That will be our goal.
We look forward to continued input, and we will certainly
continue the negotiations. I would be happy to hear from
Members and try to represent their interests, but Members can
present their own interests as we go through this process.
The witnesses, Ms. Miller and--thank you so very much--Mr.
Gillis. And the Army got off easy on this one. We will continue
to go through these processes.
With that, I believe we will be going to votes, and this
committee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 12, 2020
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 12, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 12, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 12, 2020
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TORRES SMALL
Ms. Miller. The Air Force does not have a list of tribes in support
or opposition. Instead, in accordance with Nellis AFB's Integrated
Cultural Resources Management Plan, we worked extensively over a number
of years with the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO)
on the development of our proposal. The CTGO consists of the seventeen
local tribes listed below and produced the ``Native American
Perspective'' appendix in the published Legislative Environmental
Impact Statement (LEIS). While we spoke with many individual tribal
leaders through the process, because their positions were reflected in
the CGTO submission, we will not attempt to speak for or paraphrase
their informed and nuanced position on the land withdrawal. We invite
Members to read the Tribes' own words in their Appendix concerning each
alternative presented in the LEIS. This Appendix and the rest of the
LEIS can be downloaded at www.nttrleis.com/final_documents.aspx The Air
Force provided funding and support so the Tribes could document their
concerns and recommendations associated with each of the proposed
solutions. Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations Las Vegas
Paiute Tribe, NV Moapa Band of Paiutes, NV Pahrump Paiute Tribe, NV
Kaibab Paiute Tribe, AZ Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, UT Chemehuevi
Indian Tribe, CA Colorado River Indian Tribes, AZ Duckwater Shoshone
Tribe, NV Ely Shoshone Tribe, NV Yomba Shoshone Tribe, NV Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe, CA Benton Paiute Tribe, CA Bishop Paiute Tribe, CA Big
Pine Paiute Tribe, CA Lone Pine Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, CA Fort
Independence Indian Reservation, CA Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, AZ [See
page 20.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. HAALAND
Mr. Mellon. The Navy identified early on that the 17 tribes and 1
Inter-Tribal Council would play an integral part in the development of
the Fallon Range Modernization Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To
that end, the Navy initiated Government-to-Government (G2G)
consultation in the EIS Notice of Intent (NOI) letter that went out to
the tribes and other interested stakeholders on August 25 & 26, 2016.
Publication of the NOI initiated a scoping process to help the Navy
identify issues and proposal alternatives to evaluate in the EIS.
Additionally, in April 2017, the Navy formally invited the tribes
to also participate in the NEPA process as Tribal Participants, with
the same standing as Cooperating Agency Stakeholders. Throughout the
NEPA process we have had quarterly meetings with our Cooperating Agency
Stakeholders and tribal participants, have offered them additional
reviews of the EIS document as it was developed, and have repeatedly
offered to brief them and/or their Agency/Tribal Council on the
project.
Additionally, as cultural resources survey reports came in they
were sent out to tribes likely to have information regarding the area
surveyed in order to solicit comments and information only the tribes
may have. These reports went out on 28 Nov 2017 and 28 May 2019. The
attached document details the Navy's efforts to consult with the
affected tribes and continue a dialogue on important issues throughout
the EIS process.
Details of EIS Public Involvement (Including Tribes)
The Navy published a Notice of Intent and Notice of Scoping
Meetings in the Federal Register on August 26, 2016. The BLM published
a Notice of Withdrawal Application in the Federal Register on September
2, 2016. Naval Air Station Fallon and the BLM distributed news releases
to media outlets on August 25, 2016, and on September 1, 2016,
respectively. The news releases provided information on the public
scoping meetings, Proposed Action, and how to submit comments.
Stakeholder and tribal notification letters were mailed first-class
on August 25, 2016, to 26 federal, state, and local elected officials
and government agencies, and via certified mail to tribal chairs of 17
federally recognized tribes and one intertribal council. A postcard
mailer providing information on the public scoping meetings, the
Proposed Action, and how to submit comments was mailed first-class to
589 tribal staff, individuals, landowners, and organizations on August
25, 2016. Display advertisements were placed in 8 local newspapers in
various cities on September 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and on October 6, 2016 to
advertise the public's opportunity to comment on the scope of the
analysis. The advertisements included a description of the Proposed
Action, the address of the project website, the duration of the comment
period, and information on how to provide comments.
At the request of the public, the Navy extended the public scoping
period to December 12, 2016, and a Notice of Extension of Public
Scoping Period was published in the Federal Register on November 10,
2016. A display advertisement announcing the public comment period
extension was placed in eight newspapers on November 11, 12, 13, 16,
and 17, 2016. A second tribal letter announcing the public comment
period extension was sent via certified mail to the same tribal
contacts. A second postcard mailer announcing the public comment period
extension was mailed first-class on November 14, 2016, to 700 elected
officials, government agencies, tribal staff, individuals, landowners,
and organizations.
During the development of the FRTC Modernization Draft EIS, the
Navy initiated a mutual exchange of information through early and open
communications with cooperating agencies and tribes. Naval Air Station
Fallon held formal briefings with cooperating agencies and federally
recognized tribes. A dedicated phone line was set up for this project
to receive voice messages and went live on August 25, 2016. Voice
messages were reviewed and logged daily during business hours, and
return calls made, when applicable. A public involvement website
(www.frtcmodernization
.com) was established for the project, which provided various project-
related materials, including fact sheets and videos.
Scoping comments were submitted in three ways:
Written letters (received any time during the scoping
period)
Comments submitted at a scoping meeting (written or oral)
Comments submitted directly on the project website
(received any time during the scoping period)
The Navy held seven scoping meetings from October 3-7, 2016 in
Fallon, Lovelock, Reno, Austin, Eureka, Hawthorne, and Gabbs. In total,
338 people attended seven public scoping meetings. Twenty-one written
comment letters and 15 oral comments were submitted at the meetings. A
total of 328 scoping comments were received, all of which were
considered during preparation of the FRTC Modernization Draft EIS
The 60-day public comment period on the FRTC Modernization Draft
EIS began with a Notice of Public Meetings (83 Federal Register [FR]
57455) in the Federal Register on November 15, 2018, followed by the
issuance of the Notice of Availability (83 FR 57726) on November 16,
2018. The Navy notified the public of the release of the Draft EIS and
the dates and locations of public meetings to maximize participation
during the public review and comment period process. At the request of
the public, the Navy extended the public comment period from a 60-days
to 90-days. A notice announcing the extension of the comment period was
published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2018 (83 FR 66685).
Stakeholder, cooperating agency, and tribal notification letters
were mailed first-class on November 7, 2018, to 108 federal, state, and
local elected officials; government agencies; and tribal staff. These
letters were also sent via certified mail to the tribal chairpersons of
17 federally recognized tribes and one intertribal council. Stakeholder
letters were sent on their own or with a Draft EIS CD-ROM, flash drive,
or hard copy enclosure. Tribal letters accompanied a Draft EIS hard
copy enclosure. A second tribal letter announcing the public review and
comment period extension was sent via certified mail to the same
federally recognized tribes on December 28, 2018.
In addition, e-mails announcing the extension of the public review
and comment period were sent to cooperating agencies and tribal
participants on December 28, 2018. A postcard mailer providing
information on the public meetings, the Proposed Action, and how to
submit comments was mailed first-class to 744 tribal staff,
individuals, landowners, and organizations on November 16, 2018. A
second postcard mailer announcing the public comment period extension
was mailed first-class on December 28, 2018, to 1,018 elected
officials, government agencies, tribal staff, individuals, landowners,
and organizations.
A flier providing information on the public meetings, the Proposed
Action, and how to submit comments was mailed first-class to 42
businesses on November 15, 2018. Display advertisements were placed in
local newspapers (Lahontan Valley News [Fallon, NV], Lovelock Review-
Miner [Lovelock, NV], Nevada Appeal [Reno, NV], Reno Gazette-Journal
[Reno, NV], Battle Mountain Bugle [Austin, NV], Eureka Sentinel
[Eureka, NV], Mineral County Independent News [Hawthorne, NV], and
Tonopah Times-Bonanza [Gabbs, NV]) to advertise the notice of
availability of the Draft EIS, the public meetings, and the public
comment period. The advertisements included a description of the
Proposed Action, the public meeting dates and locations, the address of
the project website, the duration of the comment period, and
information on how to provide comments. A display advertisement
announcing the extension of the public comment period was placed in the
same newspapers referenced above.
Naval Air Station Fallon distributed news releases to regional
media outlets on November 16, 2018, and on December 6, 2018. The news
releases provided information on the public meetings, Proposed Action,
and how to submit comments. A news release was disseminated on December
27, 2018, announcing the extension of the Draft EIS public review and
comment period. A public service announcement announcing the public
meetings was also distributed on December 6, 2018.
Additionally, an informational video was posted on the project
website. The Draft EIS was available electronically for public viewing
at http://frtcmodernization.com/and hard copies of the FRTC
Modernization Draft EIS were also provided to 11 libraries located
throughout the FRTC Study Area (Austin Branch Library [Austin, NV],
Carson City Library [Cason City, NV], Churchill County Library [Fallon,
NV], Crescent Valley Branch Library [Crescent Valley, NV], Downtown
Reno Library [Reno, NV], Eureka Branch Library [Eureka, NV], Fernley
Branch Library [Fernley, NV], Gabbs Community Library [Gabbs, NV],
Mineral County Library [Hawthorne, NV], Pershing County Library
[Lovelock, NV], and Yerington Branch Library [Yerington, NV]).
The Navy provided the public with several options for providing
comments on the FRTC Modernization Draft EIS. Public comments on the
Draft EIS were submitted in three ways:
Written letters (received any time during the public
comment period)
Comments submitted at a public meeting (written or oral)
Comments submitted directly on the project website
(received any time during the public comment period)
In total, 369 people attended seven public meetings. Twenty-one
written comment letters and 51 oral comments were submitted at the
meetings. Additionally, 170 postcards (form comments) were received at
the public meetings. Seven open house public meetings were held on
December 10, 2018 (Hawthorne, NV); December 10, 2018 (Gabbs, NV);
December 11, 2018 (Austin, NV); December 11, 2018 (Eureka, NV);
December 12, 2018 (Fallon, NV); December 13, 2018 (Lovelock, NV); and
December 13, 2018 (Reno, NV). At these meetings, Navy representatives
were available to provide information and answer questions posed by
members of the public one-on-one. The Navy presented a formal brief
that summarized the FRTC Modernization Draft EIS and its conclusions,
and a forum was provided in which the Navy received oral comments from
the public. Attendees could also provide comments using paper comment
forms or via an onsite stenographer. Additionally, the public could
provide comments electronically via the project website or by mailing
letters to the address provided in all correspondence and outreach
materials. Six federal agencies/officials' comments, 14 state agencies/
officials' comments, 23 county agencies' comments, 15 Indian Tribes'
comments, 49 non-governmental organizations' comments, 37 businesses'
comments, and 1,322 private individuals' comments were received for a
total of 1,466 comments on the Draft FRTC Modernization EIS.
In response to the comments received through the public comment
process, as well as through consultations with regulators, the Navy
made adjustments to its Proposed Action that are reflected in the FRTC
Modernization Final EIS. Specifically, during the time period between
the public Draft EIS and Final EIS, the Navy received public comments
requesting the size of the withdrawal and acquisition be reduced as
much as possible. The Navy has reduced the size of the withdrawal from
the original proposal in the Draft EIS, the details of which can be
found in the description of Alternative 3 of the Final EIS. Additional
management practices, monitoring, and mitigation measures were included
to minimize impacts when those mitigation measures were reasonable and
practical to implement.
The Notice of Availability for the FRTC Modernization Final EIS was
published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2020 (85 FR 1313). The
Navy notified the public of the publication of the FRTC Modernization
Final EIS, including using letters, postcards, press releases, project
website subscriber emails, and newspaper advertisements. Approximately
123 notification letters were sent to stakeholders and Tribes and 1,067
postcards were mailed to inform the public of the FEIS release.
Concurrent with the publication in the Federal Register, the FRTC
Modernization Final EIS was also made available on the project website
and at the same 11 public libraries listed above throughout cities in
Nevada. [See page 19.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 12, 2020
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TORRES SMALL
Ms. Torres Small. Are any of the local Native American tribes in
support of the proposed expansion at Fallon Range? Please provide a
list of those in favor and those opposed.
Mr. Mellon. The Navy invited all Tribes affected by the Fallon
Range Training Complex Modernization project to attend all cooperating
agencies meetings and hosted separate government-to-government meetings
to discuss issues of Tribal interest. The Tribes include the Duckwater
Shoshone Tribe, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fort McDermitt Paiute and
Shoshone Tribes, Lovelock Paiute Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Te-Moak Tribe of
Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (comprising the Battle Mountain
Band, Elko Band, South Fork Band, and Wells Band), Washoe Tribe of
Nevada and California, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Winnemucca Paiute
Tribe, Yerington Paiute Tribe, and the Yomba Shoshone Tribe, as well as
the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada. None of these tribes have indicated
support for the proposal.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
Ms. Escobar. I'd like to get the witnesses' perspective on a local
land management issue: specifically, Castner Range, a retired training
range at Fort Bliss that my community has sought to protect since the
early 1970s to preserve its unique cultural and environmental qualities
while honoring its military history. Existing law prevents development
on this land, and the Army is engaged in work on feasibility studies to
assess Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) clean up and the possibility of future
use. However, the latest update provided to my staff suggests it will
be a number of years before the drafts and plans of that study come
together, and several more before my community would see a benefit.
What would help expeditiously advance projects like these where there
is already general consensus between communities and the Service? Is
this an issue of prioritizing funding? A manpower challenge? Are there
authorities that could help?
Mr. Gillis. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42. U.S.C. 9601 et seq., the
Army worked diligently to investigate the extent to which munitions are
present on the surface or in the subsurface of Castner Range. The
CERCLA process provides a comprehensive and iterative approach for
characterizing and evaluating risks to human health and the
environment. The process includes stakeholder involvement and
consideration of stakeholder input prior to selection and
implementation of necessary remedial actions (cleanup) to allow for the
property's safe use. Circumventing the CERCLA process or seeking to
allow uncontrolled access to Castner in advance of the Army's
completion of required response actions would place the public at risk.
Between 1972 and 2004, the Army completed several removal actions
that removed munitions and munitions debris from the surface and
subsurface of Castner Range. In 2018, the Army completed a
comprehensive remedial investigation of Castner Range. During this
CERCLA phase, the Army collected data required to evaluate the extent
to which munitions and environmental contamination are present to
assess risks to human health, safety, and the environment. This
critical information provides the basis for the current feasibility
study in which the Army will analyze the feasibility of potential
options for cleaning up the land for reasonably anticipated future
uses. This analysis will also include the feasibility of conducting
certain remedial actions at this former range for varying levels of
public access. Following the completion of the feasibility study, which
is expected to be completed in 2021, the Army will publish a proposed
plan and obtain stakeholder input on the Army's preferred remedial
alternatives. The Army has also been working with Texas regulators
throughout the cleanup process.
In the interim, the Army has implemented and maintains its 3Rs
Explosives Safety Education Program (see 3Rs.mil) at Fort Bliss. The
3Rs is based on a simple, easy to remember message (Recognize--when you
may have encountered a munition and that munitions are dangerous;
Retreat--do not touch, move or disturb it, but carefully move away;
Report--call 911 to report what you saw and where you saw it).
Ms. Escobar. Since our Armed Forces include technicians who must
deal with UXOs in their work, is there a possibility of using areas
like Castner Range for training or certification opportunities that
would serve the dual benefit of advancing cleanup work at retired
sites?
Mr. Gillis. DOD's Explosive Ordnance Disposal units routinely
experience a high tempo of operations, including support to civilian
authorities, which limits their use in this manner. Additionally, EOD
units are not equipped nor trained to conduct the type of munitions
responses (e.g., investigations) required under applicable
environmental laws to ensure that this property, if transferred, would
be safe for anticipated future uses. Therefore, use of EOD personnel to
advance the cleanup work would not be feasible.
Ms. Escobar. Some techniques for addressing UXO remediation can, in
fact, be very damaging to the land. Has the Department researched or
pursued new techniques enabled by modern technologies to avoid this
level of damage?
Mr. Gillis. The removal of munitions, particularly unexploded
ordnance that may be in an armed state, often requires UXO-qualified
personnel to detonate munitions in place or, if the risk of movement is
acceptable, to consolidate them for destruction by detonation at a
nearby location that meets DOD explosives safety criteria. In addition,
the area under investigation has to be cleared of long surface
vegetation in order to run detection technology.
The DOD has previously investigated the use of contained detonation
chambers for the destruction of recovered munitions. However, the use
of such technology is limited given most UXO cannot be moved or handled
safely for placement in available systems, and the systems capability
to destroy the various types of munitions recovered may be limited.
The DOD has, however, sought to reduce unnecessary excavations by
using advanced geophysical classification. Using this process, detected
subsurface anomalies may be reliably classified as munitions or non-
munitions debris without disturbance of the land. The DOD's use of the
advanced geophysical classification technology and process helps
preserve the environment and is protective of the public.
In the design and implementation of a cleanup, the Army considers
and works with natural and cultural resources personnel, as necessary,
to evaluate and minimize the impact that response actions may have on
natural and cultural resources. The Army complies with applicable
Integrated Management plans that address natural and cultural resources
that may be encountered on the installation. The presence of these
resources and the necessary consultations with stakeholders may result
in a delay in response actions or for munitions to be left in place.
Ms. Escobar. Are there any unique challenges in working with
Federal partners on range management issues? What about with State-
level counterparts, i.e. when land will eventually be transferred to a
State agency for management?
Mr. Gillis. Challenges related to cleanup of former ranges are not
unique to working with federal partners versus state-level
counterparts. The challenges at these sites often concern compatibility
with the proposed or reasonably anticipated future land use.
Additionally, as with most cleanup actions, there are often
challenges that arise when considering sometimes diverse stakeholder
interests. However, it is the Army's policy is to work collaboratively
with environmental regulators and stakeholders to seek consensus on the
appropriate remedial actions. Achieving such consensus is sometimes
complicated by a number of factors including difficulty agreeing on the
level of cleanup required.
Over a decade ago, the Department of Defense established the
Munitions Response Dialogue. The Munitions Response Dialogue (MRD),
which is still active, is comprised of representatives from the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), DOD Components, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), state environmental regulators, and Federal
Land Managers. These members use their experiences and expertise to
exchange views, and provide information to facilitate response actions
at munitions response sites. Although focused on cleanup, this dialogue
and other collaborative forums (e.g., the Interstate Technology and
Regulatory Council), has provided a myriad of beneficial results. These
include:
Educating non-DOD participants about munitions,
explosives safety, and the munitions response process;
Educating participants about the concerns each agency has
with the cleanup of munitions;
Outlining a collaborative decision-making process
acceptable to the participants;
Helping to ensure the protectiveness and consistency of
munitions response actions;
Identifying the need for and encouraging the development
of policy and technical guidance to benchmark and continuously improve
munitions response actions; and
Identifying training needs and technology enhancements
that would facilitate and improve munitions responses.
The Munitions Response Dialogue and other collaborative forums in
which the Army and states actively participate are mechanisms the Army
uses to help prepare and assist federal and state agencies for
management of transferred property.
Ms. Escobar. I'd like to get the witnesses' perspective on a local
land management issue: specifically, Castner Range, a retired training
range at Fort Bliss that my community has sought to protect since the
early 1970s to preserve its unique cultural and environmental qualities
while honoring its military history. Existing law prevents development
on this land, and the Army is engaged in work on feasibility studies to
assess Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) clean up and the possibility of future
use. However, the latest update provided to my staff suggests it will
be a number of years before the drafts and plans of that study come
together, and several more before my community would see a benefit.
What would help expeditiously advance projects like these where there
is already general consensus between communities and the Service? Is
this an issue of prioritizing funding? A manpower challenge? Are there
authorities that could help?
Mr. Mellon. The DON is not familiar with the challenges at Castner
Range. Since Castner Range is an Army range, we defer to the Army
regarding the specifics associated with management of this range.
Ms. Escobar. Since our Armed Forces include technicians who must
deal with UXOs in their work, is there a possibility of using areas
like Castner Range for training or certification opportunities that
would serve the dual benefit of advancing cleanup work at retired
sites?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy's Explosive Ordnance Disposal units routinely
experience a high tempo of operations, including support to civilian
authorities, which limits their use in this manner. Additionally, EOD
units are not equipped nor trained to conduct the type of munitions
responses (e.g., investigations) required under applicable
environmental laws to ensure that any transferred property would be
safe for anticipated future uses. Therefore, use of Navy EOD personnel
to advance cleanup work of property to be transferred would not be
feasible.
Ms. Escobar. Some techniques for addressing UXO remediation can, in
fact, be very damaging to the land. Has the Department researched or
pursued new techniques enabled by modern technologies to avoid this
level of damage?
Mr. Mellon. The removal of munitions, particularly unexploded
ordnance that may be in an armed state, often requires UXO-qualified
personnel to detonate munitions in place or, if the risk of movement is
acceptable, to consolidate them for destruction by detonation at a
nearby location that meets DOD explosives safety criteria. The Navy has
previously investigated the use of contained detonation chambers for
the destruction of recovered munitions. However, the use of such
technology is limited given most UXO cannot be moved or handled safely
for placement in available systems, and the systems capability to
destroy the various types of munitions recovered may be limited. The
Navy has, however, sought to reduce unnecessary excavations by using
advanced geophysical classification. Using this process, detected
subsurface anomalies may be reliably classified as munitions or non-
munitions debris without disturbance of the land. The Navy's use of the
advanced geophysical classification technology and process helps
preserve the environment and is protective of the public. In the design
and implementation of a cleanup, the Navy considers and works with
natural and cultural resources personnel, as appropriate, to evaluate
and minimize the impact that response actions may have on natural and
cultural resources. The Navy complies with applicable Integrated
Natural and Cultural Resource Management Plans that address natural and
cultural resources that may be encountered on the installation. While
the presence of these resources and the necessary consultations with
stakeholders may result in a delay in response actions or for munitions
to be left in place, they help minimize damage to these lands while
protecting the public.
Ms. Escobar. Are there any unique challenges in working with
Federal partners on range management issues? What about with State-
level counterparts, i.e. when land will eventually be transferred to a
State agency for management?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy has extensive experience working with Federal,
state and local partners on managing ranges. We have found our partners
to be helpful in managing the natural and cultural resources entrusted
to us, and in helping us ensure the health and safety of our host
communities. We have also worked extensively with Federal, state and
local partners as we make closed facilities available to communities
for economic redevelopment. We have found our partners to be helpful
with redevelopment planning.
Ms. Escobar. I'd like to get the witnesses' perspective on a local
land management issue: specifically, Castner Range, a retired training
range at Fort Bliss that my community has sought to protect since the
early 1970s to preserve its unique cultural and environmental qualities
while honoring its military history. Existing law prevents development
on this land, and the Army is engaged in work on feasibility studies to
assess Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) clean up and the possibility of future
use. However, the latest update provided to my staff suggests it will
be a number of years before the drafts and plans of that study come
together, and several more before my community would see a benefit.
What would help expeditiously advance projects like these where there
is already general consensus between communities and the Service? Is
this an issue of prioritizing funding? A manpower challenge? Are there
authorities that could help?
Ms. Miller. Air Force defers to the Army on this topic, as there
has never been an Air Force presence at Castner Range.
Ms. Escobar. Since our Armed Forces include technicians who must
deal with UXOs in their work, is there a possibility of using areas
like Castner Range for training or certification opportunities that
would serve the dual benefit of advancing cleanup work at retired
sites?
Air Force defers to the Army on this topic, as there has never been
an Air Force presence at Castner Range.
Ms. Escobar. Some techniques for addressing UXO remediation can, in
fact, be very damaging to the land. Has the Department researched or
pursued new techniques enabled by modern technologies to avoid this
level of damage?
Ms. Miller. The removal of munitions, particularly unexploded
ordnance that may be in an armed state, often requires UXO-qualified
personnel to detonate munitions in place or, if the risk of movement is
acceptable, to consolidate them for destruction by detonation at a
nearby location that meets DOD explosives safety criteria. The DOD has
previously investigated the use of contained detonation chambers for
the destruction of recovered munitions. However, the use of such
technology is limited given most UXO cannot be moved or handled safely
for placement in available systems, and the systems capability to
destroy the various types of munitions recovered may be limited. The
DOD has, however, sought to reduce unnecessary excavations by using
advanced geophysical classification. Using this process, detected
subsurface anomalies may be reliably classified as munitions or non-
munitions debris without disturbance of the land. Although some
vegetation must still be cleared, the DOD's use of the advanced
geophysical classification technology and process helps preserve the
environment and is protective of the public. In the design and
implementation of a cleanup, the Air Force considers and works with
natural and cultural resources personnel, as necessary, to evaluate and
minimize the impact that response actions may have on natural and
cultural resources. The Air Force complies with applicable Integrated
Management plans that address natural and cultural resources that may
be encountered on the installation. The presence of these resources and
the necessary consultations with stakeholders may result in a delay in
response actions or for munitions to be left in place.
Ms. Escobar. Are there any unique challenges in working with
Federal partners on range management issues? What about with State-
level counterparts, i.e. when land will eventually be transferred to a
State agency for management?
Ms. Miller. The primary challenge in working with other federal and
state partners is simply the conflicting objectives of rangeland usage.
The Department of Defense uses ranges for hazardous activities that
require the limiting of public access. The goal of most other partners
involves the expansion of public access. While these two goals are
contradictory, the Air Force has successfully worked with the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and various state
wildlife agencies in allowing hunting and other recreational activities
on ranges when the Air Force is not using them. The coordination
between these agencies and the efforts of the Sustainable Ranges
Program are undertaken with the specific goal of enabling any future
transfer of the land back to public use.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HAALAND
Ms. Haaland. Has the Navy conducted ethnographic surveys with
Tribal elders and cultural leaders? If so, when did this start and to
what extent?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy will complete an ethnographic overstudy of the
expanded Fallon Range Training Complex. The Navy will also complete
Class III pedestrian surveys of the expanded areas of ranges B-17 and
B-20 prior to activating those ranges. The Navy will involve Tribal
elders and cultural leaders in the completion of these efforts.
Ms. Haaland. Fox Peak is a highly sacred site to the Fallon Paiute
Shoshone Tribe, and the BLM has identified this area as a special Area
of Critical Environmental Concern. Is it possible to do training
without using this area?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy has no plans to conduct any on-the-ground
training or install any infrastructure within the Fox Peak Area of
Critical Environmental Concern. This area is within special use
airspace devoted to Navy aviation training, and we anticipate continued
Navy overflights of this area.
Ms. Haaland. The FEIS notes that there are potential significant
impacts from loss of access to cultural sites by Tribal members. Why
hasn't the Navy developed an access agreement with affected Tribes?
Will one be drafted, and if so by when?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy will seek an access agreement with each
interested Tribe. The Navy will work with the tribes beginning in the
fall of 2020 to develop access agreements and associated management
plans. The Navy will establish a dedicated Tribal Liaison position at
NAS Fallon and provide additional resources to assist with range access
coordination.
Ms. Haaland. Given the high risk of fire at Fallon, what is the
Navy's fire response plan?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy will develop a fire management plan in
coordination with the State of Nevada; we anticipate initiating plan
development in late 2020.
Ms. Haaland. Are there any plans for the Navy to do any remediation
to the impacted cultural sites?
Mr. Mellon. The Navy will attempt to avoid cultural sites when
establishing new target areas, fencing and other infrastructure. When
impacts cannot be avoided, the Navy will follow the process outlined in
the recently approved Programmatic Agreement amendment to resolve any
adverse effects.
Ms. Haaland. The Fallon FEIS discusses moving a pipeline, moving
multiple highways, building hundreds of miles of fence, and installing
significant infrastructure for training. How much, in total, is this
all going to cost?
The total cost of the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization
effort is currently estimated to be $259.42 million. This cost may
increase as better information regarding relocation of a portion of
Nevada Route 361 and a segment of the Paiute Pipeline Company natural
gas pipeline becomes available.