[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.