[CPEO-MEF] Summary of Army "Encroachment" Testimony

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Major General R.L. Van Antwerp, Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management, represented the Army at the March 20, 2001
Senate "Encroachment" hearing. In his prepared testimony, he told the subcommittee:

"We have expended, and continue to expend, a great deal of effort and
resources on both our range operations and modernization and on the
environmental compliance requirements associated with them. In
maintaining areas for training, we have isolated them from development
and created islands of biodiversity and havens for unique natural and
cultural resources that are found in very few other locations. However,
we would ask those who seek to limit our essential training because of
the presence of those resources to recall that it was our training and
management practices that permitted these islands to exist in the first
place and to flourish now in an environment that includes training
activities ranging from maneuver to live-fire."

Van Antwerp seemed to want special treatment from the Senators, but he
stopped short of requesting specific legislative relief. On the one
hand, he warned, "We ask that you recognize the unique role of the Army
and our sister Services within the Department of Defense. We carry out
our training, not for profit or gain, but to ensure the readiness of our
force.... We have learned hard lessons in the past when other priorities
overshadowed our need to train young Americans to face the
uncompromising conditions and challenges of war." On the other hand, he
said, "The Army is not seeking to avoid any responsibilities it has to
the people of the United States. We are not seeking relief form
compliance with environmental statutes. We will continued to do our best
to ensure that our practices do not endanger the health or well being of
any American."

Van Antwerp discussed urban sprawl, endangered species, and restrictions
on the use of munitions.

URBAN SPRAWL. He explained, "When our installations were established,
they generally were in rural areas, remote and isolated from
populations. That has changed. The sum effect has been that Army
installations, once far from public view, are now often in the midst of
large urban areas. Our training practices bring with them noise, dust,
the expenditure of munitions, and ground activities that can be viewed
as a nuisance and annoyance to those who have become our neighbors."

ENDANGERED SPECIES. Van Antwerp reported that Army lands host 153
federally listed species on 94 installations. He said, "Endangered
species regulations have required us to review our training activities
to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of an
endangered or threatened species.... As the number of listed plants and
animals increases, the amount of land available to us for unmodified
training activities may decrease further.

However, he  described a success story at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
There the Army teamed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
private Nature Conservancy to establish off-post conservation easements
to provide habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. He
reported, "The result is that Fort Bragg is able to lessen the
restrictions on training while enabling the red-cockaded woodpecker to
move closer to recovery."

MUNITIONS. Van Antwerp described U.S. EPA's cease-fire order at the
Massachusetts Military Reservation, and he warned, "The potential impact
of further administrative 'cease fire' orders cannot be measured, other
than to say that major training and training readiness investments would
be affected. The regulation of munitions is a complex issue that
requires deliberate measures in the areas of environmental research and
development, risk assessment, range design, and range management.... We
will work with Congress and the EPA to reduce uncertainty and increase
flexibility in laws and regulations so as to balance the needs of
national security and the environment." He noted that munitions
constituents have contaminated soil or groundwater at Fort Lewis,
Washington, and the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Van Antwerp promised, "we will introduce a more sophisticated,
integrated approach to range management that we call Sustainable Range
Management."  He later explained that the Army is developing a national
sustainable range management  plan based upon three tenets: "(1)
Information Dominance: ensuring the Army has the most current and best
information related to the operational and environmental characteristics
of its ranges; (2) Integrated Management: ensuring that the major
management functions that directly affect ranges, operations/training,
facilities management, and environmental management are integrated to
support the training mission; and (3) Outreach: ensuring that  we
articulate the Army's requirement for live-fire training to support
national security and improving our understanding of the public's
concern over the potential impacts of the live-fire training."

Van Antwerp devoted much of his written testimony to explaining the need
for live-fire training. It's required not only for military
effectiveness, but to minimize the risk to soldiers in combat. He
explained, "Many ranges currently operate at maximum capacity so that
units can meet [minimum training] standards. Any further limitation on
these training facilities would inevitably cause a reduction in
live-fire training below that needed by soldiers to remain minimally proficient.

Van Antwerp told the Senators how implementation of the Clear Water Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the Clear Air Act, noise restrictions, and
historic preservation rules at Fort Hood, Texas, has severely
constrained training. Only about 17% of Fort Hoot's 185,000 acres of
ranges  are available for training without restriction. Van Antwerp
stated the Army's concern that  an environmental order there, similar to
EPA's cease-fire ruling in Massachusetts, could have catastrophic
impacts "on the Army's budget, training efficiency, and soldier morale."

He theorized that public support for training has diminished since the
fall of the Soviet Union, but he noted "the rate of Army deployments is
at an all time high.... At the same time, the Army's weapons systems and
war fighting doctrine have increased the demand for training and testing ranges."

Van Antwerp assessed the political situation, "The effects of these
encroachment factors are intensified by well-organized communities
committed to the elimination of the military's impact on them. The
effectiveness of these communities is enhanced by a system of
environmental regulation that allows for discretionary enforcement and
citizens' authority to challenge regulatory decisions, resulting in
pressure on regulators to interpret environmental requirements most
conservatively to avoid speculative effects or risk of litigation."

In response to community and regulatory pressures, the Army supports
cooperative planning with neighboring localities, and as at Fort Bragg,
it encourages the creation of buffer zones around many of its
installations. It is studying endangered species and partnering with the
Fish and Wildlife Service. At past and present munitions ranges, it is
compiling a universal range inventory. It is funding studies and
educating the public about explosives risk. It is increasing its
outreach to communities.

But at some point, existing efforts might not do the job. Van Antwerp
said, "after appropriate review and discussion with affected parties we
may seek legislative clarification to achieve reasonable application of
statutes as they impact our active ranges and live training.... We
believe it is unreasonable to stop vital readiness training just because
issues are technically complex and require time to understand and
implement effective responses.

In conclusion, Van Antwerp asked Congress to support the Army's
Sustainable Range Management Program and to foster cooperation among
regulators and the military "in ways that emphasize the need to balance
military readiness concerns and environmental regulation." 

(As we announced before, Van Antwerp's testimony and those of his
counterparts from the other armed services can be downloaded from
http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/hearings/2001/r010320.htm.)

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~