[Senate Hearing 111-100, Part 3]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-100, Pt. 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1390
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
PART 3
READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
----------
JUNE 17, 2009
[GRAPHICS NOT IN TIFF FORMAT
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
-----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFFICE
52-622 PDF WASHINGTON: 2009
______________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010--Part 3 READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
S. Hrg. 111-100 Pt. 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1390
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 3
READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
__________
JUNE 17, 2009
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
?
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
EVAN BAYH, Indiana, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
MARK UDALL, Colorado JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Military Construction, Environmental, and Base Closure Programs
june 17, 2009
Page
Arny, Wayne, Deputy Under Secretary Of Defense, Installations and
Environment.................................................... 6
Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations
and Environment................................................ 24
Calcara, Joseph F., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Installations and Housing...................................... 45
Ferguson, Kathleen I., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, Installations........................................... 54
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND BASE CLOSURE PROGRAMS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:07 p.m. in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Evan Bayh
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Bayh, Udall, Inhofe,
Chambliss, Thune, and Burr.
Committee staff members present: Leah C. Brewer,
nominations and hearings clerk; and Jennifer L. Stoker,
security clerk.
Majority staff members present: Terence K. Laughlin,
professional staff member; and Russell L. Shaffer, counsel.
Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority
counsel; and Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Mary C. Holloway and Breon N.
Wells.
Committee members' assistants present: Patrick Hayes,
assistant to Senator Bayh; Jennifer Barrett, assistant to
Senator Udall; Anthony J. Lazorski, assistant to Senator
Inhofe; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; and
Kevin Kane, assistant to Senator Burr.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR EVAN BAYH, CHAIRMAN
Senator Bayh. The hearing will please come to order.
I'd like to express my appreciation to our witnesses for
joining us today, and the people in the audience for your time,
and my ranking member, Senator Burr, for his attendance and
interest in the subject matter today.
Today, the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
meets to review the military construction (MILCON) and
environmental programs of the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the fiscal year 2010 budget request for those programs.
Additionally, we will review and receive testimony concerning
the Department's overseas contingency operations request for
fiscal year 2010, which was provided as part of the President's
regular budget request this year; and finally, on the
Department's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) request for
fiscal year 2010.
We welcome back Secretary Penn and Mr. Arny.
The Chair would note, with particular pride, that Mr. Penn
originally hails from the State of Indiana, an obvious sign of
intelligence, which we appreciate. [Laughter.]
Not to suggest that the others don't possess a similar
quality, but----[Laughter.]
We welcome two new witnesses this year, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Joseph Calcara from the Army, and Kathleen Ferguson
from the Air Force. Thank you both for joining us.
Mr. Calcara, did I pronounce your name correctly?
Mr. Calcara. Close enough, sir.
Senator Bayh. My last name is mispronounced regularly, so I
hope I did well. What is the correct pronunciation?
Mr. Calcara. ``Cal-carra.''
Senator Bayh. Thank you.
Thank you all for testifying on such short notice. Because
of the late arrival of the President's budget request and our
committee's pending markup schedule, we, unfortunately, didn't
have a very large window of time to schedule the hearing, so I
appreciate your willingness to accommodate the short timeframe.
We meet this afternoon to discuss DOD's MILCON, housing,
and environmental programs, as well as the implementation of
the 2005 BRAC round. We have many challenges to discuss here
today.
This year, we have before us again one of the largest
funding requests for MILCON and BRAC in memory. The fiscal year
2010 budget request for MILCON, BRAC, and family housing
programs, totaling $24.3 billion, is just slightly less than
last year's record amount.
As our witnesses describe in their prepared statements,
they are also responsible for billions of additional dollars
requested for repair and maintenance, base operations, and
environmental programs to keep those bases running.
This year is one of transition between two different
administrations and perhaps two different philosophical
approaches to force posture and stationing. It also appears
that your Services' MILCON budget requests have also deferred a
number of decisions pending the results of the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR), more than will likely be decided by that
review, I suspect.
I realize, for the Army in particular, you were handed some
last-minute decisions and guidance from Secretary Gates, and
have been scrambling a bit in order to put your program
together. In some cases, you've had to accommodate changes to
projects that have already been authorized and appropriated,
and for which some contracts have already been awarded. The
Army recently announced a reduction from 48 to 45 brigade
combat teams (BCTs), with the reduction to come from Fort
Carson, CO; Fort Stewart, GA; and Fort Bliss, TX. Last year,
Congress authorized and appropriated almost $1.4 billion in
fiscal year 2009 MILCON funds in preparation for the activation
of those BCTs, which may not be needed now for that purpose.
In addition, there is approximately $600 million more in
fiscal year 2010 MILCON requests for barracks, health clinics,
ranges, and schools associated with those three BCTs, which
also may no longer be needed. We look forward to hearing your
plans to accommodate those changes.
The Navy's MILCON requests include $378 million in projects
to begin what will eventually be a $4.0 billion MILCON bill
associated with the relocation of 8,000 marines from Okinawa to
Guam. However, the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the
Guam facilities is not yet complete, and the Navy's Guam master
plan has not been provided to Congress, as required.
In addition, the Commandant of the Marine Corps recently
indicated in testimony before the full Armed Services Committee
that he had serious concerns about the ability to train his
marines in Guam and the Northern Marianas, was concerned with
the Government of Japan's ability to provide an adequate
replacement facility for Marine Corps aviation elements in
Okinawa, and that relocation plans would be subject to review
during the forthcoming QDR. I look forward to the Navy's
testimony on these points. I would also note that the Navy
request includes significant funding for facilities to grow the
Marine Corps.
While the Air Force has a significantly smaller request
than the other two Services, there are a number of MILCON
projects that are planned for the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility that appear, on the surface to be--well, this
testimony has been described--supplied to me by the staff--
``somewhat dubious.'' So, Ms. Ferguson, I look forward to
hearing from you about that.
These projects appear to have been developed on an ad hoc
basis without having secured host-country agreements to protect
our increasing investments. I look forward to discussing this
issue during the hearing. I think that may involve some of the
missile sites in the Czech Republic and elsewhere.
Finally, fiscal year 2010 represents the last significant
investment in MILCON in order to complete the BRAC 2005 round.
I would like to know if there are any potential stumbling
blocks to completing BRAC on schedule by September 2011.
As for the environmental programs, the funding request for
fiscal year 2010 remains largely consistent with previous
years, with the exception of pollution prevention, which is
significantly lower than that requested for 2008 and 2009.
As for environmental restoration and remediation programs,
the cleanup of unexploded ordnance, discarded military
munitions, and munition constituents, continues to be of high
interest to the committee. The National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 set target dates for cleanup of
these materials at active installations, formerly used defense
sites, and BRAC sites. While progress is being made, current
projections suggest that these dates may not be met. DOD must
continue to press forward to address these important issues.
Lastly, encroachment on the installations, particularly on
our training and testing ranges, continues to be of concern at
many locations around the country. One program that has seen
significant success in reducing encroachment while conserving
areas around those installations is the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Initiative. The committee has
encouraged greater use of this program in the past, and the
program could be expanded even further in the future.
I will note the presence of Senator Udall.
Thank you for coming, Senator Udall, and your interest in
these issues.
I will now turn to Senator Burr for any opening remarks
that you may have, and then, Senator Udall, if there's anything
you'd like to add following Senator Burr, the subcommittee
would be happy to hear from you.
Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD BURR
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank
you for calling this important hearing to review the budget
request for installations and environmental programs for fiscal
year 2010.
I also want to thank our witnesses for their dedicated
public service. As I review their testimony and this budget
request, I'm struck by the sheer magnitude of the range and
difficulty of the issues. You deserve our gratitude and sincere
appreciation for serving our Nation in this capacity.
I want to recognize Mr. Arny. It's my understanding this
may be your last appearance before this committee in managing
installations and environment for the Secretary of Defense. I
want to thank you publicly for your public service to this
country.
This is a unique budget year, in many ways, as we consider
decisions and authorizations that will have far-reaching
consequences. This budget request includes the first increment
of construction totaling $378 million required to move 8,000
marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam. This
construction, when completed in 2014, may cost U.S. taxpayers
well over $4 billion, with another $3 billion loan to pay off
over time. This amount does not include plans by the Air Force
to establish a strike capability on Guam, which will add
another $500 million to the bill. The EIS to support the move
is ongoing, but I know the Marine Corps has particular concerns
with their ability to train in Guam. I look forward to hearing
about plans to ensure that marines can train effectively once
the move is completed.
This budget request includes a request to authorize $116
million for the Air Force to construct a new air base in the
Omani desert. The total bill required to ensure our airmen can
use the base will exceed $380 million.
We have a similar proposal to spend over $60 million in
Qatar for the second phase of a four-phase program that will
require another $250 million to support over 6,200 U.S.
military personnel at that Persian Gulf location.
Add to these requirements the money needed to build
barracks and operational facilities for our soldiers and
marines, added to the end strength of the Army and the Marine
Corps, as well as the $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone
for facilities in Afghanistan, you don't have a lot left over
to do much else at all. My guess is that budgets are only going
to get tighter in the years to come. But, I can only guess
that, since we don't have the benefit of a Future Years Defense
Plan (FYDP) beyond 2010 to see how all these programs will be
funded in the out years--excuse me, Mr. Chairman--I propose
that this might----[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. I thought you were choking on all of the
spending we were doing here. [Laughter.]
Senator Burr. I think it's a culmination of healthcare
finally getting to me. [Laughter.]
Never fear, the government's here to take care of it.
[Laughter.]
----I propose that this might be a good year to take a
critical look at some of these projects and to make some hard
decisions about holding back on the spending until we have a
better idea of where we're going with regard to the QDR. We
must avoid, at all costs, authorizing a project that becomes
the bridge to nowhere, which is a real risk if we don't know
for sure if the funding to make these projects complete and
usable will be in future budgets. The taxpayers expect us to
make prudent decisions.
Turning to the environmental program, the Services continue
to face significant environmental challenges that could impact
their ability to deploy and maintain readiness. I'm
particularly interested in hearing from Mr. Penn about recent
revelations regarding the contamination of drinking water at
Camp Lejeune from 1950 to mid-1980s. Recent developments have
raised more questions than answers from many of my constituents
who were stationed there during these periods.
In May, the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry
(ATSDR) removed from its Web site the ATSDR 1997 Public Health
Assessment on the impact of Camp Lejeune water contamination.
In describing its rationale, ATSDR said that it did not fully
take into consideration the documented presence of benzene in
the water. After 12 years, ATSDR now says that they can't say
for sure whether children or adults have been adversely
impacted by exposures to volatile organic compounds in the
water. ATSDR also says that it's conducting further studies to
determine if past exposure can be linked to certain birth
defects and childhood cancers, as well as other studies of
illness.
This month, the National Academy of Sciences has issued a
report in response to a mandate from Congress. It also
concluded that, while water systems at Camp Lejeune were
contaminated, they cannot say for sure whether people at Camp
Lejeune may have suffered adverse health outcomes as a result
of their exposure.
Even more disturbing for former marines and other residents
of Camp Lejeune, the report concludes that, given inherent
limitations in the data, additional research is unlikely to
provide a direct basis for drawing more definitive conclusions.
In other words, limbo forever.
Again, these revelations have been leaving veterans and
their families with more questions than answers. I'd like to
know what the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps plan
to do next, and how they intend to answer the concerns of
former marines, their families, and former employees of Camp
Lejeune.
Mr. Chairman, it's also come to my attention that Mr. Arny
is a former Top Gun pilot; former Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, Shipbuilding Logistics; and former
Senate Armed Services Committee professional staff member,
serving on this committee from 1981 to 1984. He has also
invited one of his two sons to attend this last public hearing
that he's doing. The son attending the hearing, Commander Skip
Arny, is a Top Gun pilot, flying F-18s. He just finished as the
commanding officer of the Strike Fighter Weapons School at
Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore, CA, and is getting ready for a
tour as a defense attache in Poland. Following his dad's path,
he's a 1990 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.
His youngest son, Matt, is a lieutenant commander naval
flight officer who recently returned from deployment to Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Somalia, with the FA-103, onboard the USS
Eisenhower, flying F-18s, as well, and is now attending the
Naval War College in Newport, RI. He is also a Naval Academy
graduate, 1993.
Wayne, if it doesn't embarrass, could I ask your son,
Commander Skip Arny, to recognize himself?
Commander, thank you for your service.
Mr. Arny. Thank you for that. [Applause.]
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Senator Udall, any opening comments you'd like to make?
Senator Udall. On that note, maybe Mr. Arny should start
testifying right now. [Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. It is a first for this subcommittee that
testimony begins, to applause. [Laughter.]
I'm sure it will end that way, too.
Mr. Arny, we'll begin with you. Welcome back to this
committee, where you served with great distinction.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Arny. Thank you, sir. Chairman Bayh, Senator Burr,
Senator Udall, I'm honored to appear before you today to
discuss our MILCON program for 2010.
I thank you for acknowledging my son, Skip. As you said, he
recently finished Command of Fighter Weapons School at Lemoore,
and we have the pleasure of having him and our grandchildren in
the area. His brother, as you said, just finished up the tour
at the War College, and is in training to command a squadron
also at Lemoore. So, like it or not, my wife and I have spent a
lot of time at Lemoore, and will continue to, as well as lots
of time in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, these two have never
been stationed at the same base together for more than 3
months.
In the last 10 years, DOD has come a long way in improving
the facilities and infrastructure in which our military and
civilian workforce and their families work and live. We could
not have progressed as far as we have without the continuing
support of Congress, and, in particular, this subcommittee.
Today, we manage over 500,000 facilities, worth over $700
billion, located on approximately 29 million acres of land
around the world. In comparison, about 10 years ago we had
115,000 more facilities. The principal program that has helped
us balance the infrastructure has been the BRAC authority. It's
enabled us to close over 121 major installations and realign 79
major bases after 5 rounds. The 2005 decisions alone affected
over 800 locations and included 24 major closures, 24 major
realignments, and 765 lesser actions.
I'd also like to comment on the disposal process for these
bases. We've been asked, as a Department, how we feel about
pending legislation that would mandate no-cost economic
development conveyances (EDC). We currently have a full range
of conveyance mechanisms available to the Services, and they
already include no-cost EDCs. We are, and always have been,
open to this conveyance method, and are more than willing to
review such requests, based on the needs of the local
communities. Indeed, my data indicates that, since 2002, the
Army has granted EDCs on 68 parcels for 32,000 acres. Now, of
those, there were 23 parcels at no cost for 31,000 acres, and
45 parcels at cost at 1,000 acres on 5 bases. The Navy has done
8 no-cost EDCs for 4,000 acres.
The Air Force has had 19 no-cost EDCs covering just under
24,000 acres. But, to mandate no-cost EDCs would only advantage
some locations, where potentially valuable property, where the
taxpayers of the communities--with potentially valuable
property, where the taxpayers of the rest of the Nation could
perhaps benefit from participating in the profit from the
development of that valuable property, especially the
development of housing areas that don't bring permanent job
growth, as is normally required of a no-cost EDC. Also, the
Services are required to plow back any funds they receive from
BRAC disposals into BRAC purposes, and that has primarily been
to accelerate the required environmental cleanup of former BRAC
bases. A mandated no-cost EDC would essentially be giving a
particular community, that normally wouldn't qualify for it, a
windfall profit that would divert money from the taxpayers.
We will continue to evaluate the legislation we've been
presented through the Department's legislative review process,
but I wanted to give you this position, on the record.
We also believe it is not enough just to close bases and
move functions, we also need to conduct our business more
efficiently, as prudent caretakers of the taxpayers' resource.
I believe we are.
An excellent example of this is joint basing. As part of
BRAC 2005, we are forming 12 new joint bases from 26 separate
bases to consolidate installation and management functions
under one component. Five of the joint bases, involving 11
installations, will reach full implementation in--October 1,
2009; the remaining 7 joint bases will reach full limitation--
implementation in October 2010, well ahead of the BRAC
statutory deadline of September 2011.
As for housing, a decade ago we were maintaining over
300,000 family housing units, two-thirds of which were deemed
inadequate by the military departments who owned them. With
your help and vision, we put housing privatization authorities
in place, and the private sector responded by delivering
modern, affordable housing, and, with appropriate oversight, we
ensured the Federal Government's needs were met. With this
year's request, over 98 percent of DOD's housing inventory in
the United States will be funded for privatization.
With regard to barracks, the military departments are
modernizing their facilities to increase the privacy and
amenities in permanent-party bachelor housing. Using MILCON,
much progress has been made, but there is still a need for
almost $15 billion to complete the permanent-party buyout.
Privatizing bachelor housing is one way to go, but it has
unique challenges compared to family housing. We have seen
recent innovative concepts, where the Army has added bachelor
officer quarters and senior enlisted bachelor quarters to its
existing family housing privatization projects. The Navy is
mainly focusing its unaccompanied housing privatization efforts
to bring shipboard junior enlisted sailors ashore. The first
unaccompanied housing privatization pilot project was awarded
in December 2006 in San Diego. The second was executed in
December 2007 at Hampton Roads, VA. A third project is under
consideration at the Jacksonville-Mayport area in Florida. Both
of the awarded projects have demonstrated that, with this
authority to pay junior enlisted members less than full housing
Allowance Transformation and Realignment Agreements (ATARAs),
we are on our way to a very successful enlisted privatization.
Both of the awarded projects have demonstrated that, with
this authority to pay junior enlisted members less than full
housing ATARAs, we're on our way to very successful enlisted
privatization.
This year's budget signals yet another banner year for
installations, with about $23 billion in MILCON and about $8
billion in facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization.
At $23 billion, the MILCON program is very robust,
especially when I compare it to the $8 billion to $9 billion
levels we were receiving 10 years ago. Similarly, our
sustainment budget this year is also more robust, as compared
to 10 years ago.
Although much remains to be done, we've made steady headway
over the last decade, through two administrations, to improve
the overall condition of our facilities inventory by using the
facility sustainment model. It has given us a sound target by
which to measure our sustainment budgets. As a consequence,
we've been able to defend our requirements and increase our
overall funding, in spite of significant competing demands.
Recapitalization has been more challenging. We've moved
away from believing a single recap rate expressed in years
applied across myriad category types could provide a funding
level that was rational and defendable, because it didn't work
right.
When I was with the Navy secretariat, I personally observed
its inaccuracy as Hurricane Ivan hit Pensacola. The sudden
infusion of restoration funds skewed the Navy's recap rate to a
lower number than the targeted 67 years, but the condition of
Navy facilities across the inventory did not improve. Because
of this and other factors, I've directed my staff to revisit
the facilities condition indices that the Federal agencies are
mandated to include in their real property.
My staff will work with DOD agencies to set up program
guidelines for determining which facilities require priority
for funding, reassessing how Q ratings are determined, and
their frequency, and, most importantly, reestablishing how the
Department uses master planning at the installation level and
eventually in each of the overseas combatant command regions.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to highlight the Department's management of
installation assets to meet the ever-changing warfighting
landscape. Our military must be flexible and responsive, and
our installations must adapt, reconfigure, and be managed to
maximize that flexibility and responsiveness. We believe we're
working on the right issues, and, while we cannot fix them
overnight, we appreciate your continued support, and we look
forward to working with you and this subcommittee to provide
quality installations that our military forces and their
families need and deserve.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arny follows:]
Prepared Statement by Wayne Arny
introduction
Chairman Bayh, Senator Burr, distinguished members of the
subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to address the President's budget request for fiscal year 2010 and to
present an update on the status of our Nation's military installations.
overview
Our installations are the platforms from which America's military
capability is generated, deployed, and sustained. They play an
essential part in addressing two principal objectives of the
Department. First, they take care of our military forces, our most
important asset. Second, they support and enhance our capability to
meet the military challenges that we face today, and those that we may
face in the coming years. Our installations provide training facilities
for new recruits and career servicemembers, maintenance shops and
depots to repair and refit their equipment, and quality work and living
spaces that warfighters and their families deserve. Our primary focus
is to ensure that our military installations are capable of supporting
the missions of our forces, today and in the future. To successfully
provide this support, we focus our resources on programs and
initiatives that will provide the necessary infrastructure in the most
effective and efficient manner.
America's military installations, including both their built and
natural environments, must be managed in a comprehensive and integrated
manner to optimize our investment in the assets needed to accomplish
the mission. In the United States and overseas, the Department
currently manages over 539,000 facilities, with a plant replacement
value exceeding $700 billion, located on approximately 29 million acres
of land. These assets must provide modern and safe work and training
areas for our military forces, as well as quality housing.
Before updating you on our fiscal year 2010 Installations and
Environment programs, I'd like to talk briefly about the impact on our
military infrastructure of two extremely important challenges facing
our Nation. The first of these is Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO).
overseas contingency operations
Military construction (MILCON) is a key enabler of OCO, directly
supporting wartime operations by providing operational and support
facilities at key locations. In April, the Department submitted its
fiscal year 2009 OCO funding request for $2.3 billion. This investment
will help the Department execute realignment of forces into and within
Afghanistan, by enabling strategic and operational flexibility and
increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
The fiscal year 2009 request will also facilitate access to child care
and improve support facilities for wounded warriors and their families.
The fiscal year 2010 OCO request of $1.4 billion continues the
important objective to increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan,
specifically the Regional Commands South and East. The facilities
required to sustain, protect, and house these personnel include
utilities, roads, housing, and dining facilities as well as
environmental projects. The fiscal year 2010 OCO request will increase
the capacity of air lines of communication, broaden logistics and
intelligence capabilities, and provide the ability to reposition forces
as the situation dictates.
american recovery and reinvestment act (arra) of 2009
The other challenge is the downturn in the economy, and in
response, the ARRA of February 2009. This effort will have a
significant impact on the Department of Defense's (DOD) facilities. The
Department is applying the funding to enhance our ability to provide
high quality installations and facilities and to improve our energy
efficiency.
The ARRA includes approximately $7.4 billion in Defense-related
appropriations. The MILCON and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds
provided by the act are available for obligation through the end of
fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2010, respectively. The Department has
identified over 4,200 projects in the following categories:
$4.2 billion in O&M accounts to improve, repair, and
modernize DOD facilities, including energy-related improvements
$1.3 billion in MILCON for hospitals
$240 million in MILCON for child development centers
$100 million in MILCON for warrior transition
complexes
$535 million for other MILCON projects, such as
housing for servicemembers and their families, energy
conservation, and National Guard facilities
$300 million to develop energy-efficient technologies
$120 million for the Energy Conservation Investment
Program (ECIP)
$555 million for a temporary expansion of the
Homeowner's Assistance Program (HAP) benefits for private home
sale losses of DOD military and civilian personnel
$15 million for DOD Inspector General oversight and
audit of ARRA execution
In addition to providing much needed facility improvements and
funding for important energy research programs in support of the
national effort to achieve greater energy independence, the ARRA will
also contribute to our ongoing efforts to ``green'' DOD's built
infrastructure. In their baseline MILCON programs, the Military
Services have taken the lead in ensuring a sustainable future for the
Department by directing that new construction meets both the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Silver Certification standard and the Federal Leadership in High
Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding. In
executing ARRA projects, this type of forward thinking directly
translates to 115 projects and $2.3 billion in the MILCON and military
family housing construction programs designed and built to LEED Silver
Certification standards.
DOD is committed to ensuring that ARRA funds are expended
responsibly and in a transparent manner that will further job creation,
economic recovery, and the overall improvement of our military
infrastructure. Over the coming months, we'll be keeping Congress and
the public apprised of our progress in executing these funds.
facilities investment
Now I would like present an overview of our Installations and
Environment programs beginning with MILCON and related facilities
investments. The fiscal year 2010 MILCON and Family Housing
Appropriation request totals $23 billion, which is a decrease of $1.9
billion from the fiscal year 2009 budget request, but still compares
very favorably with historic trends. The decreased funding is primarily
in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Family Housing programs,
which I will discuss in more detail shortly. The budget request will
enable the Department to respond rapidly to warfighter requirements,
enhance mission readiness, and provide essential services for its
personnel and their families. In addition to new construction, this
funding will restore and modernize enduring facilities, while
eliminating those that are excess or obsolete. A large part of the
funding is targeted for initiatives to support the realignment and
increase in end strength of forces, projects to improve and update
facilities, and projects needed to take care of our people and their
families, such as family and bachelor housing, Warrior in Transition
housing, and child development centers.
COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Request 2010 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction................... 11,283 12,835
NATO Security Investment Program........ 241 276
Base Realignment and Closure IV......... 393 397
Base Realignment and Closure 2005....... 9,065 7,480
Family Housing Construction/Improvements 1,457 489
Family Housing Operations and 1,741 1,444
Maintenance............................
Chemical Demilitarization............... 134 147
Family Housing Improvement Fund......... 1 3
Energy Conservation Investment Program.. 80 90
Homeowners Assistance Program........... 5 23
-------------------------------
Total................................. 24,400 23,184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are continuing ongoing initiatives to reshape and resize our
infrastructure, and at the same time, we recognize that there will be
localized growth in the facilities footprint to accommodate changes in
force structure, end strength, and weapons systems. These efforts
include facilities to support Army Modularity, Army and Marine Corps
Grow-The-Force initiatives, and bed-down of new weapons systems such as
the Joint Strike Fighter.
While our basing initiatives continue the process of reconfiguring
our overall physical plant, and acquiring facilities for future
requirements, we cannot lose sight of the importance of maintaining and
modernizing our existing facilities. It is imperative that we continue
to invest in our existing infrastructure, and plan for the appropriate
level of investment in all our facilities going forward.
Facilities sustainment has been and continues to be the most
important program to support the overall health of our inventory of
facilities. Sustainment funds regularly scheduled maintenance and major
repair or replacement of facility components expected periodically
throughout the life cycle of a facility. Investing in sustainment
prevents deterioration, maintains safety, and preserves performance. We
use the Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM) to estimate the funding
requirements for our facilities. The model uses benchmark costs from
public and private sources which are updated on a regular basis. Our
goal continues to be full sustainment of our facilities to optimize our
investment and ensure readiness. The fiscal year 2010 President's
budget provides $7.8 billion for sustaining the Department's
significant inventory, representing 91 percent of the FSM requirement.
The second key element of our facilities investment program is
recapitalization, which includes restoration and modernization, and is
funded primarily with O&M and MILCON appropriations. Restoration
includes repair and replacement work to restore facilities damaged by
inadequate sustainment, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other
causes. Modernization includes alteration of facilities to implement
new or higher standards, accommodate new functions, or replace building
components that typically last more than 50 years. The Department
remains committed to maintaining a rate of investment in facilities
recapitalization that will improve, modernize, and restore existing
facilities, and replace them when it is more economical to do so. To
that end, we're refining the way we calculate the required investment
for recapitalization, and more closely aligning it with the actual
condition of each facility. We will keep you apprised of our progress
as we develop the new methodology.
SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Request 2010 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainment (O&M-like) *................ 7,482 7,799
Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like 1,780 2,035
plus) *................................
Restoration and Modernization (MILCON).. 8,102 6,527
-------------------------------
Total SRM............................. 17,364 16,361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host nation, and
working capital funds and other appropriations such as Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E).
Separate and distinct from the BRAC process, we continue to right-
size our inventory through the elimination of excess and obsolete
facilities. The Military Departments continue to maintain and execute
robust disposal and demolition programs to improve the safety and
aesthetics of our installations, to ensure that only essential
facilities are retained, and to reduce overall operating costs. In
fiscal year 2008, the Department eliminated 6 million square feet of
unneeded facilities. Another 5.5 million square feet is projected for
demolition in fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2010 request includes
almost $200 million to eliminate approximately 8 million additional
square feet of unneeded infrastructure.
global defense posture
Now I'd like to tell you more about our initiatives to provide the
right military facilities in the right location with the right
capabilities, beginning with the status of our global restationing
efforts. As we continue with planned posture changes to meet our
worldwide missions, the Department is improving its ability to contend
with post-September 11 security challenges and developing more relevant
relationships and forward capabilities for 21st century expeditionary
operations. The fiscal year 2010 MILCON request supports the
Department's efforts to strengthen our forward military presence,
including facilities and infrastructure, and to transform overseas
legacy forces, Cold War basing structures, and host-nation
relationships into a flexible network of access and capabilities with
allies and partners. These efforts include:
Continued force posture realignments within and from
Central Europe which enable advanced training and flexible
ground force capabilities to support NATO's own transformation
goals. The European Command's transformation and
recapitalization efforts will require investments in fixed
facilities, mobility, prepositioning of equipment, and
interoperability. Future infrastructure requests will enable
the elimination of substandard housing and will include
projects that support continued transformation efforts.
Shifting our European posture south and east by
transforming the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, and
establishing infrastructure support for rotational presence in
Romania and Bulgaria. Permanent Forward Operating Sites and
other training facilities in Romania and Bulgaria have
projected completion dates of 2009 and 2011, respectively. In
addition to supporting a full-time training effort, Joint Task
Force-East provides the logistical base for United States Air
Forces in Europe and Special Operations Command Europe
exercises in Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
Continued progress toward future realignments in the
Pacific as part of U.S.-Japan force posture changes that will
have far-reaching, beneficial impacts for the U.S.-Japan
alliance, and will shape our strategic posture throughout the
Asia-Pacific region. While Japan is shouldering most of the
costs associated with the planned posture changes per the
Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), U.S. MILCON funds are
necessary to complete remaining facility construction and other
infrastructure needs on Guam. MILCON funding will provide
projects such as utilities and airfield pavement to bed-down
Marine aviation at Andersen Air Force Base, wharf improvements,
and the relocation of a military working dog facility at Naval
Base Guam. Investments are also needed to improve off-base
infrastructure, including selected roads and bridges required
for throughput of necessary construction materials.
Continued consolidation and restructuring of forces on
the Korean peninsula to strengthen our overall military
effectiveness and to prepare for transitioning wartime
operational control of Republic of Korea (ROK) forces to the
ROK military forces by 2012. This includes relocating U.S.
troops out of Seoul, returning most of Yongsan Army Garrison to
the ROK, and consolidating remaining troops into two hubs south
of Seoul. This effort positions U.S. forces to better conduct
combat operations should deterrence fail on the Korean
peninsula, and makes the U.S. presence less intrusive on the
Korean people. We anticipate the ROK to continue funding much
of the facilities and infrastructure construction for this
transition in accordance with the amended Land Partnership Plan
and Yongsan Relocation Plan. However, MILCON funding is needed
at Camp Humphreys to support U.S. Army forces relocating from
camps north of the Han River.
Developing basic infrastructure and capabilities for
current and future operations in the U.S. Central Command area
of responsibility and other overseas contingency operation
areas.
Enhancing contingency access through an array of sites
in Africa that serve as focal points for combined training,
capacity building, and broadened relationships with host
nations and other partners. MILCON funding is needed at Camp
Lemonier, the Department's enduring Forward Operating Site in
Djibouti, to support such requirements and improve
infrastructure needs within the U.S. Africa Command.
The Department continues to maintain and strengthen host-nation
partnerships supporting these posture changes. The fiscal year 2010
global defense posture projects ensure strengthening of forward
capabilities for OCO and other expeditionary nontraditional missions,
commitment to alliance goals and collective defense capabilities, and
enhanced deterrent capabilities for addressing future security
challenges.
base realignment and closure (brac) 2005
In addition to our global posture realignments, we continue to
execute BRAC 2005, the largest round undertaken by the Department.
After an exhaustive examination of over 1,200 alternatives, the
Secretary of Defense forwarded 222 recommendations to the BRAC
Commission for its review. The Commission accepted about 65 percent
without change and its resulting recommendations were approved by the
President and forwarded to Congress. Congress expressed its support of
these recommendations by not enacting a joint resolution of disapproval
by November 9, 2005, therefore, the Department became legally obligated
to close and realign all installations so recommended by the Commission
in its report. These decisions affect over 800 locations across the
Nation and include 24 major closures, 24 major realignments, and 765
lesser actions. The BRAC Act required that the Department begin
implementation of each recommendation within 2 years of the date the
President transmitted the Commission's report to Congress and complete
implementation of all recommendations within 6 years of that date. The
Department continues to monitor BRAC implementation to ensure we are
meeting our legal obligation.
Beyond the comparative size, it is important to note that BRAC 2005
is the most complex round ever. This complexity is not merely a
function of its magnitude, but is, to the largest extent, a function of
the original goal established for this round: that BRAC 2005 would
focus on the reconfiguration of operational capacity to maximize war
fighting capability and efficiency. Focusing on operational capacity
required that we appropriately assess the increased military
capabilities we are achieving through these recommendations.
We accomplished that requirement and, through BRAC, are
significantly enhancing each capability. Two locations, Fort Bliss, TX,
and Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick, ME, highlight what we are
achieving. Fort Bliss is the largest operational Army BRAC movement.
Approximately 15,000 soldiers and their family members will move to
Fort Bliss and the surrounding communities, and construction of BRAC
operational facilities is moving ahead as planned in preparation for
the arrival of the 1st Armor Division at Fort Bliss. In September 2008,
Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division took occupancy of the
first Brigade Combat Team (BCT) complex. Soldiers of the 4th Brigade,
1st Armored Division are now in temporary facilities and eagerly await
completion of the second BCT complex scheduled for September 2009. The
Army has programmed the construction of several quality of life
facilities to support this growth including dental/health clinics, a
hospital, a child development center, a commissary, a physical fitness
center, and youth centers.
The closure of NAS Brunswick will reduce operating costs while
allowing the single-siting of the East Coast Maritime Patrol (VP)
community at NAS Jacksonville, Florida. NAS Jacksonville and NAS
Brunswick are collaborating to ensure seamless relocation of five
aircraft squadrons along with the realignment of the maintenance
functions and various mission support groups. In preparation for the
arrival of the first Brunswick aircraft, a new type II hangar
construction project is on track for completion this month. It will be
the home for the first returning Brunswick VP squadron which is
currently deployed. The hangar, the Navy's largest, will provide
maintenance spaces for all five Brunswick squadrons and will also be
able to support the future transition to the P-8 Poseidon multimission
maritime aircraft.
A key component of this BRAC round was rationalizing medical
infrastructure. This rationalization was needed to address the
transformation in health care that has occurred since these facilities
were constructed, and to adapt our facilities to the continuing changes
in warrior care. At one end of the scale, BRAC enabled the Department
to close seven small and inefficient inpatient operations, converting
them to ambulatory surgery centers. BRAC also enabled DOD to realign
medical operations from McChord Air Force Base, WA, to Fort Lewis, WA,
and to transform the Medical Center at Keesler Air Force Base, MS, into
a community hospital. On the larger end of the scale, BRAC enabled DOD
to realign two of its major military medical markets: San Antonio, TX,
and the National Capital Region (NCR). The strategic realignments in
San Antonio of Brooke Army Medical Center and Wilford Hall medical
center, and in the NCR of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the
National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, MD, address critical needs
to realign and consolidate key clinical and clinical research
capabilities, undertake serious facility modernization requirements, as
well as better matching facility locations and capabilities, achieving
medical advances, and adapting to changing needs of wounded warriors.
For the NCR, the fiscal year 2010 costs (including the $263 million
included in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request) are $2.4
billion. As is the case with San Antonio, costs rose due to
construction inflation, wounded warrior lessons learned, and unforeseen
costs as the construction process has unfolded.
Unique to the NCR is the effort to enhance and accelerate
construction at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, VA, as a result of lessons
learned and the Department's commitment to implement the
recommendations of the Independent Review Group (IRG) on Rehabilitative
Care and Administrative Processes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
and National Naval Medical Center Bethesda. The IRG's April 2007 report
recommended a variety of measures to improve medical care and that DOD
accelerate BRAC projects in the NCR. In order to implement the report's
recommendations and incorporate other war-related lessons learned, the
Department committed to create Warrior Transition Unit facilities at
the Bethesda Campus to enhance wounded warrior care, especially the
outpatient convalescent phase. The Department also committed to
enhancing inpatient facilities at both Fort Belvoir and Bethesda. These
enhancements, together with a commitment to accelerate construction to
ensure that the new facilities will be operational as soon as possible,
required the investment of an additional $679 million. The fiscal year
2008 supplemental appropriated $416 million.
The BRAC 2005 Commission Report also calls for the transfer of
installation management functions from 14 designated installations to
12 other installations to create 12 Joint Bases. Joint basing calls for
installations that share a common boundary or are in close proximity to
consolidate installation management functions and the delivery of
installation support functions while considering best business
practices and ensuring warfighting capabilities are preserved or
enhanced. The 12 Joint Bases will be established in two phases, with
Full Operational Capability (FOC) for Phase I bases in October 2009 and
Phase II bases in October 2010. At FOC, total obligation authority and
real property will transfer from supported component(s) to the
supporting component.
The Department is using this opportunity to create the conditions
for more consistent and effective delivery of installation support
through Common Output Level Standards (COLS), which establish joint
definitions, standards, and performance metrics for each identified
installation support function that will be consolidated at each Joint
Base.
In its entirety, the BRAC program is substantial. As of the fiscal
year 2010 President's budget it represents a $35.4 billion requirement
over 2006-2011 and $4 billion in annual savings after full
implementation (after fiscal year 2011). The Department originally
estimated BRAC 2005 investment using the Cost of Base Realignment
Actions (COBRA) model at $21.1 billion (in constant fiscal year 2005
dollars) with annual recurring savings of $4.4 billion. The COBRA model
used in the analysis estimated costs based on standard factors to array
the relative merit of options--it was never intended to be budget
quality nor used for implementation planning. When compared to our
current requirement, there is a $14.3 billion or 68 percent increase in
COBRA-estimated costs. The increase was fully funded in the President's
fiscal year 2010 budget request, and results primarily from inflation,
changes in MILCON, environmental restoration and program management
costs not included in COBRA, additional O&M to support fact-of-life
cost increases, and construction for additional facilities to enhance
capabilities and/or address deficiencies. The savings decrease is
primarily a result of revised personnel eliminations.
Almost 70 percent of the BRAC 2005 program supports MILCON
requirements compared to 33 percent experienced in the previous rounds.
In the BRAC 2005 round, DOD has now made decisions to:
Use new construction vs. renovated space (existing
space diverted to other needs)
Accommodate changes in unit sizes, functions or
responsibilities by increasing facilities, changing
configurations, or building additional facilities
Accept inflation factors exceeding previous planning
factors (delayed implementation compounds the inflation
increase).
assisting communities
As we execute BRAC 2005, we continue to abide by the DOD policy
that when implementing DOD actions that seriously affect the economy of
a community, every practical consideration shall be given to minimizing
the local impact. To that end, DOD provides economic adjustment
assistance through its Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to help
communities help themselves, using the combined resources of Federal,
State, and local governments and private sector to support local
initiatives.
OEA, through the Defense Economic Adjustment Program (DEAP),
continues to work with States, territories, and more than 147
communities across the country impacted by the Department's continuing
closure, downsizing, and mission-growth actions.
Over two dozen locations are looking at unprecedented increases in
military, civilian, and contractor personnel as a result of BRAC 2005,
Global Defense Posture Realignment, Army Modularity, and Grow-the-Force
activity. For most locations, OEA is providing overall planning support
for personnel, procurement, and construction activity to prepare local
adjustment strategies, including growth management plans, to support
local mission growth. The challenge for many of these locations is to
respond to myriad hard (road, schools, houses, water and sewer) and
soft (public services, health care, child care, spousal employment)
infrastructure issues that directly bear on the quality of life for our
warfighters, their families, and the homeowners, businesses, and
workers in the surrounding communities.
A primary concern, particularly at this time of economic
uncertainty, is how to apply scarce Federal, State, and local public
resources with those of the private sector to carry out adjustments in
local facilities and public services, workforce training programs, and
local economic development activities. Needs for public investment,
such as road improvements, water and sewer infrastructure, and school
construction have emerged and OEA is working with each affected State
and region to document these needs and bring them to the attention of
other Federal Agencies for their consideration and assistance. To date,
OEA has found over 50 critical projects that are ready to move forward,
but need a total of $1.7 billion in Federal or other support.
Communities also identified over 300 other mission-growth-related
projects in various planning phases, at a total cost of $7 billion that
had incomplete funding strategies. While OEA is presently bringing
these needs to the attention of the U.S. Departments of Transportation,
Commerce, Education, and Agriculture as the cognizant agencies where
assistance might be made available, they are also seeking to update the
information to account for current economic strains and those other
growth efforts that may have information available.
OEA, on behalf of DOD, has recognized Local Redevelopment
Authorities (LRAs) for 116 locations to: provide leadership and speak
on behalf of the impacted area with one voice; identify the impacts of
closure across local businesses, workers, and communities; plan
redevelopment and other economic development activities to lessen these
impacts; and direct implementation of the redevelopment plan to respond
to these actions. Approximately 96 redevelopment plans have been
completed to date. When completed, redevelopment plans are submitted as
part of a statutorily-mandated homeless assistance application to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who, in turn,
must review each application for compliance with statute prior to
Military Department property disposal and the redevelopment effort
going forward.
The redevelopment plan is also significant at the Federal level
because: 1) the Military Departments dispose of buildings and property
in accordance with a record of decision or other decision document and,
in preparing this decision document, give substantial deference to the
LRA's redevelopment plan; and 2) other Federal agencies are to afford
priority consideration to requests for Federal assistance that are part
of the plan under Executive Order 12788, as amended, ``Defense Economic
Adjustment Programs.''
As with the growth-impacted communities, OEA is presently working
with affected closure and downsizing communities to identify specific
needs for ``public'' investment and expects to have a working estimate
of those needs by this summer. In the past, these needs have included
demolition, road alignments, infrastructure development, etc. With
disposal for these locations yet to occur, communities will need some
additional support from the U.S. Departments of Commerce (Economic
Development Administration (EDA)), Labor ((Employment Training
Administration (ETA)), and Agriculture (Rural Development
Administration) through fiscal year 2014.
The ability to support State and local economic adjustment
activities, including road construction, infrastructure development,
demolition and site preparation, workforce development, and general
economic development is beyond the Department's capacities.
Accordingly, the Department relies upon the Economic Adjustment
Committee (EAC), through DEAP, as directed by Executive Order 12788.
The EAC is comprised of 22 Federal Departments and Executive agencies,
and among its functions is to: coordinate interagency and
intergovernmental adjustment assistance; serve as a clearinghouse for
the exchange of information between Federal, State, and local officials
involved in the resolution of economic adjustment concerns resulting
from DOD actions; and, afford priority consideration to requests from
Defense-affected communities for Federal assistance that are part of a
comprehensive base redevelopment or growth management plan.
In response to previous BRAC activity, approximately $1.9 billion
in Federal assistance was provided to assist affected States,
communities, workers, and businesses. EDA, ETA, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and OEA were the source of this funding. The response
to date for BRAC 2005 has consisted of approximately $212 million,
primarily from OEA and the Department of Labor. The BRAC support has
concentrated on worker assistance, community economic adjustment
planning for growth and downsizing, and coordinating public benefit
property conveyances for downsizing communities.
The EAC is chaired by the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries
of Commerce and Labor are co Vice-Chairs. If affected States and
communities are to benefit from these Federal resources, it will be
important for the cognizant Federal programs to adequately source their
staff and program budgets to respond. To date, we have not had much
response to assist either growth- or downsizing-impacted areas.
Moreover, the current Federal response to the national economic crisis
has placed even greater stress on the cognizant agencies, with the
effect of further subordinating needed attention for Defense-impacted
communities. Accordingly, the intergovernmental coordination of
adjustment assistance under the EAC will continue to be reviewed to
further improve overall responsiveness to the needs of these States and
communities.
The Department has used the full range of transfer and conveyance
authorities to dispose of real property made available in prior BRAC
rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995). Property disposal is complete at
205 of 250 prior BRAC locations where property became available for
disposal, and local redevelopment efforts in turn have resulted in the
creation of over 143,700 jobs, more than offsetting the 129,600
civilian jobs that were lost across 73 prior BRAC locations where OEA
is monitoring redevelopment activity.
improving the quality of housing
Just as the Department works to maintain the fabric of communities
affected by BRAC, we also work to maintain the communities of our
military installations. At the same time that our military
installations must support the operational needs of warfighters, they
must also provide for the quality of life of our servicemembers and
their families. Access to quality, affordable housing is a key factor
affecting servicemember recruitment, retention, morale, and readiness.
Through privatization and increases in housing allowances, DOD has made
great strides in increasing servicemembers' housing choices.
Privatization allows for rapid demolition, replacement, or renovation
of inadequate units and the sale of units no longer needed.
Privatization also enables DOD to make use of a variety of private
sector approaches to build and renovate military housing faster and at
a lower cost to American taxpayers.
To date, the Military Services have leveraged DOD housing dollars
by 10 to 1, with $2.5 billion in Federal investments generating $25
billion in housing development at privatized installations. The fiscal
year 2010 President's budget request includes $2.0 billion for Family
Housing, a decrease of $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 enacted
amount, for continued efforts toward reduction of inadequate units, O&M
of government-owned housing, and the privatization of over 2,400 family
housing units. Over 600 of these units support the Grow-the-Force
initiative.
The housing privatization program was created to address the
oftentimes poor condition of DOD-owned housing and the shortage of
affordable private housing of adequate quality for military
servicemembers and their families. Privatization allows the military
services to partner with the private sector to generate housing built
to market standards for less money and frequently better quality than
through the MILCON process. Additionally, and almost of greater
importance, the projects include 50 years of maintenance and
replacement where necessary. Although nearly all projects have been
awarded, we are still in the early stages of the program since the
housing will be privately owned for 50 years. With privatization deal
structures and an income stream in place, full revitalization will be
completed within a 5- to 10-year initial development period.
Military family housing requirements are changing at multiple
installations due to BRAC, Global Posture, Joint Basing, and Grow-the-
Force. While some installations may find they have a surplus of
housing, others may experience a deficit. No matter where military
family housing is needed, our servicemembers and their families need
access to safe, desirable, and affordable housing. The Military
Services continue to evaluate installation housing requirements, and
the opportunities to meet additional housing needs through
privatization continue to expand.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request also includes funding to
eliminate inadequate family housing outside the United States. The
budget request reflects a MILCON cost of $18 million for the Army to
construct 38 family housing units in Baumholder, Germany.
As it has increased the quality of family housing, privatization is
also helping the Military Services provide quality housing for our
unaccompanied servicemembers. To date, the Army has added bachelor
officer quarters and senior enlisted bachelor quarters to its existing
family housing privatization projects at Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Stewart,
GA; Fort Drum, NY; and Fort Irwin, CA. A fifth project is planned soon
at Fort Bliss, TX. In contrast to the Army, the Navy is mainly focusing
its unaccompanied housing privatization efforts to bring shipboard
junior enlisted sailors ashore using a special pilot authority (10
U.S.C. 2881a). The first unaccompanied housing privatization pilot
project was awarded in December 2006 at San Diego, the second was
executed in December 2007 at Hampton Roads, VA, and a third project is
under consideration at Jacksonville-Mayport, FL. Both of the awarded
Navy pilot projects have demonstrated that, with partial Basic
Allowance for Housing authority, privatization of single, junior
enlisted personnel housing is less costly on a lifecycle basis than the
traditional Government-owned model. The pilot projects have also
demonstrated that through privatization, single members can enjoy a
quality living environment more equitable with housing for their
married counterparts and commensurate with the sacrifices they are
asked to make.
energy management
Just as we take responsibility for caring for our human resources,
the Department also takes responsibility to wisely manage its energy
resources. By aggressively implementing energy conservation measures,
we are avoiding costs while improving utility system reliability and
safety. The Department developed comprehensive policy guidance
incorporating the provisions of the Energy Security and Independence
Act of 2007. This guidance will continue to optimize utility management
by conserving energy and water usage, and improving energy flexibility
by taking advantage of restructured energy commodity markets when
opportunities arise.
The Department's efforts to conserve energy are paying off. DOD is
the largest single energy consumer in the Nation and consumed $3.95
billion in facility energy in fiscal year 2008. DOD facility energy
consumption intensity has decreased nearly 11 percent since 2003. Our
program includes energy efficient construction designs, aggregating
bargaining power among regions and the Services to achieve more
effective buying power, and investments in cost-effective renewable
energy sources.
DOD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable
energy and developing resources on military installations. In 2005, DOD
set a goal to reach 25 percent renewable energy procured or produced by
fiscal year 2025 and Congress placed this goal in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Even though the increasing cost
of Renewable Energy Certificates drove down the percentage of renewable
energy consumption in fiscal year 2008, I am pleased to report that the
Department remains ahead of the curve, achieving 9.8 percent renewable
energy procured and produced for fiscal year 2008.
Renewable energy projects are consistently more expensive than
similar conventional energy sources, resulting in limited opportunities
that are lifecycle cost effective. Still, the Department has increased
the use of Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funds for
renewable energy projects from $5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $86
million out of the $120 million provided for ECIP in the ARRA funding
for 2009. Plans call for ECIP funding to increase $10 million per year,
from $90 million in fiscal year 2010 up to $120 million in fiscal year
2013, and renewable energy projects will continue to be a high
priority.
The Department began tracking water consumption in fiscal year
2002. While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did not articulate a specific
water reduction goal, Executive Order 13423 includes a requirement of 2
percent water reduction per year. By fiscal year 2007, DOD reduced
total water consumption by 27 percent or 43.8 million gallons per year.
While we continue to strive to exceed requirements, our prior
achievements have set the baseline low, so continuing the trend will be
a challenge. Even with the reduced baseline, DOD achieved a 2.9 percent
reduction in water intensity in fiscal year 2008.
environmental management
In addition to our commitment to managing our energy requirements,
we also recognize our natural infrastructure as a priority. The
Department sustains the environment on our installations, not only to
preserve these lands for our future generations, but also to maintain
current and future readiness. The Department practices integrated
planning to preserve the land, water, and airspace needed for military
readiness while maximizing critical environmental protection. We
maintain a high level of environmental quality in defense activities by
integrating sustainable practices into our operations, acquisition of
materials, and weapon systems. We protect and conserve natural and
cultural resources and restore sites to productive reuse on more than
29 million acres. We strive to protect and to sustain the environment
while strengthening our operational capacity, reducing our operational
costs, and enhancing the well being of our soldiers, civilians,
families, and communities.
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS REQUESTS
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2009 Request 2010 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Restoration............... 1,506 1,475
Environmental Compliance................ 1,660 1,618
Environmental Conservation.............. 330 323
Pollution Prevention.................... 163 103
Environmental Technology................ 212 225
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)..... 455 554
-------------------------------
TOTAL................................. 4,327 4,298
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 10 years, the Department has invested nearly $42
billion in our environmental programs. In fiscal year 2008, we
obligated $4.3 billion and in fiscal year 2009 we are executing another
$4.5 billion for natural and cultural resource conservation, pollution
prevention, cleanup, compliance, and environmental technology. The
fiscal year 2010 budget request of $4.3 billion will enable us to
continue to demonstrate leadership in protecting and preserving the
environment on our installations.
In fiscal year 2008, the military Services invested $353 million in
conservation programs to protect natural and cultural resources located
on and near our installations. Our cultural resources include
archeological sites, historic buildings, relics of prior civilizations,
artifacts, and other national historic treasures.
In 2008, the Department inventoried 480,706 acres and found 6,118
new archaeological sites. The Department has surveyed a total of
8,082,925 acres and has found 112,774 archaeological sites. The
Department treated 2,602 of the sites to include stabilization,
rehabilitation, monitoring, and protection in 2008. In 2009, the DOD
will continue to sustain and manage its archeological and historic
cultural resources. Some of the current activities include preserving
the fabric, systems, historic character, and function of the DOD-built
environment; maintaining readiness while protecting our heritage by
incorporating cultural resources into installation planning; and
consulting in good faith with internal and external stakeholders.
The Department is also protecting its older properties, not only
for historical interest, but for continued active use to support
today's operational requirements. Over 32 percent of DOD's 344,000
buildings are over 50 years old, and by 2025, more than 67 percent of
the Department's buildings will exceed 50 years of age. Buildings that
have passed the 50 year benchmark present a challenge to the
Department, but also offer the potential for cost-savings and resource
conservation. By using historic buildings and properties, instead of
building new structures, the Department reduces its environmental
footprint while retaining the properties' historic features. DOD's
Cultural Resources Program ensures balance between responsible
stewardship of this significant legacy with meeting the demands of
defending our Nation.
Our installations also steward some of the finest examples of rare
native vegetative communities, such as old-growth forests, tall grass
prairies, and vernal pool wetlands. As of April 28, 2008, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed 1,317 species as either threatened
or endangered within the United States, nearly 350 of which inhabit DOD
lands. DOD has a greater density of listed species than any other
Federal agency: some 40 threatened or endangered species are found only
on DOD installations. The Department prepares and implements Integrated
Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) for each installation with
significant natural resources, that include land management and other
actions to protect these endangered species. These plans, developed in
coordination with the USFWS and State fish and wildlife agencies, have
helped the Department avoid critical habitat designations at 35
installations because the plans provide protection equal to or greater
than what would be obtained if critical habitat had been designated for
these endangered species. When coupled with our conservation efforts to
protect species at risk and common species and their habitats before
they become rare, INRMPs have provided increased flexibility in how DOD
conducts its mission activities.
The Department is executing $344 million in fiscal year 2009
conservation efforts, of which $215 million is planned for recurring
continuous conservation management activities, such as preserving
habitat for at risk species and habitat vulnerable to global climate
change. Additionally, $129 million is planned for non-recurring one-
time projects such as installation of exclusion devices to protect
endangered of at-risk species habitats, development of automated
acoustic technologies for monitoring migratory birds, and shoreline
protection projects. Fiscal year 2009 Cultural Resource projects
include identifying design efficiencies and LEED equivalence standards
for historic buildings, and producing historic context studies for Cold
War sites in the Pacific and rural industrial sites on DOD lands in the
southeast.
The Department is requesting $323 million for fiscal year 2010
conservation efforts, which includes $209 million in recurring funds
for continuous conservation management activities and $114 million in
non-recurring funds for one-time conservation projects associated with
threatened and endangered species, wetland protection, or other
natural, cultural, or historical resources.
Since 1984, the Department has obligated $40 billion in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), including an fiscal year 2009
appropriation of $1.5 billion. Through DERP, the Department has
restored 74 percent of those areas on installations or Formerly Used
Defense Site (FUDS) that have been impacted by past defense activities,
in cooperation with State agencies and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. DERP consists of two categories of sites: (1)
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites which contain hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants; and (2) Military Munitions
Response Program (MMRP) sites which contain unexploded ordnance and
discarded military munitions. The Department applies a risk-based
prioritization process to determine the order of cleanup for both IRP
and MMRP sites. By the end of 2008, the Department had completed
cleanup on 82 percent of IRP sites on active installations, 69 percent
of IRP sites on FUDS, and 74 percent of IRP sites on installations
closed or realigned in the first four rounds of BRAC and BRAC 2005. In
fiscal year 2009, we are executing approximately $1.5 billion at active
and FUDS locations and another $525 million at BRAC bases for
environmental restoration efforts. These expenditures should enable us
to complete cleanup at an additional 619 sites at active and FUDS
locations and 154 sites at BRAC bases.
For the MMRP, DOD has completed cleanup of military munitions at 33
percent of sites at active installations, over 58 percent of BRAC
installation sites, and 34 percent of FUDS. By cleaning up our sites on
a ``worst first'' basis, we have significantly reduced the potential
risk associated with many of the sites in our inventory. As we continue
to make cleanup progress, we are emphasizing optimization of
performance. Optimization efforts include considering green remediation
technologies, reducing the number of cleanups involving long-term
management, and achieving site close out in a timely manner. These
efforts will reduce our long-term liability and ensure the expeditious
return of these properties to productive reuse. Our fiscal year 2010
budget request of $1.5 billion will help implement these improvements
while continuing to make progress to complete our cleanups and close
out the properties.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $103 million for pollution
prevention will enable DOD to continue to meet our solid waste
diversion and recycling goals while reducing our operating costs.
Striking a balance between mission requirements and environmental
quality, the Department employs long-term solutions to eliminate
hazardous material use in operations and weapon systems acquisition,
promote the use of alternative fuels, and implement innovative
pollution prevention technologies to reduce pollution to our air,
water, and land. In 2008, the Department invested $162 million in
pollution prevention programs, including recurring requirements such as
solid waste diversion and recycling, hazardous material reduction, and
green procurement. In fiscal year 2008, the Department diverted 3.9
million tons or 63 percent of our solid waste from landfills, avoiding
approximately $260 million in landfill costs. Additionally, the
Department has reduced hazardous waste disposal by 37 percent from
calendar year 1996 to 2007. The Department is also effectively managing
air quality, reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions at our
installations by 24 tons from 2006 to 2007. To further reduce waste and
resource consumption, in 2008 the Department updated its Green
Procurement Program (GPP) strategy, which encourages Military Services
to purchase environmentally preferable products and services. Through
the GPP, the DOD has become a leader in green procurement, and we
continue to make further improvements to GPP, most recently issuing
policy direction requiring DOD contracting officers to use a contract
provision giving preference to bio-based products. In fiscal year 2009,
we are executing $165 million for pollution prevention, with another
$103 million planned for fiscal year 2010. These levels of investment
will enable DOD to continue to meet our diversion and recycling goals
while reducing our operating costs.
In fiscal year 2008, the Department obligated $1.54 billion for
environmental compliance activities, including an $83 million MILCON
investment in new construction projects to build drinking water
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and above ground fuel
storage tanks that comply with Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Act
requirements. Clean water and clean air are essential to the health and
well being of our communities and ecosystems. DOD management practices
reduce discharged pollutants, leverage water conservation
opportunities, and protect watersheds. Our drinking water program has
consistently provided over 3,550,000 men, women, and children living
and working on our installations with safe drinking water. The
Department also manages over 1,600 water pollution control permits for
our wastewater and storm water treatment systems, which achieved an
overall 95 percent rate of compliance in 2008. Our fiscal year 2009
appropriation included another $1.67 billion to upgrade treatment
facilities and meet new and expanding permit requirements. Our fiscal
year 2010 budget request of $1.6 billion will enable the Department to
continue to sustain our air, water, and land resources to maintain
operational readiness and enhance the health and welfare of surrounding
communities, and the natural environment.
emerging contaminants
Our experiences with mission and environmental consequences
associated with perchlorate, ozone-depleting substances, and other
chemicals with evolving regulatory standards indicate a need to
establish a program to make earlier, better-informed, risk management
decisions regarding these emerging contaminants (ECs). This new program
is already helping us better protect human health and the environment,
and enhance military readiness. Simply put, the EC program identifies
risks early in the process, before regulatory actions take place or
materials become unavailable, thus protecting our people, assets, and
the mission.
We have established a three-tiered process to: (1) look ``over-the-
horizon'' and identify chemicals and materials with evolving science
and regulatory interest; (2) assess the risks to human health, the
environment, and DOD's mission; and (3) develop appropriate risk
management options for DOD program managers. Twenty-one EC impact
assessments have been completed for chemicals that include explosives,
fuel constituents, corrosion preventatives, fire-fighting foams, and
industrial degreasers. Examples of risk management options resulting
from these assessments include conducting research to fill basic
science gaps, improving material handling and personal protection
practices, developing new or improved remediation technologies, and
developing less toxic substitute materials or processes. One of the
major thrusts of the program is to work closely with the DOD industrial
base to conduct lifecycle analyses regarding less toxic alternative
chemicals for use in weapons platforms, systems and equipment. A
significant recent example of a risk management action is a new DOD
policy to minimize the use of hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen,
throughout DOD.
Because of the many national policy issues related to ECs, we
continue to work with a number of Federal and State regulatory
agencies, industry, academia, and professional organizations. In
particular, we formed an EC working group with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
to address and discuss EC issues. Four important work products,
including procedures for dealing with new ECs, have been completed and
endorsed by all parties and are publically available on the ECOS, EPA,
and DOD websites.
We are also working in partnership with a new Industry-University
Cooperative Research Center, initiated by the National Science
Foundation, to focus on emerging contaminant research. Some of this
effort will be geared to helping Federal agencies and industry use
safer chemicals and materials for improved long-term sustainability.
sustaining the warfighter
All of our efforts with regard to both our built and natural
infrastructure are because, simply put, our Nation's warfighters need
the best training and equipment available. This means sustaining our
vital training and test range and installation infrastructure.
Incompatible land use in the vicinity of DOD installations and ranges
continues to challenge training and testing sustainability. Particular
challenges from incompatible land use include noise complaints from new
neighbors, concerns about smoke and dust, diminished usable airspace
due to new structures or growing civil aviation, a loss of habitat for
endangered species, and a compromised ability to test and train with
the frequency needed in time of war.
History has demonstrated that effective training of U.S. troops has
a direct impact on their success on the battlefield. Reliable access to
operational ranges and supporting installations is needed to sustain
that training. In 2002, Congress provided statutory authority to use
O&M funds to create buffers around our ranges and installations. Using
this authority, DOD established the Readiness and Environmental
Protection Initiative (REPI), and has worked with willing partners to
cost-share compatible land use solutions that benefit military
readiness and preserve natural habitat. In fiscal year 2005, REPI
leveraged $12.5 million of O&M congressional funding to secure $55
million worth of buffer land and easements, encompassing 13,939 acres
at 7 installations. In fiscal year 2006, with $37 million of O&M
funding, REPI secured over $93 million worth of buffer land and
easements, encompassing 33,521 acres.
Overall in fiscal year 2007, REPI initiated 27 projects in 17
States; in fiscal year 2008, REPI funded 36 projects in 19 States.
Already, $23.2 million from fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
funding has secured $74 million of buffer land, encompassing 28,378
acres. For fiscal year 2009 REPI identified an additional 39 projects
in 21 States for funding. Congress appropriated $56 million for REPI in
fiscal year 2009. Such REPI and partner funding has resulted in
projects providing clear benefit to the military mission, such as
protecting the Navy's one-of-a-kind La Posta Mountain Warfare Training
Facility in California; keeping training areas open at Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, NC; and buffering live-fire training ranges at Fort
Carson, CO.
After several years of implementing REPI projects, DOD asked the
RAND Corporation to assess the program's effectiveness. In 2007, RAND
issued its report, titled The Thin Green Line: An Assessment of DOD's
REPI to Buffer Installation Encroachment. The report found that REPI
projects, as in the case of the installations noted above, have proven
effective in relieving military training and testing activities from
encroachment pressures and in strengthening joint readiness.
According to RAND, REPI also helped improve the natural environment
and the quality of life in communities where the projects were located.
The environmental benefits of REPI projects have included helping to
preserve habitat, biodiversity and threatened and endangered species;
protecting wildlife corridors; and safeguarding water quality and
supply. REPI also was shown to improve local economies and the
reputation of installations with surrounding communities; for example,
the project near NAS Fallon in Nevada has helped preserve productive
local agricultural land and the continued viability of local farms.
Many of the challenges facing DOD are also of mutual concern to
other Federal agencies and State governments. These issues can and do
cross administrative boundaries, demanding cooperative action at the
regional level. The Department is partnering regionally with State
governments and Federal agencies to identify and address such shared
concerns. These partnerships are proving essential to sustaining our
ranges and installations, as well as to furthering our partners' goals
and missions. For example, DOD continues to work with State governments
and other Federal agencies in the Southeast Regional Partnership for
Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). The States of Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are engaged with the
military and other Federal agencies in this important regional
initiative. Through the SERPPAS process, the partners are promoting
better planning related to growth, the preservation of open space, and
the protection of the region's military installations. A similar effort
is now getting underway in the southwestern U.S., a region of critical
military training and testing importance that is facing myriad growth
and environmental challenges.
DOD continues to work closely with other Federal agencies to
sustain military readiness. One major thrust is to ensure that wind
farm projects and energy transmission corridors are compatible with
military readiness activities. The Department also coordinates with the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our military readiness
activities and infrastructure in border regions are compatible with new
security measures. The Department's sustainability program continues to
reach out to non-Federal partners, working regularly with State,
county, and local governments, Tribal, and nongovernmental
organizations on issues of mutual concern to seek win-win solutions.
Meanwhile, overseas, DOD continues to develop mission sustainment
procedures with host nations. The Department looks forward to further
building upon all of these efforts to ensure that warfighters' current
and future training and testing opportunities remain unrivaled.
Additionally, DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has managed
the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program since 1985. JLUS is a
cooperative land use planning effort between affected local governments
and military installations that seeks to anticipate, identify, and
prevent growth conflicts by helping State and local governments better
understand and incorporate technical data developed under Service Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone, Range Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone, Operational Noise Management Program, Encroachment Action Plan,
and Encroachment Control Plan studies into local planning programs.
When a Service believes an installation may be experiencing
incompatible development problems, or that there is likelihood for
incompatible development that could adversely affect the military
mission, the Service may nominate the installations for a JLUS to OEA.
All the Services takes advantage of the JLUS program, finding it an
effective tool for bringing communities and the military together to
mutually address development issues and needs.
safety and health risk management
A significant responsibility associated with Installations and
Environment is the management of the Department's safety and health
programs. Over the last year, the Department experienced some
improvement in its safety and health performance, but we have a way to
go.
In 2005, the Department published policy (DOD Directive 4715.1E)
that required implementation of management systems for safety and
health (similar to environmental management systems described by the
International Standards Organization 14000 series of standards)
emphasizing the integration of safety and health into day-to-day
operations. By ``operationalizing'' safety and health, we make safety a
part of every process and operation.
We are encouraging commanders to meet and exceed tough performance-
based criteria for a managed safety and health system and proving it by
achieving ``Star'' recognition in the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Installations
holding VPP Star Status undergo an independent review of their programs
and must be among the best, having injury and illness rates at or below
the national average. So far, the Department has 22 Star Sites to date;
we anticipate more than 36 Star Sites by the end of fiscal year 2009
and we further expect that number to increase every year. Recently, the
Pentagon began its journey toward Star recognition.
Operationalizing safety applies to every aspect of the Department's
missions. In preparing for basing changes on Guam, we, through the
Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, developed a
comprehensive Military Munitions Annex to the Guam Joint Military
Master Plan. This effort sought to fully harmonize the receipt,
storage, maintenance, transportation, and use of military munitions by
DOD and Department of Homeland Security organizations on Guam.
Explosives safety risks on Guam have been identified and strategic
recommendations will result in risks from military munitions being
eliminated or mitigated. Furthermore, operationalizing safety improves
the entire operation, by improving munitions support to execution of
war plans and contingencies and optimizing munitions processes. We are
continuing this effort by integrating explosives safety into all facets
of operational planning.
In the area of Strategic Human Capital Management, my organization,
along with the entire Department, is focused on human capital planning
emphasizing improved competency-based workforce planning. In
establishing ``Functional Community Managers'' for: Safety and Health,
Explosives Safety, Fire and Emergency Services, and Expeditionary
Environment Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH), we will implement a
comprehensive strategy to ensure a strong safety and health workforce
that is able to meet the challenges of today and the future. Our
Functional Community Managers, bringing first hand knowledge of
competencies needed, work in partnership with the Department's Human
Resource experts to ensure the Department is positioned to acquire and
retain the talent it needs to meet current and future mission
requirements.
The ability to send our people home from work healthy and safe is
of paramount concern. The number of civilian injuries is one measure of
our success in managing safety and health. For our civilian employees,
we reduced the lost time injury rate over the last 5 years by 13
percent. We continue to seek improvements to prevent all mishaps and
the resulting injuries and losses. Operating motor vehicles continues
to be the most significant mishap threat to our military members. We
have reduced the number of military fatalities for all privately-owned
motor vehicles on public highways from 308 in fiscal year 2002 to 260
in fiscal year 2008--a 16 percent reduction. However, for motorcycles,
we are part of a national trend in increasing motorcycle fatalities.
Nationally, motorcycle fatalities increased by 58 percent from 2002 to
2007. DOD fatalities increased from 71 to 124 for fiscal year 2002 to
fiscal year 2008--a 75 percent increase. We are continuing to develop
programs and initiatives to address this negative trend.
Operating military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan is also a
significant risk, with 24 motor vehicle fatalities in fiscal year
2008--a reduction from a peak of 59 motor vehicle fatalities in fiscal
year 2005. Our military members have met the combined threats from
Improvised Explosive Devices and poor roadways with increased training
and experience in operating tactical vehicles, and by improved
survivability of crashes from increased seat belt use, gunner's
harnesses, and rollover training.
In early 2009, Installations and Environment published policy that
defines ``all-hazards'' emergency management for DOD installations
worldwide. DOD installations now have consistent guidance to improve
their compatibility with their civilian counterparts and a management
structure focused on preparing for and responding to emergencies
regardless of the hazard. Our ability to seamlessly interact with
civilian responders will make us much more effective in times of
disaster. We are continuing to work with other offices in DOD to
eliminate unnecessary redundancy and confusion at the time of an
emergency and provide holistic emergency response on and around our
installations.
integrating business management
Accomplishing the diverse missions of the Installations and
Environment community requires integration across organizational
boundaries. We have made great progress with our initiatives to improve
the efficiency of the Department's business processes. We are working
to develop and implement common data standards across the Military
Departments and Defense Agencies, modernize business systems, and
enable audit-ready processes. In the Installations and Environment
community, we have three key business transformation efforts: real
property accountability, environmental liabilities, and hazardous
materials information management.
The Department manages almost 60 percent of the Federal
Government's buildings and structures--over 539,000 assets worldwide.
Each Military Department has a separate system to manage their share of
this property. Several years ago we conducted research and hired a top
ranked information technology firm to help us develop our business
system modernization strategy. We determined, based upon the firm's
recommendation and the Military Service leadership's concurrence, that
building a single system would not be the optimal solution. Instead, we
decided to develop DOD-wide standards and upgrade or replace the
existing systems so that they can be interoperable across DOD. To
achieve this goal, we developed common data standards and reengineered
business processes. As of September 30, 2009, all of DOD's primary real
property systems will be interoperable, ensuring that accurate, timely,
and reliable real property information is available for more
transparent management decisionmaking.
In addition to the data and business process standards initiatives,
we are also working to modernize our systems. Many of the existing,
government-built legacy systems use outdated technology and do not
apply current industry best practices. Led by my organization, the
Military Services are in the process of acquiring new commercial off-
the-shelf systems or upgrading their current systems to comply with the
standards. To further integrate real property information for
Department-level analysis, my office is building the real property data
hub that will provide real-time accessibility to data.
Uniquely identifying each of our real property assets is
fundamental to real property accountability. Our Real Property Unique
Identifier Registry is at full operational capability. These unique
identifiers allow us to establish linkages within our systems between
facilities, equipment and people. The registry includes address
information on all DOD installations and sites and we are working with
other DOD functional communities to ensure that physical location
information used across DOD comes from one authoritative source--the
Registry.
The ability to share data with the communities that surround our
installations is a key component in our ongoing efforts to sustain
military readiness. My organization is working with stakeholders across
the Federal Government on aligning geospatial data standards so that
data sharing can take place between the local and Federal communities.
We have recently integrated geospatial data requirements into the
Department's Business Enterprise Architecture, which will further
expand interoperability opportunities in DOD.
On the environmental management side, my office has been leading
efforts to standardize and streamline the complex processes required to
accurately value and report environmental liabilities. We are
developing a blueprint for implementation of the reengineered business
processes in the Department's enterprise resource planning systems.
To minimize future needs for environmental cleanup and to ensure
safety of our personnel, ready access to complete and accurate
hazardous material information is critical. We are working to improve
availability of timely, accurate, consistent, and complete product
hazard data for use across the Department.
In summary, our business transformation efforts are helping the
Department efficiently share information and best practices across
organizational boundaries. As the Services modernize their systems and
achieve interoperability, the Department will gain access to secure,
reliable information crucial for effective management of assets, and
ultimately reducing costs and improving performance across all of DOD.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to update you on our work in Installations and Environment
on behalf of DOD. To meet the ever changing warfighting landscape, our
military must be flexible and responsive and our installations must
adapt, reconfigure, and be managed to maximize that flexibility and
responsiveness. I appreciate your continued support and I look forward
to working with you to provide the quality installations that our
military forces need and deserve.
Senator Bayh. Thank you very much, Mr. Arny.
Secretary Penn?
STATEMENT OF HON. B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Penn. Thank you. Chairman Bayh, Senator Burr, Senator
Udall, I'm privileged to come before you today to discuss the
Department of the Navy's installation efforts.
Before I touch on a few highlights in the Department's
overall facilities budget request, I'd like to take a moment to
discuss the report released over this weekend related to past
contaminated drinking water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,
NC.
It was the desire of this committee to evaluate the
available scientific and medical evidence regarding
associations between the prenatal, child, and adult exposure to
drinking water contamination with trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene that resulted in the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2007 requirement for the Navy to enter into an agreement with
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study.
The National Research Council, which operates under the
auspices of the NAS, concluded that the available scientific
information does not provide sufficient basis for determining
whether the population at Camp Lejeune has suffered adverse
health effects as a result of exposure to contamination. It
further concluded that research is unlikely to provide more
definitive conclusions. The Department will thoroughly review
and consider the Council's report, after which it will identify
the next steps to take as it continues to work with the
appropriate agencies, including the ATSDR.
Finally, I want to underscore that, above all else, the
long-term health effects and welfare of our extended Marine
Corps family is our utmost concern. We will keep this committee
apprised of the status as circumstances evolve.
The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2010 MILCON
request of $3.8 billion continues the Marine Corps' Grow the
Force Initiative with a $1.9 billion investment targeted
primarily at infrastructure and unit-specific construction
required to move marines from interim facilities and provide
adequate facilities for new units.
The fiscal year 2010 MILCON budget also provides funds for
the first five construction projects to support the relocation
of marines from Okinawa to Guam in the amount of $378 million.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget request complies with the
Office of Management and Budget and the DOD financial
management regulation that establishes criteria for the use of
incremental funding. The use of incremental funding in this
budget has been restricted to the continuation of projects that
had been incremented in prior years. Otherwise, all new
projects are fully funded or are complete and usable phases.
In family housing, our budget request of $515 million
reflects the continuation of investments money for locations
where we still own and operate military family housing and
where additional privatization is planned. Prior requests
reflected an accelerated program to address additional housing
requirements associated with Marine Corps force-structure
initiatives. The Navy and Marine Corps have privatized
virtually all family housing located in the United States.
Where we continue to own housing at overseas and foreign
locations, we are investing in a steady-state recapitalization
effort to replace or renovate housing, where needed. Our
request also includes funds necessary to operate, maintain, and
lease housing to support Navy and Marine Corps families located
around the world.
Regarding legacy BRAC, we continue our request for
appropriated funds in the amount of $168 million, as we've
exhausted all land sale revenue. We've disposed of 93 percent
of the prior BRAC properties, so there's not a lot left to sell
and the real estate market is not as lucrative as it was
several years ago. We expect only limited revenue from the sale
of Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico and other small parcels.
With respect to the BRAC 2005 program, our budget request
of $592 million represents a shifting emphasis from
construction to outfitting and other operation and maintenance
costs.
We have made significant progress in the past year in
planning for the relocation of marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The EIS for Guam is underway, with a targeted record of
decision in time for construction in fiscal year 2010.
The Government of Japan ratified the international
agreement on May 13, 2009, and appropriated $336 million--
fiscal year 2008 equivalent dollars--to complement our own
fiscal year 2010 investment. We expect to see Japanese
contributions deposited into our Treasury by July.
Finally, sir, it has been an honor and privilege to serve
this great Nation and the men and women of our Navy and Marine
Corps team, the military, and civilian personnel and their
families.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to
testify before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Penn follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. B.J. Penn
Chairman Bayh, Senator Burr, and members of the subcommittee, I am
pleased to appear before you today to provide an overview of the
Department of Navy's (DoN) investment in its shore infrastructure.
the navy's investment in facilities
Our Nation's Sea Services continue to operate in an increasingly
dispersed environment to support the Maritime Strategy and ensure the
freedom of the seas. This requires an ever strong foundation of
installations from which to resupply, re-equip, train, and shelter our
forces. We must continue to make smart infrastructure investments to
prepare for the future and secure the peace abroad. Our fiscal year
2010 shore infrastructure baseline budget totals $14.3 billion,
representing 9.2 percent of the DoN's fiscal year 2010 baseline request
of $156 billion.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Our fiscal year 2010 request of $6.5 billion (which includes $433
million for environmental programs) for Base Operating Support is only
slightly greater than last year's request.
The fiscal year 2010 military construction (MILCON) (Active plus
Reserve) request of $3.8 billion is $674 million more than the fiscal
year 2009 request. This growth in Department's MILCON program is
primarily due to the continuation of the Marine Corps' ``Grow the Force
``initiative and the inclusion of the first capital investments to
support their realignment of forces from Okinawa to Guam.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The fiscal year 2010 Family Housing request of $515 million
represents a 32 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2009 request. It
is helpful to examine the table at left to put this decrease in
perspective. Prior year family housing construction requests reflected
an accelerated program to address additional housing requirements
associated with Marine Corps force structure initiatives. The Navy and
Marine Corps have continued to invest in housing, including both the
recapitalization of overseas housing as well as additional
privatization to address housing requirements. Thus, having virtually
privatized all family housing located in the United States, at overseas
and foreign locations where we continue to own housing we are investing
in a ``steady state'' recapitalization effort to replace or renovate
housing where needed.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Our Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program consists of
environmental cleanup and caretaker costs at prior BRAC locations, and
implementation of BRAC 05 recommendations.
As in fiscal year 2009, we must seek appropriated funds in fiscal
year 2010 in the amount of $168 million for Legacy BRAC activities as
we have exhausted land sales revenues. We anticipate some limited
future revenue as we move to dispose of the former Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico and some other smaller property sales.
We will use revenue from these future sales to accelerate cleanup at
the remaining prior BRAC locations.
The fiscal year 2010 BRAC 05 budget request of $592 million
represents a significant shift from construction to Operation &
Maintenance funds as our focus turns to outfitting facilities with
equipment and materiel and supporting the physical relocation of
personnel, rather than constructing new or renovating existing
structures, as one might expect as the statutory deadline approaches.
Although we are on track to meet the September 15, 2011 deadline, we do
face some significant challenges ahead.
Here are some of the highlights of these programs.
military construction
The DoN's fiscal year 2010 MILCON program requests appropriations
of $3.8 billion, including $169 million for planning and design and
$12.5 million for Unspecified Minor Construction.
The active Navy program totals $1.1 billion and includes:
$302 million to support three intermediate and depot
level maintenance projects: the second increment of the CVN
replacement pier at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA;
modifications to the P-8/MMA facility at Naval Air Station
Jacksonville, FL; and the largest of the three projects at $227
million--Pier 5 Replacement at Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Portsmouth, VA;
$84 million to fund 11 airfield projects. Included
among these projects are seven supporting the Joint Strike
Fighter: six at Eglin AFB, FL and one at Edwards AFB, CA;
$42 million to fund four expeditionary operations
projects at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, which include an
ammunition supply point, security fencing; road improvements,
and a fire station;
$86 million to fund five training projects: a
submarine learning center in Guam; the Asia-Pacific Center in
Honolulu, HI; a SERE school for SOCOM in Spokane, WA; and E-2D
Trainer Facility at Naval Station, Norfolk, VA; and a flight
simulator at NAS Pensacola, FL;
$193 million to fund four ordnance related projects:
the sixth of seven increments of the Limited Area Production
and Storage Complex and the second of two increments of the
waterfront security enclave fencing, both projects at Naval
Submarine Base, Bangor, WA; constructs missile magazines at
Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI; and a torpedo exercise support
building in Guam;
$95 million to construct three enlisted training
barracks, one each in Newport, RI; Eglin AFB and NAS Pensacola,
FL;
$126 million to fund four waterfront operations
projects, which include dredging the entrance to the turning
basin at Naval Station, Mayport, FL, to enable nuclear carriers
to transit the channel without risk to the propulsion system,
and Charlie One Wharf replacement (unrelated CVN homeporting)
also at Mayport. The remaining two projects are the second
phase of the waterfront development project at Naval Support
Activity, Bahrain, and the final increment of the magnetic
silencing facility at Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, HI;
$22 million to build base support facilities: Naval
Construction Division Operations Facility and a centralized
public works facility at Naval Base, Point Loma, CA; and
$83 million for planning and design efforts.
The active Marine Corps program totals $2.7 billion (of which $1.9
billion is for ``Grow the Force''), a $705 million increase over the
fiscal year 2009 MILCON request. This cost increase is due to the
initial construction investment in Guam and a continued emphasis on
Grow the Force.
$323 million for the construction of unaccompanied
housing at Camp Pendleton, Twentynine Palms, CA, and Camp
Lejeune, NC, in a continuation of the Commandant of the Marine
Corps' initiative to improve the quality of life for single
marines;
$200 million to provide quality of life facilities
such as dining facilities, physical fitness centers, and fire
houses at Twentynine Palms, San Diego, and Camp Pendleton, CA,
the Basic School at Quantico, VA, and Camp Lejeune, Cherry
Point, and New River in North Carolina;
$109 million to construct new recruit barracks and
student billeting supporting the School of Infantry and the
recruit training at Camp Pendleton and for the Basic School in
Quantico, VA;
$977 million to build infrastructure to support new
construction. These projects include communications upgrades,
electrical upgrades, natural gas systems, drinking and
wastewater systems, and roads. These projects will have a
direct effect on the quality of life of our marines. Without
these projects, basic services generally taken for granted in
our day-to-day lives, will fail as our marines work and live on
our bases;
$744 million to fund operational support projects such
as those needed for the stand-up of V-22 aircraft in North
Carolina and California; and operational units in Camp Lejeune,
NC, and Camp Pendleton, CA. Logistics operations will be
enhanced with a new Port Operations facility at Marine Corps
Support Facility, Blount Island, FL;
$140 million to provide training improvements for
aviation units and Marine Corps Security Force training at
Quantico, VA, and marines training at the School of Infantry at
Camp Lejeune, NC, and Camp Pendleton, CA. A new range will be
provided in Hawaii.
$122 million to construct maintenance facilities at
Twentynine Palms, CA; Yuma, AZ; Beaufort, SC; and New River and
Camp Lejeune, NC;
$41 million for the construction of storage facilities
at Twentynine Palms and Camp Pendleton, CA, and Cherry Point,
NC; and
$84 million for planning and design efforts.
With these new facilities, marines will be ready to deploy and
their quality of life will be enhanced. Without them, quality of work,
quality of life, and readiness for many Marines will have the potential
to be seriously degraded.
The Navy and Marine Corps Reserve MILCON appropriation request is
$64 million, including $2 million for planning and design efforts, to
construct three Reserve centers--one each at Luke AFB, AZ; Alameda, CA;
and Joliet, IL. These funds will also be used to construct a C-40
Hangar at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA; a parachute and
survival equipment center in San Antonio, TX, and vehicle maintenance
facility in Charleston, SC.
Fully-funded and Incrementally-funded MILCON projects
Our fiscal year 2010 budget request complies with Office of
Management and Budget Policy and the DOD Financial Management
Regulation that establishes criteria for the use of incremental
funding. The use of incremental funding in this budget has been
restricted to the continuation of projects that have been incremented
in prior years. Otherwise, all new projects are fully funded or are
complete and usable phases. However, as the cost of complex piers and
utilities systems rise above the $100 million and even $200 million
threshold, compliance with the full-funding policy drives both Services
to make hard choices regarding which other equally critical projects
must be deferred into the next year.
facilities management
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years
Percent Sustainment -----------------------------------
2008 2009 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USN Budget.......................... 82 90 93
USN Actual/Plan..................... 83 90
USMC Budget......................... 89 90 91
USMC Actual/Plan.................... 145 90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Defense uses a Sustainment model to calculate
life cycle facility maintenance and repair costs. These models use
industry-wide standard costs for various types of buildings and
geographic areas and are updated annually. Sustainment funds in the
Operation and Maintenance accounts are used to maintain facilities in
their current condition. The funds also pay for preventative
maintenance, emergency responses for minor repairs, and major repairs
or replacement of facility components (e.g. roofs, heating and cooling
systems). For Navy, funding includes Joint Basing investments which
requirements have yet to transfer. Once they do, the rate will revert
to 90 percent . . . k.
Restoration and modernization (R&M) provides major upgrades of our
facilities using MILCON, Operation and Maintenance, Navy Working
Capital Fund, and BRAC, as applicable. Although the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) fielded a new Facility Modernization Model
to replace the previous ``67-year Recapitalization Metric'' that, too,
has been deemed too amorphous a model and another is under development
based on ``Quality'' or ``Q'' ratings. Nonetheless, in fiscal year
2010, the Department of Navy is investing $2.27 billion in R&M funding.
Meeting the Energy Challenge
In August 2006, I directed that all new Department of Navy
facilities and major renovations be built to U.S. Green Building
Council ``LEED Silver'' standards starting in fiscal year 2010. For
MILCON projects, we met the requirement a year earlier, in fiscal year
2009. This year we began including sufficient funds for major
renovations where the work exceeds 50 per cent of the facility's plant
replacement value.
With funds provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) we are able to leverage current technological advances to
reduce energy demand and increase our ability to use alternative and
renewable forms of energy for shore facilities as well as in our
logistics processes. This technology improves energy options for our
Navy today and in the future. Of the $1.2 billion in ARRA funds that
have been provided to Navy, $577 million in Operation and Maintenance,
Navy; Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, and MILCON has been
applied to projects that will reduce our fossil fuel energy
consumption. Major investments include $169 million to install
photovoltaic systems, $71 million for advance metering installation,
$30 million for the energy conservation improvement program (ECIP), $9
million for geothermal energy development, and $31 million for energy
improvements in various facilities, (such as critical repairs to major
utilities systems, HVAC replacement, etc.).
Naval Safety
The Department of the Navy strives to be a world class safety
organization. In fiscal year 2008 we achieved our lowest rate ever
recorded for total Class A Operational Mishaps.\1\ As of 24 April 2009,
if our current pace continues, we would close out fiscal year 2009 with
our lowest mishap rate ever recorded in six of the seven combined Navy
and Marine Corps mishap categories that we track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Class A mishap is one where the total cost of damages to
Government and other property is one million dollars or more, or a DOD
aircraft is destroyed, or an injury and/or occupational illness results
in a fatality or permanent total disability. An operational mishap
excludes private motor vehicle and off duty recreational mishaps.
Mishaps exclude losses from direct enemy action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is working to reduce fatalities and injuries
resulting motorcycle and automobile mishaps on the Nations highways, to
implement a culture across the Navy and Marine Corps that encourages
openly sharing experiences and lessons learned. In addition to active
involvement by all levels of leadership, we're also developing a
corporate safety risk management IT system that will allow improved
collection of safety data and provide analysis, metrics and lessons
learned across the enterprise, as well as provide an IT tool to manage
local safety and health programs.
We have embraced the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), which fosters a cooperative
relationship between management, labor, and OSHA to improve workplace
safety. DoN has achieved ``Star'' status, OSHA's highest level of
achievement, at 10 sites representing the majority of the VPP star
sites in DOD. The Navy activities include all four Naval Shipyards, our
largest industrial facilities. Our other Navy VPP Star sites include:
the Navy Submarine Base in Kings Bay Georgia; Naval Air Station, Key
West, Florida; Intermediate Maintenance Facility Puget Sound,
Silverdale, WA; Weapon Station Charleston, SC, and Naval Hospital
Corpus Christi, TX. Our first Marine Corps VPP Star Site is Logistics
Base, Barstow, CA.
Encroachment Partnering
The Department of the Navy has an aggressive program to manage and
control encroachment, with a particular focus on preventing
incompatible land use and protecting important natural habitats around
installations and ranges. A key element of the program is Encroachment
Partnering (EP), which involves cost-sharing partnerships with States,
local governments, and conservation organizations to acquire interests
in real property adjacent and proximate to our installations and
ranges. The Department prevents development that is incompatible with
the readiness mission, and our host communities preserve critical
natural habitat and recreational space for the enjoyment of residents.
Navy and Marine Corps have ongoing EP agreements at 14 installations
and ranges nationwide, with additional agreements and projects planned
in fiscal year 2009. EP has been a highly effective tool for addressing
encroachment threats from urban development and is a win-win for the
Department and our host communities.
In fiscal year 2008, Navy and Marine Corps completed partnership
acquisitions on 16,662 acres. Funding for those purchases of land and
easements included a combined contribution from DOD and DoN of $11.72
million, which was matched by similar investments from partner
organizations. In fiscal year 2009, Navy and Marine Corps received an
additional $19.78 million from the DOD Readiness and Environmental
Protection Initiative program, which will be combined with funding from
the Department and our partner organization.
housing
The following tenets continue to guide the Department's approach to
housing for sailors, marines, and their families:
All servicemembers, married or single, are entitled to
quality housing; and
The housing that we provide to our personnel must be
fully sustained over its life.
With the support of Congress, and particularly this Committee, we
have made great strides in improving the quality of life for our
members and their families over the past years. These include:
Funds programmed and contracts in place to eliminate
inadequate family housing in the Navy and Marine Corps.
A robust MILCON program to meet the Marine Corps'
unaccompanied housing needs.
Successful execution of the first two unaccompanied
housing privatization projects within the Department of
Defense.
Despite these achievements, there remain challenges that we face as
a Department. A detailed discussion of the Department's family and
unaccompanied housing programs, and identification of those challenges,
follows:
family housing
As in past years, our family housing strategy consists of a
prioritized triad:
Reliance on the Private Sector. In accordance with
longstanding DOD and DoN policy, we rely first on the local
community to provide housing for our sailors, marines, and
their families. Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine
Corps families receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and
own or rent homes in the community. We determine the ability of
the private sector to meet our needs through the conduct of
housing market analyses that evaluate supply and demand
conditions in the areas surrounding our military installations.
Public/Private Ventures (PPVs). With the strong
support from this committee and others, we have successfully
used PPV authorities enacted in 1996 to partner with the
private sector to help meet our housing needs through the use
of private sector capital. These authorities allow us to
leverage our own resources and provide better housing faster to
our families. Maintaining the purchasing power of BAH is
critical to the success of both privatized and private sector
housing.
Military Construction. MILCON will continue to be used
where PPV authorities don't apply (such as overseas), or where
a business case analysis shows that a PPV project is not
feasible.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget includes $146 million in funding for
family housing construction and improvements. This amount includes $79
million for the Government investment in continued family housing
privatization at Camp Lejeune and includes funding for an addition to a
Department of Defense school. It also includes the replacement or
revitalization of Navy housing in Japan, Korea, and Spain where the
military housing privatization authorities do not apply. Further, there
are proposed projects in Guam, unrelated to the Realignment of Marine
Forces that would replace or revitalize existing homes there. Finally,
the budget request includes $369 million for the operation,
maintenance, and leasing of remaining Government-owned or controlled
inventory.
As of the end of fiscal year 2008, we have awarded 30 privatization
projects involving over 61,000 homes. As a result of these projects,
nearly 20,000 homes will be renovated and over 21,000 new or
replacement homes will be built. (The remaining homes were privatized
in good condition and did not require any work.) Through the use of
these authorities we have secured approximately $8 billion in private
sector investment from approximately $800 million of our funds, which
represents a ratio of almost 10 private sector dollars for each
taxpayer dollar.
While the military housing privatization initiative has been
overwhelmingly successful, there are challenges in this program area as
well. They include:
The current economic climate. In the current economic
climate, we have seen a dramatic curtailment in the amount of
private financing available for our future military housing
privatization projects/phases. This, in turn, affects plans for
future construction and renovations. We are working with OSD,
the other Services, and the lending community on ways in which
we might mitigate such impacts and preserve our ability to
leverage private capital on future projects/phases.
Program Oversight. There has been a great deal of
attention focused by Congress on the Service's oversight of
housing privatization projects in the wake of difficulties
experienced by some partners. We take seriously our
responsibility to monitor the privatization agreements to
ensure that the Government's long-term interests are adequately
protected. We have instituted a portfolio management approach
that collects and analyzes financial, occupancy, construction,
and resident satisfaction data to ensure that the projects
remain sound and that the partners are performing as expected.
We conduct meetings with senior representatives of our partners
and, where necessary, resolve issues of mutual interest. Where
our projects have encountered difficulties, appropriate
corrective actions have been taken. For example, we had
concerns regarding performance of the private partner in our
Pacific Northwest project. We worked with that partner to sell
its interest to another company which has a record of good
performance with military housing privatization projects.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Perhaps the most important measure of success of our privatization
program has been the level of satisfaction on the part of the housing
residents. To gauge their satisfaction, we used customer survey tools
that are well established in the marketplace. As shown at right, the
customer surveys indicate a steady improvement in member satisfaction
after housing is privatized.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Unaccompanied Housing
Our budget request includes $527 million for 14 unaccompanied
housing projects (included 6 training barracks) at 7 Navy and Marine
Corps locations. The budget continues the emphasis on improving living
conditions for our unaccompanied sailors and marines.
Our current inventory consists of over 157,000 unaccompanied
housing spaces for permanent party sailors and marines. These represent
a wide mix of unit configurations including rooms occupied by one, two,
or more members. There are challenges, however, which the Department is
committed to address.
Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors. The
Homeport Ashore initiative seeks to provide a barracks room
ashore whenever a single sea duty sailor is in his or her
homeport, so they need not live on the ship. The Navy has made
considerable progress towards achieving this goal through
MILCON; privatization and intensified use of existing barracks
capacity. In his May 6, 2009 testimony before the House
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military
Construction, the Chief of Naval Operations committed to
providing housing ashore for all junior sea duty Sailors by
2016 at the Interim Assignment Policy standard (55 square feet
of space per person). The inclusion of $88 million in funding,
in the ARRA, for a new barracks in San Diego is helping us meet
this goal. The Navy's long-term goal is to achieve the OSD
private sleeping room standard (90 square feet per person).
Commandant's BEQ Initiative. It is the Commandant of
the Marine Corps' priority to ensure single marines are
adequately housed. Thanks to your previous support, in fiscal
year 2009 the Marine Corps will make significant progress
toward fulfilling this priority. Your 2009 appropriation of
$1.2 billion in MILCON funding for Marine Corps barracks will
result in the construction of approximately 12,300 permanent
party spaces at 8 Marine Corps installations. Your continued
support of this initiative in our fiscal year 2010 proposal
will allow us to construct an additional 3,000 new permanent
party barracks spaces. With this funding we will stay on track
to meet our 2014 goal. The fiscal year 2010 request for
bachelor housing will provide eight barracks projects at Camp
Lejeune, NC, and Twentynine Palms, and Camp Pendleton, CA. We
are also committed to funding the replacement of barracks'
furnishings on a 7-year cycle as well as the repair and
maintenance of existing barracks to improve the quality of life
of our marines. These barracks will be built to the 2+0 room
configuration, as have all Marine Corps barracks since 1998.
This is consistent with the core Marine Corps tenets for unit
cohesion and teambuilding.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Unaccompanied Housing Privatization
The Navy has also executed two unaccompanied housing privatization
projects using the pilot authority contained in section 2881a of Title
10, U.S.C. In March we cut the ribbon on the Pacific Beacon project in
San Diego. Pacific Beacon includes 258 conveyed units targeted for
unaccompanied E1-E4 sea duty sailors and 941 newly constructed dual
master suite units targeted for E4-E6 sailors.
The second unaccompanied housing privatization project is in
Hampton Roads (executed in December 2007) and included the conveyance
of 723 units in 7 buildings on Naval Station and Naval support Activity
Norfolk and the construction of 1,190 dual master suite units. The
first of three construction sites opened in November 2008 and the
remaining units are scheduled for completion in 2010.
The Navy is continuing to evaluate candidate locations for the
third pilot project, including the Mayport/Jacksonville, FL, area and
additional phases at San Diego and Hampton Roads using the public/
private entities previously established.
environment
Environmental Management Systems
The Department of the Navy is committed to improving mission
performance through better environmental program management. An
Environmental Management System (EMS) strengthens our management
effectiveness and provides a framework for a continual improvement
process. When properly implemented, EMS creates awareness and
identifies environmental aspects and impacts of operations. It
particularly highlights and prioritizes risks, promotes pollution
prevention, incorporates best management practices, minimizes Notices
of Violation and Non-Compliance through proactive compliance
management, and tracks progress towards established environmental
goals.
The Department has made great strides implementing EMS across the
Navy and Marine Corps installations world-wide. The Marine Corps
achieved fully conforming EMS status in spring 2008, a year and a half
ahead of the required implementation schedule. Navy has made tremendous
progress as well. It is well positioned to implement EMS at all major
installations in 2009. The Department is now planning for EMS
sustainment and potential future enhancements for fiscal year 2010 and
beyond to ensure maximum benefit from EMS.
Natural Resources Conservation
The Department of the Navy's natural resources conservation program
continues to excel in the stewardship of our natural environment while
fully supporting mission requirements. The basis of our program centers
on development and implementation of Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans (INRMPs). These plans, currently in place at 88 DoN
installations with significant natural resources, integrate all facets
of natural resources management with the installation's operational and
training requirements. Further, since these plans provide conservation
benefits to species and their habitats, our installations are eligible
for exclusion from formal critical habitat designation, eliminating a
regulatory constraint and providing the needed flexibility to support
the military mission and maximize the use of our training areas.
Since the Endangered Species Act, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), was
amended in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2004, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service determined the
effectiveness of DoN INRMPs outweighed the necessity to make 32
Critical Habitat designations on DoN installations.
DoN has also developed and implemented a web-based tool for
measuring the effectiveness of Navy and Marine Corps Natural Resources
Programs and overall ecosystem health as it relates to mission
sustainability. The tool ensures leadership is making the investments
necessary to protect natural resources, as well as the mission.
Cultural Resources Program
Cultural resources under the Department of Navy's stewardship
includes infrastructure, ships, and objects of our Navy heritage;
vestiges of our Colonial past; and Native American archaeology and
resources. We take great pride in our heritage, and the many cultural
resources on our installations serve as reminders of the long and
distinguished course we have charted. The clear objective of the Navy's
historic preservation program is to balance the Navy's current and
future mission needs and our stewardship responsibility to the American
taxpayer with our desires to preserve our cultural heritage for future
generations. The primary mechanism to achieve these goals is an
Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), which remains
the key mechanism for gathering information about an installation's
historic inventory, assess potential use/reuse candidates and ensure
that our installation planners and cultural resources managers are
working closely together.
Our installations are filled with examples of historic preservation
supporting and reinforcing the mission of a facility. We take very
seriously our statutory obligations regarding historic properties. We
work with OSD, the other Services, and other agencies such as The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic
Preservation Officers, tribal governments, and interested members of
the public, to develop effective and efficient ways to balance our
stewardship and fiscal responsibilities as part of our Shore
Installation Management program.
Historic buildings are a valuable part of our portfolio: Navy has
been able to rehabilitate historic buildings in a way that supports
mission requirements as effectively as newer buildings, with the added
benefit of preserving historic property. The Washington Navy Yard (WNY)
is an excellent example of this on a large scale. WNY is a showplace
for adaptive use of historic properties, including ``green''
renovations that reduce energy consumption, and the yard has served as
the catalyst for a redevelopment of the M Street corridor that
continues today. Using a combination of rehabilitated historic
buildings and carefully designed new construction, we have been able to
provide high quality work space for thousands of Navy employees while
preserving an important historic district. From a practical and
fiduciary perspective, the best opportunity to retain a historic
building is to keep it in current mission use, appropriately renovated
and maintained.
Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
The DoN continues to make significant progress remediating past
contaminants. As of the end of fiscal year 2008, the Department has
completed cleanup or has remedies in place at 83 percent of our 3,723
contaminated sites at our active installations. We remain on track to
have remedies in place or responses completed by 2014. The execution of
the program follows a cyclical pattern as the internal DOD metrics are
accomplished. Fiscal year 2007 saw a major push and achievement of many
``high risk'' sites meeting their cleanup milestones. The next
milestone is for ``medium risk'' sites to achieve this milestone by end
of fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010
resources are therefore focused on investigating the medium risk sites,
evaluating cleanup alternatives, and selecting remedies. Fiscal year
2011 will see another large spike in the number of sites achieving the
cleanup milestone. The same pattern will occur for the ``low risk''
sites from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2014.
Munitions Response Program (MRP)
The DoN is proceeding with investigations and cleanup of Munitions
and Explosives of Concern and Munitions Constituents at all Navy and
Marine Corps locations other than operational ranges. The major focus
through fiscal year 2010 is completing site inspections at all 257 MRP
sites. Additional funding is addressing high priority sites at Vieques
and Jackson Park Housing. Based on the results of the site inspections
and the site prioritization protocol results, DoN will sequence more
complete remedial investigations and cleanups starting in fiscal year
2011. DoN plans to achieve cleanup or remedies in place at all MRP
sites by fiscal year 2020.
Operational Range Assessments
Both the Navy and the Marine Corps completed environmental
operational range assessments on all of their land-based operational
range complexes by the end of fiscal year 2008. To date, neither the
Navy nor the Marine Corps has had a release or threat of a release from
an operational range to an off-range area that presents an unacceptable
risk to human health and the environment.
Navy Marine Mammals/Sonar R&D investments
The Navy is taking a number of proactive steps to protect marine
mammals from anthropogenic sound in the water. The Navy continues to
make long-term investments in marine mammal research by supporting
numerous universities, institutions, and technology businesses
worldwide. Their studies will help answer critical questions in marine
mammal demographics; establish criteria and thresholds to assess the
effects of naval activities; develop effective mitigation and
monitoring methods to lessen any potential effects; and continue to
refine characteristics of the sound field.
Marine Mammals/Military Readiness Activities
Over the last 8 years, the Navy has been implementing its program
of updating environmental documents on its major maritime range
complexes and operating areas. As part of this effort, in 2008 and
early 2009, the Navy signed Records of Decision for environmental
impact statements (EISs) for the Hawaii Range Complex, the Southern
California Range Complex, and the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training
areas. The U.S. Navy conducts the majority of its training involving
the use of mid-frequency active sonar on these range complexes. As a
result of completing these three EIS/OEIS and obtaining the associated
environmental compliance documentation under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Navy no longer
needed an MMPA National Defense Exemption. Similar documentation for
other range complexes will be completed in 2009 and 2010.
Through the MMPA and ESA authorization processes, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concluded that the proposed military
readiness activities would have a negligible impact to marine mammals
and will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered marine
mammal species in Hawaii, Southern California and off the East and Gulf
Coasts of the United States. In this public process, NMFS reviewed and
validated the 29 specific mitigation measures required by the 2-year
January 2007 MMPA National Defense Exemption. Those measures enabled
the Navy to employ MFA sonar in a manner that maintained testing and
training fidelity during critical MFA sonar testing and training while
providing environmentally sound protection to marine mammals.
Importantly, the Navy has continued unilaterally to require these
mitigation measures for those areas not yet covered by environmental
compliance documentation.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
relocating the marines to guam
The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $378 million to
construct facilities in support of the relocation. The Government of
Japan, in its fiscal year 2009 budget (which runs April 1, 2009 through
March 31, 2010) has provided a comparable amount and we expect to
receive their contribution in June. The graph at right identifies the
projects each funding stream constructs.
The Department of Defense recognizes that the condition of Guam's
existing infrastructure could affect our ability to execute the
aggressive program execution and construction schedule. Construction
capacity studies, assessments of socioeconomic impacts, and the
development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have
demonstrated that, in particular, Guam's road network, commercial port,
and utilities systems are in need of upgrades.
Roadway, intersection, and bridge upgrades are required to handle
the flow of materials from the port to work sites. Through the Defense
Access Road (DAR) program, DOD is working to identify, certify as
eligible for funding, and consider in future DOD budgets the need for
improvements to roadways, intersections, and bridges that are critical
to executing the construction program. Five road improvement projects
have been certified by Transportation Command's Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command under the DAR program and more are under
consideration. Existing deficiencies in the island's road system and
long-term traffic impacts due to the projected population increase are
being considered in partnership between Guam Department of Public Works
and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. These efforts are
occurring in parallel in order to ensure compatibility and mutual
benefit to DOD and the Guam community.
The Port of Guam requires near- and long-term improvements. The
Port Authority of Guam and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD)
signed a memorandum of understanding to improve the port by developing
an adequate master plan and implementation of a Capital Improvement
Plan. These plans will develop the port into a regional shipping hub
that will serve both military and civilian needs in the region in the
long term. Near-term improvements to the port are underway, including
the recent delivery of three refurbished cranes that will become fully
operational soon. With these upgrades and improvements to materials-
handling processes, the Port of Guam should be able to accommodate
throughput to sustain the expected $1.5-2.0 billion per year in
construction volume.
Of the total $6.09 billion Japanese commitment included in the
Realignment Roadmap, $740 million is for developing electric, fresh
water, sewer, and solid waste infrastructure in support of the
relocating Marine Corps forces. Analysis of utilities options indicates
that developing new, stand-alone systems may not be cost-effective. DOD
is collaborating with the Government of Guam to understand its needs
and to determine the feasibility of water, wastewater, solid waste and
power solutions that are mutually beneficial and acceptable to DOD, the
civilian community and the regulatory agencies. Japan's contribution to
the utilities special purpose entity is but one example of how bringing
private investment through public-private partnerships may be part of
the solution to Guam's infrastructure problems.
Relocation to Guam represents a strategic opportunity for the
United States that we must get right. Our strategy is to identify
options that will support DOD missions, provide the widest possible
benefit to the people of Guam, be technically and financially
supportable by current and future utilities providers, and be
acceptable to Government of Guam and environmental regulators. A
business model is being developed to support these requirements while
ensuring the interests of the U.S Government and the GOJ are met. The
EIS is addressing both interim and long-term solutions as they relate
to infrastructure on Guam.
DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has provided the
Government of Guam with grants totaling more than $4.5 million to
support environmental, financial and planning studies; staffing; and
community outreach programs. Additionally, the Department of Defense is
working with other Federal agencies to determine what appropriate roles
DOD and other Federal agencies can play in helping Guam to address
necessary infrastructure and services improvements on Guam, as noted by
recent Government Accounting Office reviews. Additionally, the
Department will ensure that Guam's local economic adjustment
requirements, as they are known at the time, are provided to the
Economic Adjustment Committee, chaired by the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor as co-Vice Chairs.
We recognize the potential for significant socioeconomic effects on
Guam with the introduction of off-island workers who will support the
construction program. In order to minimize negative effects, we are
collaborating with the Government of Guam to develop a program for the
equitable and safe treatment of all workers, including Guam residents,
workers from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),
Hawaii and the U.S. mainland, and any necessary H2-B laborers. We are
evaluating methods to have contractors manage safety, medical, housing,
transportation, and security for their workers, taking into account
potential long-term positive side benefits that different solutions may
have on the Guam community.
Environmental Impact Statement
As it is designed to do, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process and associated studies are helping us identify and
address environmental issues and constraints. A key milestone to
executing the realignment in the established timeframe is achieving a
Record of Decision on a schedule that allows for construction to begin
in fiscal year 2010. The target for a Record of Decision is January
2010. We realize there are significant and complicated issues that need
to be addressed in this study, and the interests of the public need to
be protected. This is a complex EIS, as it considers not only the
relocation of the 8,000 Marines and their dependents, but also a Navy
proposal for a transient nuclear-powered carrier capability at Apra
Harbor, and an Army proposal to station a ballistic missile defense
capability on Guam. However, we remain on an aggressive schedule to
finish the final EIS by the end of 2009, with a Record of Decision
following. To that end, we are holding informal discussions with
regulatory agencies early and often to uncover and address issues of
concern well in advance of the formal review process; we are
streamlining existing internal and external review and approval
processes with regulatory agencies and other external partners; and we
are conducting concurrent internal DOD reviews to expedite approval of
the EIS for distribution and publication. We will share with Congress
significant issues that emerge during the EIS process.
prior brac cleanup & property disposal
The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 were a major tool in
reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings. The
Department has achieved a steady state savings of approximately $2.7
billion per year since fiscal year 2002. All that remains is to
complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal on portions of
16 of the original 91 bases and to complete environmental cleanup on 15
installations that have been disposed.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Property Disposal
By the end of fiscal year 2008, we have disposed of 93 percent of
the real property slated for closure in the first four rounds of BRAC.
Throughout that time, we have used a variety of the conveyance
mechanisms available for Federal Property disposal, including the
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) that was created for BRAC
properties. Ninety-one percent of the Department of the Navy real
property was conveyed at no cost. From the remaining 9 percent, the
Department of Navy has received over $1.1 billion in revenues via a
variety of conveyance mechanisms. Nearly all of this revenue has been
generated since fiscal year 2003. Since then, we have used these funds
to accelerate environmental cleanup, and to finance the entire
Department of the Navy prior BRAC effort including caretaker costs from
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008.
These funds have enabled us to continue our environmental clean-up
efforts at 31 installations. We have used these funds to accelerate
cleanup at Naval Shipyard Hunters Point, CA, as well as Naval Air
Station Alameda, CA, enabling us to be closer to issuing Findings of
Suitability to Transfer or conveyance of the property for integration
of environmental cleanup with redevelopment.
Land Sale Revenue
Despite our success in using property sales to augment funding for
environmental cleanup and property disposal, as well as recover value
for taxpayers from the disposal of Federal property, future revenues
are very limited. In fiscal year 2009, we resumed our budget requests
for appropriated funding.
Prior BRAC Environmental Cleanup
The Department has spent about $4.0 billion on environmental
cleanup, environmental compliance, and program management costs at
prior BRAC locations through fiscal year 2008. We project an increase
in the cost-to-complete of about $172 million since last year. Nearly
all of this cost increase is due to additional munitions cleanup at
Naval Air Facility Adak, AK; Naval Shipyard Mare Island, CA; and Marine
Corps Air Station El Toro, CA. The increase is also associated with
additional radioactive contaminations at Naval Station Treasure Island,
CA; Naval Air Station Alameda, CA; and Naval Shipyard Mare Island, CA.
brac 2005 implementation
The Department has moved expeditiously from planning to the
execution of the BRAC 2005 Program. OSD has approved all 59 Navy-led
business plans. Additionally, 24 other service-led business plans with
some form of Navy equity have been approved. The Department's BRAC 2005
Program is on track for full compliance with statutory requirements by
the September 15, 2011 deadline. However, some significant challenges
lie ahead.
Accomplishments
In total, the Department awarded 85 of 118 BRAC construction
projects with a combined value of $1.4 billion.\2\ Eighteen fiscal year
2009 projects worth $256 million are on track to award this year. Some
noteworthy projects include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Three fiscal year 2008 projects valued at $14 million remain to
be awarded.
In July 2008, the Department awarded a $325 million
project to co-locate Military Department Investigative Agencies
at Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA. When complete it will
combine almost 3,000 personnel from the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the Services' Investigative Agencies. It also
includes the construction of a collocated ``School House'' for
the Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA) as well
as nearby roadway improvements. Combined together, these
actions will significantly enhance counterintelligence
synchronization and collaboration across DOD.
In less than 12 months since business plan approval,
nine projects for a combined $222 million were awarded at Naval
Air Weapons Station, China Lake, CA; Naval Weapons Station,
Indian Head, MD; and Dahlgren, VA, in support of the
Department's effort to consolidate and create a Naval
Integrated Weapons & Armaments Research, Development,
Acquisition, Test, and Evaluation Center. Two projects worth
$39 million are projected to award next month.
Helping Communities
Fifteen impacted communities have established a Local Redevelopment
Authority (LRA) to guide local planning and redevelopment efforts. The
DOD Office of Economic Adjustment has been providing financial support
through grants and technical assistance to support LRA efforts. Of
these 15 communities, 6 reuse plans have been approved by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Three communities
are still preparing their plans with submissions planned for later this
year. At the installations where the reuse plans have been completed,
the Department has initiated the National Environmental Policy Act
documentation for disposal of those properties.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Land Conveyances and Lease Terminations
By the end of fiscal year 2008, the Department disposed of 43
percent of the property that was slated for closure in BRAC 2005. These
disposal actions were completed via lease termination, reversions, and
Federal and DOD agency transfers. Of interest is the reversion of
Singing Island at Naval Station Pascagoula and the Dredge Spoil
Material Area at Naval Station Ingleside, transfer of the tidal area of
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord to the Department
of the Army, and disposal of 78 percent of the Reserve centers slated
for closure.
The Department has also closed or realigned 38 of 49 Naval Reserve
Centers, Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers, Navy Recruiting Districts,
Navy Regions, and Navy Reserve Readiness Commands. Seven of these were
disposed in 2008. The 2009 Plan includes transfer of 144 acres at Naval
Air Station Atlanta, Reserve Centers at Orange, TX, and Mobile, AL, and
75 acres from Naval Station Pascagoula to the Air Force.
NSA New Orleans, LA
In September 2008, the Department and the Algiers Development
District (ADD) Board entered into a 75-year leasing agreement. We
leased 149 acres of Naval Support Activity New Orleans West Bank to the
ADD in exchange for up to $150 million in new facilities to support
Headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve.
Simultaneously, the Department finished construction, relocated
from New Orleans, and formally opened the new Commander, Navy Reserve
Force Command Headquarters in Norfolk, VA. In their new $33 million,
90,000-square foot facility, the 450-man command is in very close
proximity to the Department's U.S. Fleet Forces Command as well as the
Joint Forces Command. This proximity means better communication between
Active and Reserve Forces, including more face-to-face meetings with
local commands.
Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME
The Department's largest BRAC 2005 operational action will close
Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME, and consolidate the East Coast
maritime patrol operations in Jacksonville, FL. The cornerstone of this
relocation is a $132 million aircraft hangar scheduled for completion
and occupation in May 2009. This project represents the Department's
largest patrol squadron hangar, and it will serve to maintain all five
P-3 squadrons. It is also designed for the future transition to the P-8
Poseidon aircraft. The first relocating P-3 Squadron deployed from
Naval Air Station Brunswick occurred in November 2008 and will return
directly to their new home in Jacksonville.
Naval Station Ingleside/NAS Corpus Christi, TX
Significant progress was also made to prepare facilities to
relocate eight Mine Counter Measure (MCM) ships from Naval Station
Ingleside, TX to Naval Base San Diego, CA. The Department re-evaluated
its infrastructure footprint in the greater San Diego area and elected
to change from new construction to renovation of existing facilities,
thereby saving more than $25 million in construction costs. These ships
will start shifting homeport this spring, with completion later in the
calendar year.
Joint Basing
Two of four Joint Base Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) where the
Department is the lead component have been approved. The MOA for each
joint base defines the relationships between the components, and
commits the lead component to deliver installation support functions at
approved common standards. Resources--including personnel, budget, and
real estate--transfer from the Supported component(s) to the lead.
Joint Basing has two implementation phases, with Phase I installations
scheduled to reach full operational capability in October 2009, and
Phase II installations in October 2010. The four Department-led joint
bases are Little Creek-Fort Story (Phase I), Joint Region Marianas
(Phase I), Anacostia-Bolling (Phase II), and Pearl Harbor-Hickam (Phase
II).
Environmental Cost to Complete
Given the relatively few number of closures, the absence of major
industrial facilities, and the extensive site characterization,
analysis, and cleanup that has occurred over the last several decades,
the Department's remaining environmental liabilities for BRAC 05 are
substantially less than in previous rounds of BRAC. We have spent $148
million in cleanup at BRAC 05 locations through fiscal year 2008. The
majority of this has been spent at Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME and
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, CA. Our remaining
environmental cost to complete for fiscal year 2009 and beyond is $99
million. This estimate is $8 million higher than last year's estimate
due to additional munitions, groundwater, and landfill cleanup and
monitoring at Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME; Naval Weapons Station
Seal Beach Detachment Concord, CA; and Naval Air Station Joint Reserve
Base Willow Grove, PA.
Financial Execution
The execution of our fiscal year 2006-2008 funds is now at nearly
90 percent. This is a significant improvement over the same period last
year and further demonstrates our shift from planning to execution and
accelerated implementation. We are also on track to obligate over 90
percent of our fiscal year 2009 funds by the end of the fiscal year. We
appreciate the efforts of Congress to provide these funds early in the
fiscal year, which directly contributed to our success.
Challenges
Although we are on track to meet the September 15, 2011 deadline,
we do face some significant challenges ahead. Seven major construction
projects at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA, and Naval Weapons
Station Indian Head, MD, require complex site approvals and
certifications for operation from the Department of Defense Explosive
Safety Board. Additionally, Correctional Facilities require
certification before occupancy. The Department plans to closely manage
construction so that it completes in time to conduct the necessary
certifications.
Several complex move actions require close coordination with other
Services and agencies. While they remain on track for timely
completion, we must maintain effective and continuous coordination to
succeed.
meeting the construction execution challenge
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We have outlined how our facilities investment continues at a
record setting pace, and the Department's execution agent, the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), is ready to meet the demand.
While market conditions exacerbated by world-wide natural disasters
led to lagging execution rate during fiscal year 2006, NAVFAC has
drastically reduced carryover despite a 60 percent increase in contract
awards, as the graph depicts. Smart acquisition strategies and vigorous
management in the field continue to reduce the carryover.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Special consideration is being given to executing the construction
program in Guam. To the maximum extent possible NAVFAC will apply
criteria and standards that enable offsite construction methodologies.
This will not only reduce the importation of raw construction materials
to the island but it also helps to minimize the socio-economic impact
by reducing the off-island labor required. NAVFAC continues to make
concerted efforts to reach out to Small Business enterprises, and will
also utilize a variety of contracting vehicles, such as the, 8(A)
Multiple Award, HUBZONE Multiple award, and the new Small Business
Global Multiple Award that is pre-award status.
conclusion
Our Nation's maritime forces operate closely with other joint
forces allies, and coalition partners, delivering the main tenets of
our Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: protecting the
homeland, preventing conflicts, and when necessary, winning our
Nation's conflicts. To fulfill this challenge we must ensure our
sailors and marines have the training, education, and tools necessary
to prevail in conflict and promote peace abroad. The Department of
Navy's investment in our shore infrastructure represents our deepening
commitment to this goal. Our installations are where we homeport the
Fleet and her Marine forces, train and equip the world's finest sailors
and marines. Our fiscal year 2010 budget supports a forward posture and
readiness for agile, global response.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to testify
before you today.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Secretary Penn. We appreciate your
service very much.
Mr. Calcara, I think we'll turn to you next, and then Ms.
Ferguson.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. CALCARA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING
Mr. Calcara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
Senator Burr and other members. I think Senator Udall stepped
out.
It's my distinct honor to present the fiscal year 2010 Army
budget, which--in what has been an extremely challenging and
dynamic year for us all, working with a compressed schedule. I
really appreciate the tremendous support your staff and you
have provided us over the years, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Our budget is about $10 billion in the construction
investment arena across fiscal year 2010. About $4.2 billion of
it is tied to BRAC, which will allow us to complete, on time,
what has been the largest base closure, for any Service, ever
undertaken. The Army's BRAC 5 round is bigger than all four
previous rounds combined, and we are on track to complete it,
with this funding, by the deadline. There's about a billion
dollars in contingency funding in there for our Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. The rest of the money is
tied to MILCON. As I know the question of the hour for the Army
is, with the recent decision by the Secretary of Defense on 45
brigades versus 48, how does that affect our budget?
So, let me just address the top-line issues. You have my
written statement for the record. I would request that you make
it part of the record.
Senator Bayh. So ordered.
Mr. Calcara. Inside the MILCON request, including the
Guard, the Reserve, housing, and MILCON, we have about $1.47
billion tied to the brigade Grow the Army Initiative. About
half of those dollars are tied to combat support and combat
service support functions that are not affected by the brigade
configuration. The population will be there. Those requirements
are there. We need those projects.
Of the remaining half of the $1.47 billion, about half of
that is tied to housing and our MILCON for the Reserves. So,
that leaves us with about half of half of half, or a quarter,
of the $1.47 billion that we needed to revisit for prudent
investment decisionmaking.
Now, we met with your staff--I think it was last week--and
we went through our plan. We looked at those dollars and have
looked at requirements that still exist at Fort Carson, Fort
Stewart, and Fort Bliss. Our recommendation is to take those
dollars, in the case of Fort Stewart, for example, and buy out
of relocatable facilities. We have a one-for-one match on
brigade configuration facility category code. It will allow us
to reduce the number of relocatables that we have left to buy
out across the FYDP and bring our percentages up, in terms of
being out of relocatable facilities, something you've asked us
to do. We think it's the right thing to do.
In the case of Fort Carson, we've looked at that location,
and there we have chronic shortages. When the original brigades
were stood up, the facilities were undersized, but, as we were
on a critical timeline to get to 48, we allowed them to go as
is. The dollars in the program in fiscal year 2010 will go back
to Fort Carson and buy out of those substandard and capacity
shortages that exist there. Again, we have population--brigade-
centric population that marries up to those requirements.
In the case of Fort Bliss, we have two brigades there--a
fires brigade and another brigade--who currently have shortages
in facilities. Our plan would be to continue with the
investment there, which will allow us to efficiently and
effectively contract at a lower cost structure than if we
deferred it, pending the QDR decision. In all likelihood, at
least one, or both, brigades coming back from Europe will wind
up at Fort Bliss. That will be that much facility that we will
not have to program in the out years if we allow those
investments to continue.
Otherwise, it has been a challenging year for us, working
this. Again, I do appreciate your support, and I look forward
to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calcara follows:]
Prepared Statement by Joseph F. Calcara
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Army's Military Construction, Family
Housing, and Base Realignment and Closure budget requests for fiscal
year 2010. Our requests are crucial to the success of the Army's
strategic imperatives to Sustain, Prepare, Reset, and Transform the
force. We appreciate the opportunity to report on them and respond to
your questions. We would like to start by thanking you for your support
to our soldiers and their families serving our Nation around the world.
They are and will continue to be the centerpiece of our Army, and their
ability to perform their missions successfully depends upon the staunch
support of Congress.
The Army's strength is its soldiers--and the families and Army
civilians who support them. With your continuing support, we will
assure that the quality of life we afford our soldiers and families is
commensurate with the quality of their service. Our budget requests
have been vetted to ensure they reflect the minimum requirement to
maintain the All-Volunteer Force and ensure soldiers and their families
receive the facilities, care, and support they need to accomplish their
missions.
overview
Rebalancing the Force in an Era of Persistent Conflict
Installations are the home of combat power and a critical component
of the Nation's force generating and force projecting capability. Your
Army is working hard to deliver cost-effective, safe, and
environmentally sound capabilities and capacities to support the
national defense mission.
Our Nation has been at war for over 7 years. Our Army continues to
lead the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in defense of
the homeland and in support of civil authorities in responding to
domestic emergencies. Over time, these operations have expanded in
scope and duration, stressing our All-Volunteer Force and straining our
ability to maintain strategic depth. During this period, Congress has
responded to the Army's requests for resources, and that commitment to
our soldiers, their families, and civilians is deeply appreciated.
Continued timely and predictable funding is critical as the Army
continues to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, meet other
operational demands, sustain our All-Volunteer Force, and prepare for
future threats to the Nation.
Our Army continues its largest organizational change since World
War II, as it transforms to a Brigade centric modular force and grows
the force to achieve an the Active component of 547,400, a National
Guard of 358,200, and an Army Reserve of 206,000 men and women. At the
same time, we are restationing about one-third of the force through a
combination of Base Closure and Realignment and Global Defense Posture
Realignment actions. All of these initiatives have corresponding
military construction requirements.
The details of the Army's fiscal year 2010 request follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of
Military Construction Appropriation Authorization Appropriations Appropriation
Request Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction Army (MCA).................... $3,116,350,000 $3,660,779,000 $3,660,779,000
Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG).... N/A $426,491,000 $426,491,000
Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR)........... N/A $374,862,000 $374,862,000
Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC)............. $241,236,000 $273,236,000 $273,236,000
Army Family Housing Operations (AFHO)............... $523,418,000 $523,418,000 $523,418,000
Base Realignment and Closure 95 (BCA)............... $98,723,000 $98,723,000 $98,723,000
Base Realignment and Closure 2005 (BCA)............. $4,081,037,000 $4,081,037,000 $4,081,037,000
Overseas Contingency Operations..................... $923,900,000 $923,900,000 $923,900,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. $8,984,664,000 $10,362,446,000 $10,362,446,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and Overseas
Contingency Operations budget requests include $10.4 billion for
Military Construction, Army Family Housing, and Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) appropriations and associated new authorizations.
Army Modular Force
The Army continues to reorganize the Active and Reserve components
into standardized modular organizations, increasing the number of
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and support brigades to meet operational
requirements and create a more deployable, versatile and tailorable
force. The Army strategy is to use existing facility assets where
feasible and program projects when not. The fiscal year 2010 request of
$589 million will provide permanent facilities construction to support
conversion of existing BCTs to new modern BCTs at Forts Wainwright,
Carson, Lewis, and Bragg.
Grow the Army
On April 6, 2009, the Secretary of Defense issued guidance to stop
growth of Army BCTs at 45 versus 48. We understand this decision has
caused some understandable concern in places that expected to receive
the three additional BCTs, and we recognize the impact this decision
could have on communities that have made significant investments to
accept new units. We are working the details with urgency, but at this
point, no final decisions have been made as to which BCTs will be
affected. The Army is conducting a thorough analysis with the goal of
balancing our force mix for the current fight while setting conditions
to meet the future strategic environment. We are leveraging the ongoing
Quadrennial Defense Review process and our force mix analysis to
determine the proper balance. We will keep Congress advised of our
progress.
In the meantime, it is crucial that the Army maintain currently
planned fiscal year 2009 construction projects and fiscal year 2010
construction, pending the analysis and decision by Army senior leaders,
and recognizing that the vast majority of the facilities at Army
installations are legacy systems still requiring modernization or
replacement. Construction projects play an essential role in supporting
our end strength growth to 547,400 as well as transforming our
installations to support organizational changes. The fiscal year 2010
requirement for BCTs is $404 million. Other Grow the Army facility
support requirements, such as projects to support the combat support/
combat service support units, training base, quality of life, and
support to the Army National Guard and Army Reserve growth, in fiscal
year 2010 total $1.07 billion.
Global Defense Posture Realignment
The Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR) initiative ensures
Army forces are properly positioned worldwide to support out National
Military Strategy and to support the mission in Afghanistan. GDPR will
relocate over 41,000 soldiers and their families from Europe and Korea
to the United States by 2013. Over time, it will build a BCT Complex
and support facilities at White Sands Missile Range, NM, and
operational, training, and support facilities at Fort Benning, Fort
Bliss, Fort Riley, Schofield Barracks, and Camp Humphreys. As part of
the fiscal year 2010 program, the Army requires $252 million to
construct facilities in Bagram, Afghanistan and a warehouse in Kuwait.
The total GDPR request is $524 million.
Base Realignment and Closure
The Army is requesting $4,081,037,000 for BRAC 2005, which is
critical to the success of the Army's BRAC 2005 initiatives, and
$98,723,000 for legacy BRAC to sustain vital, ongoing programs. BRAC
2005 is carefully integrated with the Defense and Army programs of Grow
the Army, GDPR, and Army Modular Force (AMF). Collectively, these
initiatives allow the Army to focus its resources on installations that
provide the best military value, supporting improved responsiveness and
readiness of units. The elimination of Cold War-era infrastructure and
the implementation of modern technology to consolidate activities allow
the Army to better focus on its core warfighting mission. These
initiatives are a massive undertaking, requiring the synchronization of
base closures, realignments, military construction and renovation, unit
activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces to and from
current global commitments. Results will yield substantial savings over
time, while positioning forces, logistics activities, and power
projection platforms to respond efficiently and effectively to the
needs of the Nation.
Under BRAC 2005, the Army will close 12 Active component
installations, 1 Army Reserve installation, 387 National Guard
Readiness and Army Reserve Centers, and 8 leased facilities. BRAC 2005
realigns 53 installations and/or functions and establishes Training
Centers of Excellence, Joint Bases, a Human Resources Center of
Excellence, and Joint Technical and Research facilities. To accommodate
the units relocating from the closing National Guard Readiness and Army
Reserve Centers, BRAC 2005 creates 125 multi-component Armed Forces
Reserve Centers and realigns U.S. Army Reserve command and control
structure.
The over 1,100 discrete actions required for the Army to
successfully implement BRAC 2005 are far more extensive than all 4
previous BRAC rounds combined and are expected to create significant
recurring annual savings. BRAC 2005 will enable the Army to become a
more capable expeditionary force as a member of the joint team while
enhancing the well-being of our soldiers, civilians, and family members
living, working, and training on our installations.
BRAC 2005 Implementation Strategy
All of our BRAC 2005 construction projects are planned to be
awarded by the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. This will enable the
major movement of units and personnel in fiscal years 2010 and 2011,
with expected completion by the mandated BRAC 2005 deadline. The Army
remains committed to achieving BRAC 2005 Law and is on track do so.
With full and timely funding, there will be no impacts to movement
schedules, training, or readiness. Fiscal year 2010 is our fifth and
final year of BRAC construction. We have moved into a period where our
construction timeline flexibility is exhausted. We cannot overstate the
difficulties that cuts or delays in BRAC funding pose to the Army as we
implement BRAC construction projects. If the Army program is not fully
funded by October 2009, we will be significantly challenged to execute
BRAC as intended.
BRAC 2005 Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
The Army's fiscal year 2010 budget request will continue to fund
both BRAC and GDPR actions necessary to comply with BRAC 2005 Law. The
Army plans to award and begin construction of 80 military construction
projects, plus planning and design for fiscal year 2010 projects. This
is estimated to cost $2.5 billion and includes 5 additional GDPR
projects, 37 Army National Guard and Army Reserve projects, and an
additional 38 Active component projects.
The BRAC budget request will also fund furnishings for BRAC
projects awarded in fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 as the
buildings reach completion and occupancy. The request also funds
movement of personnel, ammunition, and equipment associated with BRAC
Commission Recommendations.
In fiscal year 2010, the Army will continue environmental closure
and cleanup actions at BRAC properties. These activities will continue
efforts previously ongoing under the Army Installation restoration
program and will ultimately support future property transfer actions.
The budget request for environmental programs is $147.7 million, which
includes munitions and explosives of concern and hazardous and toxic
waste restoration activities.
Prior BRAC
Since Congress established the first Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission in 1988 and then authorized the subsequent
rounds in 1990, DOD has successfully executed four rounds of base
closures to reduce and align the military's infrastructure to the
current security environment and force structure. As a result, the Army
estimates approximately $12.6 billion in savings through 2008--nearly
$1 billion in recurring, annual savings from prior BRAC rounds.
The Army is requesting $98.7 million in fiscal year 2010 for prior
BRAC rounds ($5.3 million to fund caretaking operations and program
management of remaining properties and $93.4 million for environmental
restoration) to address environmental restoration efforts at 147 sites
at 14 prior BRAC installations. To date, the Army has spent $2.95
billion on the BRAC environmental program for installations impacted by
the previous four BRAC rounds. We disposed of 181,345 acres (86 percent
of the total acreage disposal requirement of 209,834 acres), with
28,489 acres remaining.
Fiscal Year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
This request supports the National Strategy for OCO. The request
funds projects critical to the support of deployed warfighters,
operational requirements for airfields, operational facilities,
supplies, troop housing, and infrastructure to ensure safe and
efficient military operations in Afghanistan. A total of 74 projects
that will fulfill the Department's immediate mission needs and urgent
infrastructure requirements in theater are planned for a total of $828
million.
army initiatives
Military Construction, Army
To improve the Army's facilities posture, we have undertaken
specific initiatives or budget strategies to focus our resources on the
most important areas--Range and Training Lands, Barracks, Family
Housing, and Warrior in Transition Complexes.
Range and Training Lands
Ranges and training lands enable our Army to train and develop its
full capabilities to ensure our soldiers are fully prepared for the
challenges they will face. Our Army Range and Training Land Strategy
supports Army transformation and the Army's Sustainable Range Program.
The Strategy identifies priorities for installations requiring
resources to modernize ranges, mitigate encroachment, and acquire
training land. The fiscal year 2010 request supports 25 projects, $178
million for Active component training ranges.
Barracks
Providing safe, quality housing is a crucial commitment the Army
has made to all of our soldiers. We owe single soldiers the same
quality of housing that we provide married soldiers. Modern barracks
are shown to significantly increase morale, which positively impacts
readiness and quality of life. The importance of providing quality
housing for single soldiers is paramount to success on the battlefield.
The Army is in the 17th year of modernizing barracks to provide about
148,000 single enlisted permanent party soldiers with quality living
environments. Because of increased authorized strength, the
requirements for barracks have increased in several locations, and for
fiscal year 2010, a total of $711.5 million will be invested in 3,592
new permanent party barracks spaces that will meet DOD's ``1+1'' or
equivalent standard. These units provide two-soldier suites, increased
personal privacy, larger rooms with walk-in closets, new furnishings,
adequate parking, landscaping, and unit administrative offices
separated from the barracks. We are on track to fully fund this program
by fiscal year 2013. The last inadequate permanent party spaces will be
removed after the new barracks are occupied in fiscal year 2015. For
trainee barracks, the Army is requesting $535.9 million to build or
upgrade 2,278 new spaces to standard. We are requesting funds to keep
this program on schedule so we can eliminate all inadequate trainee
barracks spaces, finishing funding with fiscal year 2015 and occupying
the barracks in fiscal year 2017.
Family Housing
This year's budget continues our significant investment in our
soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to continue funding
to eliminate remaining inadequate housing and sustain housing at
enduring overseas installations. The U.S. inadequate inventory has been
funded to be eliminated by the end of fiscal year 2007 through
privatization, conventional military construction, demolition,
divestiture of uneconomical or excess units, and reliance on off-post
housing. For families living off post, the budget for military
personnel maintains the Basic Allowance for Housing that eliminates
out-of-pocket expenses.
Warrior In Transition
The Army $1 billion budget for its Warrior in Transition (WT)
Program funds military construction to facilitate command and control,
primary care, and case management to establish a healing environment
that promotes the timely return to the force or transition to civilian
life. The fiscal year 2009 Overseas Contingency Operations requests
$425 million in funding. The fiscal year 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided $100 million for two complexes and the
fiscal year 2010 budget request will provide 13 complexes for $503.5
million.
Overseas Construction
Included in this budget request is $437 million in support of high-
priority overseas projects. In Germany, we are requesting funds for
barracks at Ansbach and Kleber Kaserne. In Korea, we are requesting
funds to further our relocation of forces on the peninsula. This action
is consistent with the Land Partnership Plan agreements entered into by
the U.S. and Republic of Korea Ministry of Defense. Two vehicle
maintenance shops and a Fire Station are included. Our request for
funds in Italy continues construction for a BCT. We are also including
Training Aids Facilities in Japan at Camp Zama and Okinawa.
Additionally, approximately $678 million of our fiscal year 2009
Overseas Contingency Operations request will support military
construction projects in Afghanistan for troop housing, airfield and
operational facilities, infrastructure and utility systems, fuel
handling and storage, and roads.
Other Support Programs
The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $153 million for planning and
design. As executive agent, the Army also provides oversight of design
and construction for projects funded by host nations. The fiscal year
2010 budget requests $25 million for oversight of host nation funded
construction for all Services in Japan, Korea, and Europe.
Incremental Funding
We are requesting the third increment of funding, $55.4 million,
for the previously approved, incrementally funded, SOUTHCOM
Headquarters at Miami-Doral, FL. In addition, we are requesting the
fourth and final increment of funding, $102 million, for the Brigade
Complex at Fort Lewis, WA. The budget also includes $23.5 million for a
Brigade Complex-Operations support facility and $22.5 million for a
Brigade Complex-Barracks/Community, both projects at Dal Molin, Italy.
Finally, we are requesting the second increments for the Brigade
Complexes at Fort Carson $60 million and Fort Stewart $80 million.
The budget request also contains $23 million for unspecified minor
construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2010 Military Construction
request for $426,491,000 (for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations) is focused on Transformation/AMF, Mission and Training,
Grow the Army, planning and design, and unspecified minor military
construction
Transformation
In fiscal year 2010, the Army National Guard is requesting $158.2
million for six projects in support of our modern missions. There are
three aviation projects to provide facilities for modernized aircraft
and changed unit structure. Also in support of the Modular Force
initiative, we are asking for two readiness centers and one maintenance
facility.
Mission and Training
Our budget request also includes $154 million for 10 projects,
which will support the preparation of our forces. These funds will
provide the facilities our soldiers require as they train, mobilize,
and deploy. Included are two training facilities, six range projects,
and two Readiness/Armed Forces Reserve Centers.
Grow the Army
Under the category of Grow the Army, we are requesting $80 million
for five Readiness Centers to improve the Army National Guard's ability
to deal with the continued high levels of deployment.
Other Support Programs
The fiscal year 2010 Army National Guard budget also contains $24
million for planning and design of future projects and $10.3 million
for unspecified minor military construction to address unforeseen
critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for
the normal programming cycle.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
The Army Reserve fiscal year 2010 Military Construction request for
$374,862,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is
for Preparation, Transformation, other support, and unspecified
programs.
Mission and Training Projects
In fiscal year 2010, the Army Reserve will invest $45 million to
prepare our soldiers for success in current operations. Included in the
mission and training projects is an Armed Forces Reserve Center and a
Combined Arms Collective Training facility, which will be available for
joint use by all Army components and military Services.
Grow The Army Projects
The Army Reserve transformation from a Strategic Reserve to an
Operational Force includes converting 16,000 authorizations from
generating force structure to Operational Force structure from fiscal
years 2009 through 2013. In fiscal year 2010, the Army Reserve will
construct 19 Reserve Operations Complexes in 11 States and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with an investment of $304 million to
support the transformation. These projects will provide operations,
maintenance, and storage facilities for over 6,000 soldiers in 56 newly
activating combat support and combat service support units and
detachments.
Other Unspecified Programs
The fiscal year 2010 Army Reserve budget request includes $22.3
million for planning and design for future year projects and $3.6
million for unspecified minor military construction to address
unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot
wait for the normal programming cycle.
Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC)
The Army's fiscal year 2010 family housing construction request is
$273,236,000 for authorization, authorization of appropriation, and
appropriation.
The fiscal year 2010 new construction program uses traditional
military construction to provide 38 new houses for families with an $18
million replacement project at Baumholder, Germany. The Army also
requests $32 million to fund the final increment for three projects at
Wiesbaden, Germany, to finish replacement housing that was fully
authorized in fiscal year 2009. These projects will result in
completing 250 homes for Army families.
The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our
Family housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal
year 2010, we are requesting $161.4 million to increase scope of these
existing privatization projects: 334 homes at Fort Knox, KY; 176 homes
at Fort Wainwright, AK; 144 homes at Fort Polk, LA; 90 homes at Fort
Irwin, CA; and, 78 homes at Fort Sill, OK. The improvements program
also provides $11.9 million for equity contributions for 11 homes at
Fort Bragg, NC, and 8 homes at Fort Eustis, VA, that were required due
to Base Realignment and Closure. Also, the fiscal year 2010 request
supports $46 million for direct equity investment in support of the
privatization of 1,242 homes at Fort Richardson, AK, as part of the
joint basing effort with Elmendorf Air Force Base.
In fiscal year 2010, we are also requesting $3.9 million for
planning and design for final design of fiscal year 2010 and 2011
family housing construction projects, as well as for housing studies
and updating standards and criteria.
Privatization
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI), the Army's housing
privatization program, continues to provide quality housing that
soldiers and their families can proudly call home. The Army is
leveraging appropriated funds and existing housing by engaging in 50-
year partnerships with nationally recognized private real estate
development, property management, and home builder firms to construct,
renovate, repair, maintain, and operate housing communities.
The RCI program will include 45 locations, with a projected end
state of almost 88,000 homes--98 percent of the on-post family housing
inventory in the U.S. At the end of fiscal year 2009, the Army will
have privatized 44 locations, with an end state of over 85,000 homes.
Initial construction and renovation at these 44 installations is
estimated at $12 billion over a 3 to 10 year development period, of
which the Army will contribute about $2.0 billion. Although most
projects are in the early phases of their initial development, since
1999 through March 2009, our partners have constructed 18,769 new
homes, and renovated 13,697 homes.
Army Family Housing Operations (AFHO)
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Family Housing Operations request is
$523,418,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations).
This account provides for annual operations, municipal-type services,
furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, leased family housing,
demolition of surplus or uneconomical housing, and funds supporting
management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. This
request will support almost 17,000 Army-owned homes, both at home and
in foreign areas. More than 9,000 residences will be leased and more
than 80,000 privatized homes will be managed.
Operations ($88.4 million)
The operations account includes four subaccounts: management,
services, furnishings, and a small miscellaneous account. All
operations subaccounts are considered ``must pay accounts'' based on
actual bills that must be paid to manage and operate family housing.
Utilities ($81.6 million)
The utilities account includes the costs of delivering heat, air
conditioning, electricity, water, and wastewater support for Family
housing units. The overall size of the utilities account is decreasing
with the reduction in supported inventory.
Maintenance and Repair ($115.9 million)
The maintenance and repair account supports annual recurring
projects to maintain and revitalize family housing real property
assets. Since most Family housing operational expenses are fixed,
maintenance and repair is the account most affected by budget changes.
Funding reductions result in slippage of maintenance projects that
adversely impact soldier and family quality of life.
Leasing ($205.7 million)
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes funding for
9,036 housing units, including project requirements for 1,080 existing
section 2835 (``build-to-lease''--formerly known as 801 leases), 1,828
temporary domestic leases in the U.S., and 6,128 leased family housing
units in foreign areas.
Privatization ($31.8 million)
The privatization account provides operating funds for
implementation and oversight of privatized military family housing in
the RCI program. RCI costs include selection of private sector
partners, preparation of environmental studies and real estate surveys,
and contracting of consultants. These funds support the preparation and
execution of partnership agreements and development plans, and
oversight to monitor compliance and performance of the privatized
housing portfolio.
Homeowners Assistance Program
The Army is the DOD Executive Agent for the Homeowners Assistance
Program (HAP); that is, the Army requests in its budget the funds
needed by the DOD-wide program supporting all of the Services. In
normal times, this program assists eligible military and civilian
employee homeowners by providing some financial relief when they are
not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms and conditions
because of DOD announced closures, realignments, or reduction in
operations when this action adversely affects the real estate market.
The 2009 ARRA expanded HAP to provide benefits to: (1) seriously
wounded Warriors in Transition (to include Coast Guard and DOD civilian
employees) who relocate for medical treatment or medical retirement,
from September 11, 2001 (No expiration date); (2) surviving spouses of
fallen warriors and DOD and Coast Guard civilians killed while deployed
in support of the Armed Forces, from September 11, 2001 (No expiration
date); (3) BRAC 2005 impacted personnel assigned to relocating or
closing organizations or installations, without proof that the DOD
announcement caused markets to decline (expires 2012, or an earlier
date designated by the Secretary); (4) servicemembers with permanent
change-of-station orders required to relocate during the home mortgage
crisis (expires 2012, or an earlier date designated by the Secretary).
The ARRA expanded HAP is funded at $555 million.
Excluding the ARRA expanded HAP, the fiscal year 2010 budget
requests authorization of appropriations in the amount of $23.225
million. Total program estimate for fiscal year 2010, excluding ARRA
expansion, is $41.98 million and will be funded with requested budget
authority, revenue from sales of acquired properties, and prior year
unobligated balances.
Operation and Maintenance
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Operation and Maintenance budget
includes $3.04 billion in funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and
Modernization (S/RM) and $8.91 billion in funding for Base Operations
Support (BOS). The S/RM and BOS accounts are inextricably linked with
our military construction programs to successfully support our
installations. The Army has centralized the management of its
installations assets under the Installation Management Command to best
utilize this funding. Centralized barracks management, also known as
the First Sergeant's Barracks Initiative (FSBI), will standardize
barracks management Army-wide, enhance single soldier quality of life,
reduce overall unprogrammed single soldier Basic Allowance for Housing,
maximize barracks utilization, and reallocate soldier time away from
non-warfighting tasks. The FSBI provides top-quality oversight and
management of daily barracks operations. The FSBI review committee
completed review and validation of funding requirements for 12
installations. Implementing FSBI at these installations brings in about
55 percent of the Army barracks inventory.
summary
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and BRAC
budget requests are balanced programs that support our soldiers and
their families, Overseas Contingency Operations, Army transformation,
readiness, and DOD installation strategy goals. We are proud to present
this budget for your consideration because of what this budget will
provide for our Army:
Military Construction:
26 new Training Ranges/Facilities
$11 billion invested in Soldier/Family Readiness
$1.8 billion to Grow the Army
$524 million support the mission in Afghanistan
$828 million funds projects for Overseas Contingency
Operations mission in Afghanistan
Over 3,300 soldiers training in 16 new or improved
Readiness Centers and Armed Forces Reserve Centers
20 New Army Reserve Operations Complexes
6,054 soldiers get new Reserve Operations Complexes
Over 7,800 soldiers training in 9 new or improved
Readiness Centers and Armed Forces Reserve Centers
Six ranges serving 166,000 men and women in our Armed
Forces
Base Realignment and Closure:
Statutory compliance by 2011 for BRAC
80 Military Construction projects
Planning & Design for fiscal year 2010--2010 Projects
Remaining NEPA for BRAC 2005 actions
Continued Environmental Restoration of 31,844 acres
Base Operations Support:
Goal is to meet essential needs for all BOS programs:
Base Operations, Family, Environmental Quality, Force
Protection, Base Communications, and Audio/Visual.
Sustainment/Restoration and Modernization:
Funds Sustainment at 90 percent of the OSD Facility
Sustainment model requirement.
Our long-term strategies for installations will be accomplished
through sustained and balanced funding, and with your support, we will
continue to improve soldier and family quality of life, while remaining
focused on Army and Defense transformation goals.
In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you today and for your continued support for America's
Army.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Calcara.
Ms. Ferguson?
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS
Ms. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr. On
behalf of America's airmen, it's my pleasure to be here today.
I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for its
continued support of your Air Force and the thousands of
dedicated and brave airmen and their families serving our great
Nation around the globe.
Today, more than 27,000 airmen are deployed in support of
ongoing OEF and Operation Iraqi Freedom, daily demonstrating
their importance in support of joint combat operations. Within
the Secretariat for Installations, Environment, and Logistics,
we fully appreciate the efforts--we fully appreciate the impact
our efforts have in support of these airmen, and how it affects
their ability to positively influence our Air Force's
warfighting abilities and capacity to counter hostile threats.
MILCON, family housing, and BRAC programs form the
foundation of our installation structure. Our installations
serve as the primary platforms for the delivery of global
vigilance, reach, and power for our Nation, and our fiscal year
2010 investments reflect a direct connection to this vital
work.
As we continue to focus on modernizing our aging weapons
systems, we recognize that we cannot lose focus on critical Air
Force infrastructure programs. Our fiscal year 2010 President's
budget request of $4.9 billion for MILCON, family housing,
BRAC, and facility maintenance is a reduction from our 2009
request of $5.2 billion. We intend to mitigate potential
shortfalls in MILCON and facilities maintenance funding by
bolstering our restoration and modernization programs as much
as possible.
Using an enterprise portfolio perspective, we intend to
focus our limited resources only on the most critical physical
plant components by applying demolition and space utilization
strategies to reduce our footprint, aggressively pursuing
energy initiatives, continuing to privatize family housing, and
modernizing dormitories to improve quality of life for our
airmen.
One ongoing modernization effort within the Air Force that
I'd like to mention is the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). At the
direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, we are taking a
deliberate Air Force enterprise-wide look at all installations
to bed down the JSF. This review will provide an open,
transparent, repeatable, and defendable process to ensure the
Secretary has appropriate and accurate information to make all
JSF strategic basing decisions.
In regards to military family housing, our master plan
details our housing MILCON, operations and maintenance (O&M),
and privatization efforts. Since last spring, we completed new
construction or major improvements on more than 2,000 units in
the United States and overseas, with another 2,286 units under
construction in the United States, and almost 3,000 units under
construction overseas.
Our 2010 budget request for housing is just over $567
million. The Air Force request for housing investment is $67
million to ensure the continual improvement of our overseas
homes.
Our request also includes an additional $500 million to pay
for O&M, utilities, and leases for the family housing program.
BRAC 2005 impacts more than 120 Air Force installations.
Unlike the last round of BRAC, where 82 percent of
implementation actions affected the active Air Force, in BRAC
2005 a full 78 percent of implementation actions affect the Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve. In fact, the Air Force
will spend more than $478 million on Air National Guard and Air
Force Reserve BRAC MILCON projects. The Air Force's total BRAC
MILCON--total BRAC budget is approximately $3.8 billion, which
the Air Force has fully funded. Our fiscal year 2010 BRAC 2005
budget request is approximately $418 million, of which less
than 20 percent is for BRAC MILCON projects. I'd like to
emphasize, the Air Force BRAC program is on track to meet the
September 2011 deadline.
Air Force MILCON, military family housing, and BRAC
initiatives will continue to directly support Air Force
priorities. It is imperative we continue to manage our
installations by leveraging industry best practices and state-
of-the-art technology. Our civil engineering transformation
effort, now entering its third year, continues to produce
efficiencies and cost savings that enhance support for the
warfighter, reduce the total cost of installation ownership,
and free resources for the recapitalization of our aging Air
Force weapons systems. More importantly, these investments
reflect effective stewardship of funding designed to serve our
airmen in the field, their families, and the taxpayer at home.
Before I close, I'd like to highlight one additional area
of importance to both the committee and the Air Force, and that
area is the Air Force's stewardship of energy. The Air Force
has launched an aggressive program to invest in facility energy
conservation and renewable energy alternatives. Recently, the
Secretary of the Air Force signed a mission directive
institutionalizing energy policy within the Air Force and
driving more efficient energy management practices. Together
these policies will direct specific actions in the areas of
operational processes, training, and installation management
geared towards reducing our energy footprint and increasing our
use of cleaner energy alternatives.
Our new infrastructure energy strategy is founded on four
pillars that are designed to improve current infrastructure,
improve future infrastructure, expand renewables, and manage
cost. We intend to achieve the four pillars by incorporating
best business practices into our education and training
programs, pursuing cultural change in our organizations, and
improving our asset management. We are seeing potential
indicators that our efficiency strategy is providing return on
investment. In fact, between the 2003 baseline year and fiscal
year 2008, the Air Force decreased energy intensity by 17.8
percent.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Burr, this concludes my remarks.
Thank you and the committee again for your continued support
for our airmen and their families. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferguson follows:]
Prepared Statement by Kathleen I. Ferguson
introduction
More than 27,000 airmen are currently deployed in support of
Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom, daily demonstrating their
importance in support of joint combat operations. Within the
Secretariat for Installations, Environment and Logistics (SAF/IE), we
fully appreciate the impact our efforts have in support of these airman
and how it affects their ability to positively influence our Air
Force's warfighting abilities and capacity to counter hostile threats.
To that end, the men and women of SAF/IE are committed to ensuring
our Air Force installations are right sized to support our forces, our
combat systems have a robust logistics infrastructure for sustainment,
and our forces have the necessary accessibility to the full spectrum of
our environment to ensure combat readiness. In addition to our airmen's
combat readiness, we also appreciate how these same efforts support our
airmen and their families and ensure a Quality of Service commensurate
with the contribution they provide to the defense of our Nation.
Air Force Military Construction (MILCON), Military Family Housing
(MFH), and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) programs form the
foundation of our installation structure. Our Air Force installations
serve as key platforms for the delivery of Global Vigilance, Reach and
Power for our Nation, and our fiscal year 2010 investments reflect a
direct connection to this vital work.
As the Air Force continues to focus on modernizing our aging weapon
systems, we recognize that we cannot lose focus on critical Air Force
infrastructure programs. In order to maintain effective stewardship of
the resources given to us, our fiscal year 2010 President's budget of
$4.9 billion for MILCON, BRAC, MFH, and facility maintenance is a
reduction from our fiscal year 2009 request of $5.2 billion. We intend
to mitigate potential shortfalls in MILCON and facility maintenance
funding by bolstering our restoration and modernization programs as
much as possible. Using an enterprise portfolio perspective, we intend
to focus our limited resources only on the most critical physical plant
components, by applying demolition and space utilization strategies to
reduce our footprint, aggressively pursuing energy initiatives,
continuing to privatize family housing and modernizing dormitories to
improve quality of life for our airmen.
Our efforts are in direct support of and consistent with the Air
Forces' five priorities: (1) Reinvigorate the Air Force Nuclear
Enterprise; (2) Partner with the Joint and Coalition Team to Win
Today's Fight; (3) Develop and Care for Airmen and Their Families; (4)
Modernize our Air and Space Inventories, Organizations and Training;
and (5) Recapture Acquisition Excellence. It is with these priorities
in mind that I will outline our MILCON, MFH, and BRAC efforts and the
individual priorities they support.
reinvigorate the air force nuclear enterprise
The Air Force has a solemn responsibility and obligation to operate
and maintain its portion of America's nuclear deterrent posture, which
consists of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs),
nuclear-capable bombers and dual capable fighters. Over the past
several months the Air Force senior leadership team, along with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Interagency partners, have
closely examined the Air Force nuclear enterprise and identified
several areas for improvement.
The results of these internal assessments reinforced the need to
continually focus on nuclear sustainment and operations as well as the
management of the weapons and their delivery platforms. A critical
aspect of this effort includes the infrastructure and facilities
providing the necessary life-cycle installation support of this vital
mission. Air Force Civil Engineers and field experts are currently
conducting Facility Condition Assessments of all nuclear-related
facilities, which will provide detailed information on our
infrastructure deficiencies directly supporting the nuclear mission.
Projects will be developed, programmed, and prioritized appropriately
to obtain the necessary funding required to correct any deficiencies.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2010 President's budget request includes
an investment of $45 million in four infrastructure projects at Minot
Air Force Base, ND; FE Warren Air Force Base, WY; and Clear Air
Station, AK. These projects include missile procedures, training
operations, and missile service complex facilities.
develop and care for airmen and their families
Airmen are the Air Force's most valuable resource and we remain
committed to recruiting and retaining the world's highest quality
force. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
monies allotted to the Air Force support that effort. Over $260 million
in MILCON will improve the lives of our airmen and their families
through MFH improvements, dormitory construction, and providing Child
Development Center facilities and services.
Developing Airmen
The Air Force must continue to ensure we are preparing airmen for
the challenges of today and tomorrow by providing quality facilities in
which to train and operate. Our fiscal year 2010 budget request
includes $39 million for three projects. We will construct a new
recruit dormitory and basic military training facility giving incoming
airmen quality training facilities to start a career of service.
Another highlight includes a C-5 Ground Training Schoolhouse addition
for the Air Force Reserve Command.
Military Family Housing Program
The MFH Master Plan details our Housing MILCON, operations and
maintenance, and privatization efforts. Since last spring, the Air
Force completed new construction or major improvements on over 2,000
units in the United States and overseas, with another 2,286 units under
construction in the United States and 2,783 units under construction
overseas.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget request for MFH is just over $567
million. The Air Force request for housing investment is $67 million to
ensure the continual improvement of our overseas homes. Investments
will provide whole-house renovations for 365 units at two overseas
bases and extend their useful life. Our request also includes an
additional $500 million to pay for operations, maintenance, utilities,
and leases for the family housing program.
Housing Privatization
Housing privatization continues to improve quality of life for our
airmen and their families. By the beginning of fiscal year 2010 we will
have privatized approximately 38,900 housing units at 44 bases. We have
seen the delivery of over 10,000 new or renovated homes and are
currently bringing more than 200 homes a month online. We will have
leveraged more than $402 million in government investment to garner
almost $6.3 billion in private sector total housing development, or $16
of private investment for each public tax dollar. With the support of
Congress, we will continue to work toward our goal to privatize 100
percent of MFH in the Continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, and
Guam by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories)
The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan is the cornerstone for
developing requirements for unaccompanied housing. The budget request
includes five dormitories worth $138 million. We will continue to
replace existing dormitories at the end of their useful life with a
standard Air Force-designed private room configuration under the
``Dorms-4-Airmen'' concept. Simultaneously, our implementation of a
``bridging strategy'' ensures we are investing Facility Sustainment and
Restoration and Modernization funds into aging facilities to extend
their useful life until MILCON replacements can be executed and to
ensure we keep ``good dormitories good.''
Fitness and Child Development Centers
Elevated operations tempo and increased home-station demands makes
physical fitness an imperative for airmen. Our fiscal year 2010 request
includes two fitness centers worth $41 million. We also remain focused
on providing our families with appropriate and nurturing child care
facilities. We will continue to invest in these facilities which we
believe are key to caring for airmen and their families. This year's
budget request includes two child development centers worth $20
million.
Environmental Quality and Management Systems
Our environmental management programs continue to ensure the most
basic quality of life needs are met for our airmen and surrounding
communities: clean air, clean drinking water and healthy working and
living conditions for our workforce and base residents. We have
implemented a new environmental management approach at Air Force
installations. Installations are now utilizing the Environmental
Management System (EMS) to identify environmental aspects of base
operations, assess their impacts, and help commanders make informed
decisions and investments to reduce environmental risks and compliance
costs. Our installation commanders significantly reduced new
environmental enforcement actions by 44 percent from fiscal year 2005
to fiscal year 2008.
We are also continuing our existing environmental quality and
restoration programs. The fiscal year 2010 request includes just under
$1 billion for direct-funded non-BRAC environmental programs such as:
traditional environmental restoration activities, environmental
compliance activities and projects, pollution prevention initiatives,
environmental conservation activities, munitions response activities,
and investment in promising environmental technologies. Our
environmental restoration program is proceeding aggressively to clean-
up sites contaminated by past practices. The Air Force closed or has
remedies in place at 89 percent of the contaminated sites and expects
to have remedies in place at all sites by fiscal year 2012, 2 years
ahead of the Department of Defense (DOD) fiscal year 2014 environmental
restoration goal.
modernize our air and space inventories, organizations and training
Modernizing our aging air and space inventories, organizations, and
training to prepare for tomorrow's challenges requires significant
investment of $353 million for 34 projects. We will complete the
planned F-22 beddown, including the two Air National Guard projects at
Hickam Air Force Base, HI. The beddown of the F-35 also continues to be
a priority, with eight projects supporting actions at Nellis Air Force
Base, NV, and Eglin Air Force Base, FL.
We also continue to modernize our facilities in support of our
larger aircraft by constructing seven new facilities supporting C-130
operations and training. Other projects in this program include a
consolidated communication facility at Cannon Air Force Base, NM, two
research facilities at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, and
upgrading electrical infrastructure at Hurlburt Field, FL. As part of
our work to achieve balance across our portfolios, we continue to
transform the enterprise by developing new concepts of operations,
implementing organizational change, and integrating advanced
technologies in installation support.
Energy Stewardship
The Air Force has launched an aggressive program to invest in
facility energy conservation and renewable energy alternatives.
Recently, the Secretary of the Air Force signed a Mission Directive
institutionalizing energy policy within the Air Force and driving more
efficient energy management practices. Together, these policies will
direct specific actions in the areas of operational processes,
training, and installation management geared toward reducing our
``energy footprint,'' and increasing our use of cleaner energy
alternatives.
Over the past year, we've stood up the Air Force Facility Energy
Center (FEC) at the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency at Tyndall
Air Force Base, FL. The new FEC consolidates energy technical expertise
and project management capabilities in order to leverage best practices
across the force. The goal of this office is to develop and implement
innovative energy solutions reducing our energy ``footprint'' at Air
Force installations. In 2008, the Air Force Infrastructure Energy
Strategic Plan was issued to guide the strategic and tactical direction
of our energy program, a plan designed to balance supply-side energy
assurance and demand-side energy efficiency. It incorporates the energy
strategy of the 21st century designed to meet the energy mandates
outlined in the Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct 05), Executive Order (EO)
13423 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). The
strategy maps the way ahead for meeting energy mandates through fiscal
year 2015 and covers facilities infrastructure as well as fuel
efficiency in our ground transportation fleet.
The new infrastructure energy strategy is founded on Four Pillars
that are designed to: (1) improve current infrastructure, (2) improve
future infrastructure, (3) expand renewables, and (4) manage cost. We
intend to achieve the Four Pillars by incorporating best business
practices into our education and training programs, pursuing cultural
change in our organizations, and improving our asset management. We see
potential indicators that our efficiency strategy is providing return
on investment. Between the fiscal year 2003 baseline year and fiscal
year 2008, the Air Force decreased energy intensity by 17.8 percent.
The Air Force also developed a life-cycle cost-effective metering
strategy to meet EPAct 05, which mandates the installation of electric
meters on required facilities by 2012. We recognize the value of
metering and are already 74 percent complete toward the goal. The Air
Force is also making great strides in our water conservation program,
with Air Force-wide water consumption decreasing 1.3 billion gallons
from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2008.
In the area of renewable energy, our strategy expands public and
private partnerships by leveraging private sector capital to bring
renewable power production to our bases at competitive prices. For
example, in a partnership with state and local government and private
industry, the photovoltaic (PV) solar array at Nellis Air Force Base,
Nevada, the largest PV array in North America, generated 57,139
megawatt-hours in fiscal year 2008, and saving approximately $1 million
per year. Through a congressional appropriation, F.E. Warren Air Force
Base, WY, installed a 2,000 kilowatt wind turbine in January 2009,
adding to the two turbines already operational. Together the three wind
turbines are capable of generating 6.7 million kilowatt-hours per year,
enough to power 836 homes. These and other renewable energy and
conservation initiatives provide examples of how the Air Force is
committed to not only meeting, but exceeding the goals of the new
Executive order with initiatives that provide long-term return on
investment.
Sustainability
With an eye toward improving future infrastructure, our traditional
project goals of delivering high quality facility projects on schedule
and within budget is expanding to include creation of functional,
maintainable, and high performance facilities. Under EO 13423 and EISA
2007, the Air Force employs the Federal Leadership in High Performance
and Sustainable Building Guiding Principles to reduce total cost of
ownership and improve energy efficiency and water conservation to
provide safe, healthy, and productivity-enhancing facility
environments. We also employ the U.S. Green Building Council's
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria in our
designs. The LEED Green Building Rating System is the nationally
accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high
performance green buildings. In 2008, the Air Force certified its first
LEED gold building at Offutt Air Force Base, NE. This year, 100 percent
of Air Force-eligible MILCON projects will be capable of certification
in LEED.
The Air Force understands that it is not just new construction that
needs this focus and attention. We have already begun the task of
greening our existing building inventory and installation support
platforms. Sustainability cannot just be about facilities, it has to be
a holistic approach to include how we develop and sustain our
installations. The vision is to build and shape sustainable communities
using innovative solutions to lower the cost of installation support
and provide more eco-friendly installations.
BRAC 2005 Execution Report Card
BRAC 2005 impacts more than 120 Air Force installations. Whether
establishing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training Site at
Eglin Air Force Base, FL, closing Kulis Air Guard Station in Alaska, or
transferring Pope Air Force Base, NC, to the Army, the Air Force
community as a whole--Active, Guard, and Reserve--will benefit from
changes BRAC achieves.
Unlike the last round of BRAC where 82 percent of the
implementation actions affected the Active Air Force, in BRAC 2005, 78
percent of implementation actions affect the Air National Guard and Air
Force Reserve. In fact, the Air Force will spend more than $486 million
on Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve BRAC MILCON projects. In
addition, many of the BRAC MILCON projects on active Air Force
installations, like the C-130 facilities built or renovated at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, or KC-135 facilities built or renovated at
Seymour-Johnson and MacDill Air Force Bases, will benefit Air Reserve
component forces stationed there.
The Air Force's total BRAC budget is approximately $3.8 billion,
which the Air Force has fully funded.
The Air Force's largest BRAC costs are for MILCON projects;
approximately $2.6 billion. Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
expenditures closely follow at $926 million. This includes expenditures
for civilian pay and moving expenses, supplies, equipment, travel, etc.
Other requirements include expenses for information technology,
equipment procurement, and Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard
training, to name a few, at $142 million.
Other BRAC programmed amounts include $132 million for military
personnel expenses and environmental planning and cleanup.
The Air Force's Fiscal Year 2010 BRAC 2005 Budget Request is $418
million, of which less than 20 percent is for BRAC MILCON projects.
The Air Force's primary focus in the fiscal year 2010 program is in
budget areas other than BRAC MILCON because we are now more focused on
personnel-related issues, relocating assets and functions, outfitting
new and renovated facilities, procuring end-state necessities, and
continuing environmental actions to realign and integrate the total
force.
Joint Basing
The Air Force has a long and successful history of working toward
common goals in the joint environment. The Air Force remains committed
to ensuring all bases, joint or otherwise, maintain their capability as
weapon system platforms and meet our quality of life standards. To
accomplish this we worked with our sister Services and OSD to establish
common quality of life standards that ensure our personnel receive
efficient installation support services.
The Services are addressing many complex issues such as information
technology integration, human resources planning, manpower and fiscal
resources, and new organizational structures. A Senior Joint Base
Working Group, led by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and the Environment) developed implementation policy to
guide the transition of installation management functions and meet the
BRAC timeline. The group is in the process of reviewing and
coordinating the numerous details in the formal support agreements and
implementation plans to establish each joint base. The five joint bases
aligned in the first phase of implementation have developed
comprehensive Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) establishing the
relationships between the Services, and are now shifting their focus to
the orderly transition of installation management functions by October
2009. The seven Phase II installations are developing their MOAs now
and will begin the transition of functions next year, and will complete
the process by October 2010.
Legacy BRAC--Real Property Transformation
The Air Force remains a Federal leader in the implementation of the
management principles outlined in Presidential Executive Order 13327,
Federal Real Property Asset Management. We continue to aggressively
manage our real property assets to deliver maximum value for the
taxpayer, improve the quality of life for our airmen and their
families, and ensure the protection and sustainment of the environment
to provide the highest level of support to Air Force missions. The Air
Force is achieving these goals through an enterprise-wide Asset
Management transformation that seeks to optimize asset value and to
balance performance, risk, and cost over the full asset life cycle. Our
approach is fundamentally about enhancing our built and natural asset
inventories and linking these inventories to our decisionmaking
processes and the appropriate property acquisition, management, and
disposal tools.
Even though the BRAC 2005 round did not significantly reduce the
Air Force's real property footprint, our current transformation efforts
seek to ``shrink from within'' and to leverage the value of real
property assets in order to meet our ``20/20 by 2020'' goal of
offsetting a 20 percent reduction in funds available for installation
support activities by achieving efficiencies and reducing by 20 percent
the Air Force physical plant that requires funds by the year 2020.
Base Realignment and Closure Property Management
To date, the Air Force has successfully conveyed by deed nearly 90
percent of the 87,000 acres of Air Force BRAC 88, 91, 93, and 95, which
we refer to as legacy BRAC, with the remainder under lease for
redevelopment and reuse. The highly successful reuse of Air Force Base
closure property led to the creation of tens-of-thousands of jobs in
the affected communities. To complete the clean up and transfer by deed
of remaining property, the Air Force is partnering with industry
leaders on innovative business practices for its ``way ahead''
strategy. These include an emphasis on performance-based environmental
remediation contracts, using such performance-based contracts on
regional clusters of BRAC bases, and innovative tools such as early
property transfer and privatization of environmental cleanup so that
the cleanup efforts complement, rather than impede, the property
redevelopment plans and schedules. Our objectives remain constant and
clear: (1) provide reuse opportunities that best meet the needs of the
Air Force and local communities, (2) move the process along smartly in
each situation to get property back into commerce as soon as practical,
and (3) provide transparency throughout the process. Of the 32 legacy
BRAC bases slated for closure, the Air Force completed 20 whole-base
transfers. Ten of the remaining 12 bases are targeted for transfer by
the end of fiscal year 2010, while the last 2 (former George and
McClellan Air Force Bases) will be transferred no later than the end of
fiscal year 2012.
As the Air Force transfers BRAC property for civic and private
reuse, it is paramount we ensure any past environmental contamination
on the property does not endanger public health or the environment. The
Air Force will continue to fulfill this most solemn responsibility, as
reflected in our fiscal year 2010 request of $116 million for legacy
BRAC cleanup activities and another $20 million for BRAC 2005 cleanup
activities. Recent progress at the former McClellan Air Force Base in
Sacramento, once the most environmentally contaminated closure base
within DOD, is a sterling example of the effective approach taken by
the Air Force and the local community in fostering redevelopment of
closure base property. As a result of previously unprecedented
collaboration between the local community, the Environmental Protection
Agency, State environmental regulators, the primary developer, and the
Air Force on the privatization of cleanup of the base, the former base
is quickly becoming the ``greenest'' business park in California.
Further, the Air Force has removed nearly 2,900 acres from the National
Priorities List at the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, NY. This
milestone marks a tremendous accomplishment for the Air Force's cleanup
program. It also highlights the strong professional partnership that
exists between the Air Force, the EPA, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Griffiss Local Development
Corporation, all of whom were indeed instrumental in promoting the
development and reuse of the former Griffiss AFB property--a trend we
hope to see maintained across all of our communities. This is a major
milestone in the restoration program and provides opportunities for new
economic growth at the former base.
In summary, the Air Force's real property asset management
framework involves an understanding and balancing of our mission needs
and risks with market dynamics, the Federal budget, the condition and
performance of our assets and the need to protect the environment.
partner with the joint and coalition team to win today's fight
America's airmen are ``All In'' supporting the joint and coalition
team to win today's fight with precision and reliability. Our fiscal
year 2010 program includes $544 million for 28 projects directly
connected to today's fight. Four projects valued at $198 million
directly support U.S. Central Command by providing much needed in-
theater airlift ramp and fuel facilities, a war-reserve material
compound, and a passenger terminal. Other projects include an aerospace
ground equipment maintenance complex at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, a
Global Hawk maintenance and operations complex at Naval Air Station
Sigonella in Italy, and beddown facilities for Air Force air support
and operations personnel with Army units. These investments provide
direct returns by reducing backlog and waste in our logistics trail,
and increase the capacity and efficiency of our fighting forces at
downrange locations.
Approximately 27,000 airmen are currently deployed as part of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. More than 3,000 of these
airmen are civil engineers, with over 40 percent of our deployed
engineers filling Joint Expeditionary Tasking billets, serving side-by-
side with our sister Services. Our heavy construction Rapid Engineer
Deployable Heavy Operational and Repair Squadron Engineers and our
Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force engineers are well-known in-theater
for their ability to build and maintain expeditionary installations.
Airmen continue to assist both Iraq and Afghanistan in building the
capacity to provide self-governance. Since 2004, the Air Force has
completed over $5.6 billion in major renovation or construction
projects, giving the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan the capacity
to provide basic services for its people. Whether it is serving on
Provincial Reconstruction Teams, mitigating the threat of improvised
explosive devices, standing up host nation Field Engineering Teams, or
teaching aspiring engineers at the Afghan Service Academies, airmen
continue to demonstrate courage, commitment, and dedication in
contingency operations. We are honored to serve with our joint and
coalition team partners and will continue to support the Nation's call-
to-arms by providing unique engineering capabilities and the most
talented installation support personnel available.
recapture acquisition excellence
The Air Force remains committed to recapturing acquisition
excellence and developing innovative solutions that enable smart
business decisions. Through the Air Force Civil Engineer Strategic
Sourcing Program Management Office at the Air Force Civil Engineer
Support Agency at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, we are working to select
and prioritize sourcing opportunities and oversee the efforts of other
Major Command-initiated CE strategic sourcing efforts. The Program
Management Office will capitalize on industry-best practices to reduce
the cost of building systems and commodities while improving the
delivery of support to our customers. Five strategic sourcing
opportunities and a commodity cost review are currently in progress to
identify sourcing strategies leading to regional or enterprise-level
acquisitions. We organized a staff comprised of civil engineers,
contracting officers and financial specialists to ensure we implement a
well-integrated, cross functional approach aimed at determining the
right investments for our enterprise.
conclusion
Air Force MILCON, MFH, and BRAC initiatives will continue to
connect directly to Air Force priorities. It is imperative we continue
to manage our installations by leveraging industry-best practices and
state-of-the-art technology. Our CE transformation effort, now entering
its third year, continues to produce efficiencies and cost savings that
enhance support for the warfighter, reduce the cost of installation
ownership, and free resources for the recapitalization of our aging Air
Force weapon systems. More importantly, these investments reflect
effective stewardship of funding designed to serve our airmen in the
field, their families, and the taxpayer at home.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Ms. Ferguson.
We're going to have 5-minute rounds. So, you'll let me know
when my time is expired? Great.
Mr. Arny, I'd like to start with you. Is there any reason
to believe that the Services won't complete the BRAC process on
time? You feel pretty good about how things are going?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir, we do. Yes, we've looked at it very
closely, and we will meet the deadline. This question has been
asked at each of the hearings we've been in, and all the
Services agree.
Senator Bayh. What's your understanding of where we stand
on construction or missile defense sites in the Czech Republic
and Poland? We had some testimony, just yesterday, from some
officials involved in this area, and it appears that things are
changing. But, we're being asked to appropriate some money for
some sites that may be somewhat in flux. What's your
understanding about that situation?
Mr. Arny. The Department is currently conducting a
Ballistic Missile Defense Review, and we think that'll review
the rationale and requirements for the third site and explore
alternatives that may exist. No final decisions have been made
on that. From a policy perspective, we follow the lead of our
policy----
Senator Bayh. I understand. From our perspective, since no
final decisions have been made, how are we supposed to
appropriate the money?
Mr. Arny. Sir, I can just say that we believe that the
authorization and appropriations justified that there'll be
sufficient funds to continue the program. We had a review of
the Missile Defense Agency program ourselves, within house and
in MILCON, and we think there's enough flexibility to handle
the contingencies.
Senator Bayh. You can understand why we'd ask the question.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir, it's why I have an answer right here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. Very good. Let me ask you one that you may
not be prepared for, then. By the way, that's good staff work.
I sit on the Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we've been briefed
multiple times, as Senator Burr would know, recently about the
vulnerability to cyber attack, possibly terrorist attack,
focused on the Nation's power grid. In particular, some of our
defense sites are vulnerable. If you wanted to attack a defense
site, in some cases, you wouldn't strike it directly, you'd
strike the civilian power upon which the site relies. Many of
our facilities only have a few days' backup of kerosene for
some reserve generators they have. So, it's a real
vulnerability for us.
What's going on to try and build in some redundant capacity
so that, if such an event took place, some of our important DOD
facilities wouldn't be brought down in a matter of days?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. Because, as I understand it, if you take out
some of these transformers and these--the power stations, it
could be months before they get back online.
Mr. Arny. We have looked at that, and we are continuing to
look at it. There is a great debate going on within the
Department. Some people have advocated islanding, where we
could be completely self-sustained. If you recall, in the last
decade, we were looking at privatizing our utilities. So, from
my perspective it's a real approach avoidance. On our bases, we
try to make sure that our critical facilities have sufficient
backup for a long period of time. We're also looking at ways
that we can benefit from power sources near us. As you've seen,
we're putting photovoltaic at Las Vegas.
Senator Bayh. Maybe some geothermal potential at some of
the sites, that kind of thing?
Mr. Arny. Exactly. You have to be careful how you work
around the law on that. When the Navy put in 225 megawatts of
geothermal at China Lake, back in the 1970s and 1980s, the law
did not permit us to take any of that power. We're now
developing about 30 megawatts at NAS Fallon. But, again, the
way the procurement laws are written, it was much more
beneficial for us to sell that power to the outside and take a
cut on our electric grid.
Senator Bayh. This is a matter of national security, so if
you need some changes in the law to help us address this
threat, please let us know what needs to be done.
I'm in favor of saving money wherever possible, being as
efficient as possible. This is actually an area where some
redundancy, some duplicative capacity may be in order to
protect defense sites, because if we're reliant on the civilian
power grid, and that's vulnerable to attack, which we've been
informed it is fairly vulnerable, then we have to anticipate
that sort of thing. So, you let us know what needs to be done
to help you address the situation.
Mr. Arny. Absolutely. It's definitely an issue we're
looking at. We don't want to be in the position, in my
perspective, of you're sitting on the ridge in San Diego,
overlooking a city that's black, and there on the other side of
the Bay is Coronado, all lit up like a Christmas tree. That
would last for about 24 hours before we would have to be
dumping power to the outside. So, we are definitely considering
it. We're trying to figure what the middle way is. If we do
need any changes in the law, we'll come to you.
Senator Bayh. The last thing I'll say, and then turn to the
ranking member, is--there was a study done about some of these
vulnerabilities that, unfortunately, found its way into the
press, and some of the chatter suggests that the bad guys
noticed that. So, this is not just hypothetical.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, I think it's safe to say I'm
deeply concerned with some of the conclusions that the NAS
review came to as it related to Camp Lejeune, and specifically
the water contamination.
The report lists 14 disease and health conditions it
concludes have limited or suggestive evidence of an association
with human exposure to the chemicals identified in Camp
Lejeune's water system.
What is the Navy going to do to work with the scientific
community to collect the additional information for former
residents who are experiencing some adverse health conditions?
Mr. Penn. Sir, after a thorough review and consideration of
the report, the Marine Corps, who's responsible, will identify
the next steps to take as it continues to work with the
appropriate agencies, constituents, and potentially affected
former residents. Thus far, we have over 137,000 former
residents registered on our pipeline. We get a report, weekly,
on the number of people that may have been exposed. We have
over 43,000 phone calls coming in to the call center since
then. We're not going to let our folks down.
Senator Burr. I appreciate your answer, and I think what
you read was the same thing you read in your opening statement.
The potential population affected is 500,000. We've tracked
down 137,000. The report recommends--and I want to quote from
it, ``Policy changes or administrative actions that would help
resolve the controversy should proceed in parallel with any
current or future scientific studies.''
So, what are the Navy's ideas about how it can move towards
a resolution for the Navy and for former residents? The report
said, ``Don't stop,'' and ``have a parallel effort to figure
out how you move forward.'' When will we have that?
Mr. Penn. I don't know exactly when we'll have it. I know
the Marines are looking at it, as we speak.
Senator Burr. Mr. Secretary, how long have we been looking
at this?
Mr. Penn. About 7 years, as I recall.
Senator Burr. I think it's more like 12.
Mr. Penn. Since I've been here 7 years.
Senator Burr. It's growing hair and it smells. My hope is
that we're going to find some path that we can confidently tell
people we're going to pursue. I look forward to working with
you on that.
Mr. Secretary, let me also ask you what the status of the
EIS is for the outlying landing field for East Coast Navy and
Marines.
Mr. Penn. The EPA directed us to include the F-35 in our
EIS analysis, so that will probably add a year to the study.
Senator Burr. What do you intend to do with the land that
was purchased in Washington County?
Mr. Penn. We have been trying to return the land to the
individual we purchased it from, and we're in the process of
trying to get some laws changed so we can do that.
We cannot just go back to them and say, ``Okay, we no
longer need your land. Here's your money back.'' We cannot do
that.
Senator Burr. Are you finding the public receptive to that?
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Okay.
Mr. Calcara, the Army's recently completed transactions
with local private partners to construct unaccompanied officer
and senior enlisted barracks at Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, and
three other locations. From initial reports, these townhouse-
style complexes seem to be a raging success.
What are the pros and cons to using private developers,
similar to housing privatization, to build and maintain Army
barracks for junior enlisted personnel?
Mr. Calcara. It is a rousing success. In fact, earlier
today I met with the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI)
partners in our semiannual meeting, and we are looking at doing
it in other locations. The biggest issue with moving down to
the lower ranks, obviously, is there is less cash flow to work
with at the E1 to E4 level. The other issue that we have is, as
we start looking at these projects in areas where there isn't a
secondary market, the underwriters are asking for us to put in
additional guarantees on occupancy, to forward-finance 1 year's
worth of debt service, and some other controls, to offset what
they perceive as liquidity risk. When you start adding those
pieces into the transaction, we start bumping up against the
financial controls under the RCI program.
Senator Burr. Does it make economic sense over the life
cycle of the barracks?
Mr. Calcara. It does, but we have to be able to meet the
statutory test of no more than 33 percent cash investment in
the transaction----
Mr. Arny. Senator Burr, if I could add on that. We had
similar problems with family housing privatization when we
started. We did smaller projects, and, as it because more
successful and our personnel commands got used to it, we then
began to expand to where the Services--Navy and--for instance,
I think, start first--where we'd do major regions. Both my sons
are at Lemoore, and I, frankly, never thought we'd ever
privatize Lemoore, because the secondary market around it is--
there isn't--very little. But, when you put that together with
all of San Diego, that gives the bankers and the developers
confidence that if they have shortages at Lemoore, they'll be
able to make it up in the San Diego area. So, there are a lot
of things we're doing. It's the right way to go.
Senator Burr. My time's run out, but the Chair has allowed
me to ask another question because it dovetails in this.
Mr. Calcara, I have a question about the contracts used by
the Army to manage housing privatization transactions involving
partnerships. I read the testimony from last year, when
Secretary Eastin stated that the Army's portfolio in asset
management programs was strong and proactive. The overwhelming
majority of the Army's housing inventories are now privatized
and under the management of the partnership.
DOD efforts over the past 10 years to increase the
servicemembers' base allowance for housing has resulted in
sizable reserves growing in housing privatization reserves
accounts, which can be used to accelerate renovation and
recapitalization activities. Eventually, though, the housing
inventories for each transaction will reach a point of optimal
performance, as measured by the occupancy rates, and reserve
funds will still be growing. Can you provide your assessment of
the current management practices used by the Army for housing
privatization?
Mr. Calcara. In terms of managing the reserve accounts, we
are still in the development periods on virtually all of our
projects. I think there is one project that we have finished
the development period. So, what you're referring to, in terms
of capital-reserves building, really doesn't occur until we get
out of the development period, because we continually reinvest
the dollars into the construction plan.
I can tell you we are basically doing well in virtually
every location.
Senator Burr. Would you say you need to change the methods
or process used by the Army to manage these partnerships?
Mr. Calcara. I don't see a need to change it. I think what
we are talking about, you may be hearing about, is the role of
our consultants in supporting our transactions and oversight.
They're taking a bigger role in government oversight on the
transactions and using our consultants more in a deliverable-
based, targeted approach, as opposed to a portfolio-wide
application. It's not going to change what they're doing for
us, it's just going to refine the way they do it for us.
Senator Burr. I appreciate your answers. I would only say
that, everywhere I've looked, this has been an incredibly
successful program, everybody who's testified; more
importantly, the folks who occupy it--probably to do a program
like this in the most difficult place, on a base. I would only
caution you, sometimes a little tweak here and a little tweak
there don't come to the same outcome. You got something that
works; stick with the model. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Thank you.
Mr. Arny. But, again, sir, that model grew. I looked back
to the history of it before I got here, and we were doing
single bases; in some cases, the Air Force was doing partial
bases. As we got more experienced service-wide, all three
Services, and including the Marine Corps, as well, we've
expanded to larger projects. You're right, it's been a success,
and we don't want to break it.
Senator Burr. Thank you.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calcara, if I could address the issue of the reduction
of brigades under the President's budget--you're well aware of
it; I think we all are--45 brigades now, out of an initial plan
to have 48. It's three installations, including Fort Carson in
my home State, are now left short of a brigade they've been
planning for. I think you know, the State of Colorado, Colorado
Springs community and our congressional delegation fought hard
to get one of the Grow the Army brigades to be based at Fort
Carson. The community made investments, based on the DOD's
commitment that a new brigade was headed our way. We find
ourselves short of a brigade. So, there are some outstanding
questions I'd like to throw your way today.
First, I'd be interested in knowing whether decisions have
been made about where to put the 10,000 soldiers that will not
be filling out these three BCTs. Where will they be based? Will
any of them be going to Fort Carson?
Mr. Calcara. The answer is, I don't have a definitive
answer today. In fact, the Army is at the full population
strength required in the Grow the Army Initiative. What we are
looking at doing now is assigning increments of that population
to current installations.
In most cases, a place that has a brigade now, like Fort
Carson, may, in fact, see as many as 3,500 going there anyway,
without the additional brigade configuration, because the
current brigades there now don't have the full population, or
because we're reconfiguring combat support.
So, what we did for the purpose of the analysis on
investment was, we did assume that all 3,500 would not show at
Fort Carson, which would be a worst-case scenario, and then
looked at investments and capabilities, based on a reduction of
3,500. We're still comfortable that what we've asked for in the
fiscal year 2010 budget supports that population.
What I'm telling you is, when the smoke clears on all of
this, there probably will be some more growth at Fort Carson,
incrementally, from the original 3,500 lost in that brigade.
Senator Udall. This is, in part, tied to the Secretary of
Defense's observation that we might be overstructured and
undermanned, as I understand it.
Mr. Calcara. It goes to thickening the force, yes.
Senator Udall. Yes. We may be saying, we may be violently
agreeing.
Mr. Calcara. Yes, we're saying the same thing.
Senator Udall. Let me move to the construction dollars that
Fort Carson's been counting on to prepare for the new soldiers.
It's my understanding that the MILCON dollars for range
projects or program of an installation's population and force
structure trigger across certain requirements thresholds, even
without the BCT-47, which was originally planned for Fort
Carson. Are there still sufficient training requirements at
Fort Carson to justify the Army's fiscal year 2010 range
projects at Fort Carson?
Mr. Calcara. Yes, sir. In fact, there will still be some
shortages after the fiscal year 2010 investment level, so we
can, in fact, support everything that's been requested in
fiscal year 2010 for Fort Carson.
Senator Udall. That's good news and, I would argue,
appropriate news, given the commitments on both sides that have
been made.
If I could, let me speak to the QDR broadly, but then
specifically. It's my understanding that the QDR still approves
relocating a Germany-based heavy BCT back into the United
States in fiscal year 2013. It would seem to me that the top
three best military value stationing alternatives for the Army
would be Fort Carson and Fort Stewart--I'm sure Senator
Chambliss would agree with me--and Fort Bliss--in no particular
order. I didn't hear what you had to say in your opening
statement. Did you say one or both of these brigades would go
to Fort Bliss? I thought it would be decided in the QDR.
Mr. Calcara. It would be decided in the QDR. What I said is
that there is a potential that that could occur. Certainly,
Fort Carson could--I would consider it competitive in the
stationing decision. It is in the top-three tier of siting
locations, tied to, not only military value, but capabilities
and current investment that's there. I would tell you, though,
to the extent that expansion of our ability to train there gets
reduced, that would--I think it ultimately affects some of the
decisionmaking on where the two brigades might go.
Senator Udall. But, let me pursue that a little further. I
heard you say Fort Carson is still in the running, so let me
direct a question prefaced with a couple of comments.
I think that you would agree that one of the key factors
that go into a stationing decision is the training land an
installation has. The more training land an installation has,
the higher its military value and the better its stationing
appeal. Congress has not approved expansion at its current
maneuver site at Pinon Canyon, but, I would add, Fort Carson
still has the second highest amount of training land of any
installation in the country. So, here's the question. With or
without the expansion, Fort Carson should be a strong
stationing candidate if this Germany-based BCT is relocated.
Would you agree?
Mr. Calcara. I would conclude that it is in the top three,
in terms of where we would site it. I would also tell you that,
beside training, we look at growth capacity, power projection,
and overall well-being to be supported for the soldier. So,
there are three to four factors that play into that mix.
My short answer would be, all things considered equal,
obviously a location with greater training capacity has a
higher chance of being selected than one who does not.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Mr. Arny. Senator Udall, I have to comment that--you have
to understand, this is quite amazing to watch Mr. Calcara talk
all these Army things, given that he started out as a Navy
civil engineer.
Senator Bayh. Right.
Mr. Calcara. Working for Mr. Arny, by the way. [Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Obviously the Navy trained you well,
you've adapted to the Army in great fashion. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calcara. Hoo-aah. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calcara. My staff is laughing. I don't say ``Hoo-aah''
often. So, I appreciate it. [Laughter.]
Senator Chambliss. I want to pick up there, where Senator
Udall left off, because one of those other bases that's been
left standing at the altar is, of course, Fort Stewart, in this
process. Over the past 2 years, Army leaders repeatedly pressed
local and government community leaders at Fort Stewart to make
the investments that the Army encouraged the local community--
and Hinesville, in Liberty County, is a small rural county, as
you well know--but, they were pressed to make investments
totaling over $450 million, which they did. We received some
State money, but, basically, most of it was local money.
The Army came down, briefed investment bankers and builders
on several occasions in an effort to solicit their support,
which--we got great community support, and they really stepped
up to the plate. During the briefings, they showed both
projected dates for new soldier arrival, unit deployment dates,
and so forth.
Additionally, DOD sent the Office of Economic Adjustment to
Hinesville to assist the community in properly preparing for
the reception of the BCT, and provided a grant to organize and
conduct a study of what was required.
In addition to private investment, Congress has
appropriated $400 million in MILCON from 2006 to 2009,
currently; $244 million is awarded on a contract, with a
projected penalty of 30 percent if canceled. Some of this work
was contracted as recently as May 10, 2009.
Additionally, the dining facility, which is $15 million, is
slated to be let for contract next week.
Now, much along the lines of what Senator Udall asked about
there, obviously the Secretary announced, on April 6, that the
decision to stop the growth of the Army at 45 BCTs was a
surprise. Then, on June 1, the Army announced that a BCT would
not be stood up at Fort Stewart. This decision has had very
serious and immediate consequences and impact on my home State,
as well as directly on the community of Fort Stewart.
That same June 1 decision, though, did state that Fort
Stewart still would grow by about 4,500 soldiers by 2013.
Now, there are a number of MILCON projects that we've
talked about. Again, let me ask a question to you with respect
to those. Where do those projects stand, in the eyes of the
Army? Are they justifiable? Do we need to go forward with
construction, as proposed?
Mr. Calcara. Yes, sir. As I mentioned in the opening--I
think you may have missed it--we are recommending to stay the
course with investment at Fort Stewart to, not only correct
what we think are facility deficiencies, but to also buy out of
relocatable facilities sooner, which we were going to circle
back and do in the out-years anyway.
So, you're absolutely correct, we still see growth there of
5,500. We think it's a wise thing to do to buy out of the
relocatables. In fact, when we do make the final stationing
decisions, we may, in fact, grow the 5,500 to a higher number
as we thicken the force, as Senator Udall mentioned.
Senator Chambliss. Yes. Is there the potential for still
another BCT to come back from Germany, I believe, in about
2013? The one I'm speaking of was to be located at White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico. I think a decision has been made
not to bring it from Germany back to New Mexico. But, no
decision's been made relative to where it will go. Is that
correct?
Mr. Calcara. That's correct, sir. The reason why we took
New Mexico off the list was because it was a cost-prohibitive
investment there. When we originally had 48, we had no room at
the inn to put them anywhere else, and New Mexico became a
target receiver location. Now that we're back to 45, we've
taken White Sands off the table. Certainly Stewart would be in
consideration for one of those brigades.
Senator Chambliss. We're 280,000 acres, the largest Army
base east of the Mississippi, and we look forward to bringing
all those folks to Fort Stewart.
Ms. Ferguson, I want to talk with you for a minute about
our situation at Moody Air Force Base. We worked very hard last
year to close this deal to transfer the former American Eagle
projects to a new developer. I believe the developer that
bought it was Pinnacle-Hunt. That was a very painful process
for both the Air Force, as well as the Valdosta community to go
through.
Moody was one of, I think, three or four projects--I
believe it was four projects----
Ms. Ferguson. It was four projects.
Senator Chambliss.--that were included in that
privatization issue. The situation with respect to that project
now, tell me where you think we are and where you see us going
with respect to filling this gap of some 229 shortfall in
houses that were anticipated for new airmen and airwomen coming
into Moody.
Ms. Ferguson. Okay. I first want to publicly thank your
community, and specifically Judge McClain, for the work that he
did in helping to get the project sold from American--to Hunt--
from American Eagle, Carabetta-Shaw--or Carabetta to Hunt-
Pinnacle. I was down there 2 weeks ago and actually bumped into
Judge McClain at dinner, and he was really pivotal in helping
make that closure go through in November of last year. So, we
wanted to thank him publicly.
While onsite down there, we took about a 4-hour tour of the
housing at Moody just 2 weeks ago, saw significant
improvements, certainly over the last year. Hunt-Pinnacle is
working on 50 of the homes that American Eagle had partially
out of the ground. Nineteen of those homes were accepted for
occupancy on Monday, and families are beginning to move in,
including the new wing commander.
Senator Chambliss. He's getting the first house, I think.
Ms. Ferguson. He's getting the first house. We toured the
house when we were down there. It's a great-looking house.
They're also doing a number of minor renovations in the
Quiet Pines area. They're doing roof replacements, window
replacements. We also went through the Courts. The Courts area
is eventually going to be demolished, but Hunt-Pinnacle was
really doing a good job of going in, replacing doors,
carpeting, and making them quite nice for the families that are
going in there. The Moody housing has great occupancy rate.
We're hovering at 98 or 99 percent occupancy.
But, as you point out, the project, as it is today, is not
the project that it was originally, and we are still committed
to finding a way to correct the shortfall in the community,
both outside the fence and inside the fence. We know we still
have a deficit to work there, and we're continuing to work that
now. We're working a number of different options to try to
close that gap, and we're hoping, within the next 6 to 9
months, we'll be able to do that.
Senator Chambliss. Yes. I thank the Air Force and you for
really prompt attention to that matter, because it truly has
been painful, as you observed from your viewing of it. Got such
great potential down there, and to see all those houses
literally falling down, in some cases, now, is a pretty sad
sight.
Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, could I go back and ask
one other quick question to Mr. Calcara?
I should have included this in my statement to you with
reference to the MILCON projects. Because we're going to see an
increase in this population anyway, at Fort Stewart, of about
4,500 over the next couple of years, in addition to the MILCON
projects, does the Army not agree that, from the standpoint of
providing schools for educating our children, that we need to
move forward with the construction of additional classroom
facilities for those additional children that'll be there as
children of Army soldiers?
Mr. Calcara. Sir, I'm unaware of any specific authority we
would have to construct schools. My understanding is that our
aid that's provided down there is through Impact Aid that's
given to the Department of Education.
Senator Chambliss. I didn't mean to implicate you had
MILCON money for the construction of schools. But, we're going
to have 4,500 soldiers, and they're going to bring families in,
which means we need more classroom capability.
Mr. Calcara. Yes, I think that's a reasonable conclusion,
that, based on the demand analytics for a family size and your
current school population characteristics down there, you would
need more schools.
Senator Chambliss. Yes. If there is any money in the
budget--and I, frankly, can't remember if there is any specific
MILCON money for schools, the Army would anticipate continuing
with those projects.
Mr. Calcara. Yes.
Mr. Arny. But Senator, if I could, with DOD, unless the
base has a Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA)
school system, which there are only a few bases in the States,
the schools are all provided by the outside school districts.
Some of our bases, we do provide land, so the school district
can build on the base, if that's required, but unless it's a
DODEA school, we do not provide MILCON for the construction of
schools.
Senator Chambliss. Staff has just reminded me of what I
thought was a fact. There are two schools at Fort Stewart to be
built in the fiscal year 2010 budget from MILCON monies.
Mr. Arny. Then Fort Stewart must have a DODEA school
system.
Senator Chambliss. Yes. From the Army's standpoint, there
is no reason not to continue with those two projects, I assume.
Mr. Calcara. No, sir. You're absolutely correct. The
population is growing by a minimum of 4,500 servicemembers and
then their families.
Senator Chambliss. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our panel for their testimony today, and
responses to the questions, and for the important work that you
do, day in and day out.
I have a question I'd like to direct to the panel,
generally, and whoever would care to respond to it. But, it's
dealing with the whole of renewable energy projects near
military training ranges or, for that matter, even 30 miles
away from training ranges.
The military is not particularly enamored and, some have
argued, undercut renewable energy projects, due to issues like
radar signature interference. That's had a chilling effect on
renewable energy projects, which I think you have a number of
training ranges that are in the desert, which have tremendous
capacity for solar energy, for example. So my question is, what
steps could be taken--could DOD take to work with the renewable
energy industry to try and establish more of a presence in some
of these remote areas that are often quite a distance from
training ranges?
Mr. Arny. Senator, that's an issue we're addressing. When I
took over this job, I formed a Defense Energy Working Group in
which all the Services participate, the engineers. That's an
issue that's come up.
Frankly, it's a matter of us educating the bases. There has
to be a compromise. We're the largest single consumer of
energy, when you consider our mobility fuels as well as base
facilities, so we have to consider all the alternatives.
Frankly, unless we own the land, if somebody wants to put a
solar site, or wind, on private land, there's not much we can
do. Now, obviously--from what you're telling me--and I've heard
this, too--we're jawboning and causing a chilling effect. We
have to reverse that. We have to work with people, look at
alternatives.
Now, I will tell you that these wind farms, with some of
the kinds of radars we use, not only the blades are causing
disruption of the radar, but it's also the turbulence
downstream.
But, again, if we have an area--we, DOD, have an area where
we have exclusive use of that territory, then we'd better
consider buying easements or buying land. We have to work with
people who are trying to produce electricity, especially PV in
the southwest, so that we can accommodate each other, so we
understand each other's problems.
Let's face it, a base commander and folks in the field get
promoted by pushing their primary mission, which is testing or
training or doing something else. We, as a Service, the
Department and the Services, have to educate them to open their
mind a little bit and look at alternatives.
Senator Thune. I appreciate your answer to that, and I hope
you will. I think there's a tremendous synergy in there, and
opportunity to achieve a couple of critical objectives.
Mr. Arny. We can't sit there--like I said, as a major
consumer of energy--and say, ``You can't produce energy outside
my base.''
Senator Thune. Right.
Mr. Arny. It's just incompatible.
Senator Thune. Right.
I have another question that's related to energy, a
different subject. I'd like to direct this to Ms. Ferguson.
But, last year, Secretary Donley signed the Air Force Energy
Policy, which, among other things, establishes a couple of
goals with respect to using alternative fuels in the Air Force
aircraft fleet. One goal is to test and certify the aircraft
fleet on a 50/50 alternative fuel blend by 2011. A follow-on
goal is to require 50 percent of the Air Force's domestic
aviation fuel requirement be an alternative fuel blend in which
the alternative component is derived from domestic sources.
From what I understand, an initiative to build a coal-to-
liquid plant on Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana was
abandoned earlier this year, and a similar plan to build a
plant in Alaska with a guaranteed 5-year contract is still up
for grabs, with no takers.
So, my question is, how well is the Air Force proceeding
toward reaching these alternative fuel goals? How can the
committee help the Air Force reach its goal of using
domestically produced alternative fuel?
Ms. Ferguson. I will have to take that for the record for
you. I don't have enough data on that with me today.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Air Force is proceeding well towards reaching its alternative
aviation fuel goals of certifying its aircraft fleet for use of a 50/50
synthetic fuel blend by 2011 and the follow-on goal of being prepared
to acquire 50 percent of the Air Force's domestic aviation fuel
requirement via an alternative aviation fuel blend in which the
alternative component is derived from domestic sources.
The Air Force's Alternative Aviation Fuel Initiative encompasses
certification and testing of synthetic fuel blends produced via the
Fischer-Tropsch process and recently initiated efforts involving
biomass-derived fuel blends.
The Air Force is on track to certify its aircraft, applicable
vehicles, and support equipment, and associated storage and
distribution infrastructure for unrestricted operational use of a
synthetic fuel blend by early 2011. The B-52, C-17, B-1B, and F-15 have
been certified for unrestricted operations using the synthetic fuel
blend and the F-22, KC-135, C-5, and T-38 are expected to be certified
by the end of 2009. Certification of applicable support equipment and
vehicles is over 90 percent complete. Full certification is expected by
late 2009. Full certification of storage and distribution
infrastructure is expected to be completed by 2010.
In addition to the synthetic fuel blend certification, the Air
Force initiated a biomass-derived aviation fuel certification program
in January 2009. To support this effort, the Defense Energy Support
Center is currently managing an active solicitation for up to 400,000
gallons of renewable aviation fuel derived from biomass. Once the Air
Force receives this fuel, it will be used to fulfill biomass-derived
fuel blend certification efforts.
Both certification efforts support the Air Force goal to be
prepared to cost competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic
aviation fuel requirement by 2016 via an alternative fuel blend in
which the alternative component is derived from domestic sources
produced in a manner that is greener than fuels produced from
conventional petroleum.
While the Air Force appreciates both the Senator's and the
committee's continued strong support of the certification efforts
specifically and, more generally, the Air Force energy plans, programs,
and strategies, no additional assistance is needed at this time.
Senator Thune. Okay. I would be very interested in knowing
that, Mr. Chairman, for the record. This whole initiative at
Malmstrom was highly touted for a while, and it's just all of a
sudden fallen off the grid. These other initiatives that the
Air Force had undertaken, I think, are critically important.
The Air Force is the largest user of fuels, obviously, and if
we can use domestically produced alternative fuels here, it
lessens the very dangerous dependence that we have on foreign
energy.
So, I would appreciate if you could get back to me on that.
Ms. Ferguson. We'll get back to you.
Senator Thune. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and
again, thanks for what you do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Mr. Calcara, I had a couple of questions for you. Let me
ask you--the number of brigades was 42, correct? It was then
proposed to increase the number of brigades to 48. Isn't that
right?
Mr. Calcara. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. That has now been scaled back to 45. But, it
was the increase from 42 to 48 that occasioned the proposal to
station the three additional brigades at the three sites that
will now not get them, correct?
So, knowing what we know today, if the proposal had been
45, as it is today, originally, there would have been no money
proposed for those three additional sites. Isn't that true?
Mr. Calcara. That's true. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. Yet, we're now being asked to devote money to
sites that otherwise there would have been none authorized, so
that money would have been available to address the range of--I
understand that there are needs at those sites; I heard your
testimony, and I'm sure that's true.
Mr. Calcara. Right.
Senator Bayh. But, those funds would have been available to
address all the needs facing the military in this area, at all
the sites. I ask you, are these really the most pressing needs
out there in your area of jurisdiction?
Mr. Calcara. I think if you look at our plans for what
amounts to the $335 million, or the 25 percent of that $1.4
billion, most of it is going to take care of training barracks.
It's going to get us out of relocatables, and it's going to
correct what was originally capacity shortages----
Senator Bayh. I know that. This is not a bridge-to-nowhere
kind of situation.
But, my point is that this would never have been authorized
originally, and now we're being asked to devote it to this
anyway. So, are there are really no more pressing needs than
what is being proposed here at these three sites?
Mr. Calcara. There's always other pressing needs. But, I
guess I would say to you that we've read from you a strong
policy imperative to correct our barracks, to get out of
relocatable facilities, and to help sustain--or propel, I
should say--the Army modular force. These investments will do
those three things, which ranked very high in----
Senator Bayh. So, it's just a coincidence that the most
pressing needs in those particular areas happen to be at these
three sites?
Mr. Calcara. I wouldn't say it's a coincidence, but when we
looked at the dollars potentially available for reinvestment,
we did consider all other priorities across the Army. If we
felt that we had higher-ranking priorities, we would come to
you and suggest--we would have briefed you that, of the $335
million, we think X should go to that, or Y to go to that. We
recognized there was a unique situation. We did not intend to
mislead anybody in the program.
Senator Bayh. See why a taxpayer might be a bit skeptical
that these three facilities were proposed to be expanded, and
now that's no longer being proposed, and it just so happens
that the money that would not have been authorized for them in
the beginning is now the most pressing need facing the
Department in this area? That seems to be rather remarkable.
Mr. Calcara. I see your point, sir, but, again we felt that
training barracks, relocatable facilities, and enabling the
Army modular force had enough gravitas as our strategic
priorities to sustain the investment decision.
Mr. Arny. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Bayh. Your testimony to the subcommittee is that
there is not $1 that can be saved that was originally
authorized for this?
Mr. Calcara. No, sir, that's not true. We did identify, I
believe, $190 million, in the session the other day we had with
your staff, that was available.
Senator Bayh. But, of these funds, there's nothing that
could be saved that was originally authorized for these three
sites.
Mr. Calcara. I would take exception to the word ``saved.''
I think our understanding is that we were going to use these
dollars to buy out of requirements that we had, at some point
in the process. Whether or not they should have been at the top
of the order or the bottom--at a lower position, we did
consider that, and we felt training barracks, modular force,
were high priorities.
Mr. Arny. Mr. Chairman, we at OSD did review the priorities
with the Army, and agreed with them, as well.
Mr. Calcara. The other point is, we've already discussed
about our high military value locations across the Army, and
they are, in fact, Bliss, Stewart, and Carson. So, in some
ways, we are investing where we think our future is going to
be.
Senator Bayh. Let me ask the Navy about that. Apparently,
the decision about where to locate the 8,000 marines from
Okinawa is going to be decided in the QDR.
Mr. Penn. No, sir. No, sir, that's not true. The QDR's
going to decide the training areas that we will be using, as
it's a joint training, all Services, the training in the
Pacific.
Senator Bayh. Right. The Commandant has expressed some
concern about the ability to train the marines at Guam and the
Marianas. Isn't that true?
Mr. Penn. That's correct. That's training. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. Okay. Let me ask you, then. How much of the
size and composition of the Marine Corps move to Guam is being
reconsidered and debated in the QDR process? None?
Mr. Penn. Zero. That's correct.
Senator Bayh. Richard, I'm going to turn to you, although,
if you would indulge me for just a moment----
Senator Burr. Sure.
Senator Bayh.--I had a couple of questions for Ms.
Ferguson.
The proposal for the investment in Oman--as I understand
it, we had invested in an airfield there before, and they're
now running us out, because they would like to turn it into a
civilian airport. Isn't that true?
Ms. Ferguson. Sir, we've been there for quite a number of
years, and between 1980--I think it's 1982 and 1989, the Air
Force invested about $65 million for some War Reserve Materials
(WRM) facilities there. The Omanis would like to use that area
for more commercial aviation. The area is very cramped, and
they've invested $200 million at the Al Musannah site for the
Air Force, and would like the U.S. Air Force and the U.K. to
move to that new site. These facilities provide the start of
relocating those WRM facilities out there.
Senator Bayh. Do you think we ought to get an agreement
with them in place before we spend this money?
Ms. Ferguson. My understanding is, we do have an agreement
in place with the Omanis now for the two fiscal year 2010
projects. I have some recent classified information that we can
certainly share with the staffers, in another environment.
Senator Bayh. Good. Given their previous behavior, it would
be nice to nail this down before we spend the money.
The base in Italy--I hope I'm pronouncing it correctly--
Sigonella--I hope that's close enough--it's been, historically,
underutilized by the Navy. Do you feel that we should more
thoroughly explore using those Navy facilities for the Global
Hawk basing before building another hangar facility which might
only compound the underutilization situation?
Ms. Ferguson. We have worked with the Navy, and we are
being afforded the opportunity to use a temporary--a hangar, on
a temporary basis, and the Navy has long-term plans for the
remainder of the facilities, and they are not available to the
Air Force for any long-term needs that the Air Force has to bed
down the Global Hawk.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Ms. Ferguson.
Mr. Arny. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow up for just a
second on the Marine Corps training. The Commandant's concern
is inadequate--I want to say ``unit training.'' But, that
inadequacy exists now with the forces in Okinawa. We do not
have adequate Marine Corps training throughout the Pacific. So,
the movement to Guam, of 8,000 marines, leaving 10,000 in
Okinawa, the EIS for Guam does include individual weapons
training facilities in Guam. He's concerned that he doesn't
have the kind of unit training he needs.
The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have committed to
the Commandant that we will look at unit training in the
Pacific, because the Army has some shortfalls, the Marines
definitely have shortfalls, whether they move to Guam or they
stay in Okinawa. So, it is an issue that goes beyond the move
to Guam, and we are definitely going to look at it, and I
believe there will be a separate study and a separate EIS to
cover that.
Senator Bayh. We just wanted to make sure we weren't
spending money to build facilities on Guam that then we weren't
going to end up utilizing.
Mr. Arny. Absolutely not.
Senator Bayh. Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Senator Burr, forgive me. I need to get a briefing here
before our markup coming up so if I could turn the gavel over
to you, you promise you won't exceed our authority? [Laughter.]
Senator Burr. We will not spend anymore money, I can assure
you. [Laughter.]
We might find some cuts while you're gone. [Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. I'm not sure the Treasury has any more.
Senator Burr. Things might move to North Carolina all of a
sudden. [Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. It's a good State. Thank you all very much. I
appreciate your testimony here today, and your service to the
country.
Senator Burr [presiding]. As Senator Bayh said, we'd like
to make sure that the investment we're making in Okinawa is an
investment that can be utilized. I was going to ask Secretary
Penn, but I'll ask you, Mr. Arny. Aside from the basic estimate
of $4 billion for the U.S. investment, does the Department of
the Navy have a detailed current estimate of cost to U.S.
taxpayers to complete the initiative, including one-time
construction costs and additional base operation cost?
Mr. Arny. Sir, we're putting that plan together, and we'll
be able to provide you that as we complete the planning process
and as we complete the EIS, which is scheduled for completion
in 2010. I've discussed with your staff, we're trying to get
those numbers together now. The new Deputy Secretary is taking
on the leadership of the Guam move, himself, and has a group,
chaired by him, we are meeting every 2 weeks, to make sure that
we get all this stuff in a package. I know we are a little bit
late in getting some of that to you, but we definitely have a
commitment to you and to the Japanese Government to get that
movement in place, as well as all the other movements that take
place, and to make sure they're properly funded. We will get
the details to you as soon as we can.
Senator Burr. It's clearly not an inexpensive move.
Mr. Arny. No, sir, it is not.
Senator Burr. We want to make sure that the investment is
wise.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Ms. Ferguson, let me turn to you. I want to
talk specifically about the F-35. What's the current status of
the EIS for the initial training site at Eglin?
Ms. Ferguson. We signed a record of decision for the
initial EIS back in February that allowed the delivery of 59
airplanes there. We are in the process of kicking off the
supplemental EIS, as required by the record of decision. In
fact, just yesterday, I briefed the Air Force board on the
proposal for the range of alternatives that will be considered
in the supplemental EIS, and I brief that to the Chief and
Secretary next week.
The contract has been awarded for that activity, and our
schedule anticipates having a new record of decision
specifically on how to operate the 59, what it will require to
mitigate the 59 in September 2010.
Senator Burr. There's currently litigation on the move to
Eglin?
Ms. Ferguson. Currently, there's actually two components of
legislation of litigation. One, there is a Freedom of
Information Act request, and then there is also litigation that
was levied by the community of Valparaiso over the National
Environmental Policy Act.
We have reached agreement--the Air Force, Department of
Justice, have reached agreement for a 90-day stay with the
city's attorneys. There's another meeting with respect to that.
That was reached the first week in June, and there's another
meeting with respect to that, on the 30th of June.
Senator Burr. Potentially, when that stay goes away, if
litigation is still pursued, what does that do to delaying our
ability to meet the deadlines that we have for the purposes of
training?
Ms. Ferguson. Of course, I'm not the lawyer, I'm the
engineer.
Senator Burr. I think everybody in this room knows that in
90 days, this is not going to be settled because we don't even
have the EIS done taking into account the noise of the F-35.
Ms. Ferguson. Right. It's probably best for me, rather than
speculate, provide that for the record to the committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
On June 5, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida entered an order staying the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) litigation for a period of 90 days. Both parties
requested the stay to allow them time to pursue a mutually acceptable
resolution of the case without the need for further litigation. The
stay will expire in early September, unless the parties seek to
terminate it earlier or agree to another stay that the Court approves.
While the case is stayed, the Air Force is able to continue the
construction projects necessary to meet our base realignment and
closure deadline. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement
agreement, eventually the stay (either the current one or any
subsequent stay) will be lifted or will expire. At that time, the
plaintiff would likely file a motion for a preliminary injunction. In
such a motion, the plaintiff would ask the Court to enjoin all
construction activities associated with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) and to prohibit or limit the flying of
JSF aircraft at Eglin AFB.
If the Court denies the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction, the Court could still decide to enjoin our ability to
construct necessary facilities or to conduct flight training after a
hearing on the merits.
If the Court grants the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction, some or all of the Air Force's construction activities
could be halted. If this happened, we would not have facilities in
place to meet our training deadlines. Similarly, if the Court enjoins
our ability to fly the JSF, the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and our
international JSF partners would not be able to provide the training
necessary to certify our initial cadre of JSF pilot instructors. We
would also not be able to conduct the flight training required to
produce the JSF pilots who will operate this weapons platform in the
field.
A preliminary injunction would remain in place until the Court
heard the case on the merits and decided whether or not to make the
preliminary injunction permanent. Practically speaking, the Air Force,
and all others concerned, would be prohibited from taking action to
establish the training center at Eglin AFB until such time as the Court
determines that the Air Force has complied with NEPA.
Senator Burr. Let me ask it in a different fashion, if I
can. Is there a Plan B if, in fact, litigation drags out and
Eglin is not an eligible place to stand up for this purpose?
Ms. Ferguson. We don't have a Plan B. I can tell you the
Air Force does not have a Plan B for it. BRAC directed the
standup of the initial joint training site at Eglin, and the
Air Force is working towards accomplishing that.
Senator Burr. I'll hope that our staff converses with you
about whether there should be a Plan B or not. I think it would
be prudent to pursue that. There's enough of a challenge with
the completion date of the F-35 and the gaps that it may cause.
I'd hate to see a delay in our ability to train pilots in that
new aircraft.
Mr. Arny. Sir, there are ways to mitigate that, I believe--
and, again, I'm not the lawyer, either, but I've been around
enough of these EISs--we can mitigate; and if we can't, we will
adapt and move as quickly as we can to train at other
locations.
Senator Burr. Thank you.
Let me just go back to Secretary Penn real quick. I asked a
question relative to the move from Okinawa to Guam while you
were out. In response to a hearing question posed to you last
year concerning the costs incurred over the long term by the
Department of the Navy for rent payment to reimburse the
Japanese Government for their investment in new housing in
Guam, you said this, ``Impacts to the Navy's budget from this
agreement continue to be assessed. Until final implementation
details are determined, any additional impacts cannot be fully
determined.''
Do we have the final implementation details?
Mr. Penn. No, sir, we do not. We probably will not have
them until the record of decision. Once we go through the EIS,
then we'll have all the numbers of the exact people, the mix
that we'll be putting on Guam.
We're building a city on Guam. We have 75 different EISs
that we're conducting, and it's taking us a long time, longer
than we thought, to put them all together.
Senator Burr. Trust me, I get a full sense of the scope of
what we're trying to do. What I'm desperately trying to do is
get a sense of what is this going to cost us. I know what the
initial cost is. I'm not sure that anybody has addressed for us
what the overall cost of this is. I'd be willing to bet--is
anybody in a position to tell me now?
Mr. Arny. Sir, we could probably give you an estimate,
based on the forces in our normal term and our normal
multiplier effects. Part of it is resolving the laydown with
the Marine Corps of which facilities go where. I know that Mr.
Penn is wrestling through that on a daily basis. We could
probably look at, like I said, based in Guam, what it's going
to cost to sustain it.
But, again, if you'd just give us a little more time, we
are going to plan this, we're going to make this work, because
it's of such strategic importance to us, not only for the
Japanese-U.S. relationship, because now we'll have Japanese
units training with our units in Guam, but also for the
strategic necessity of the United States.
Full disclosure--I represented the Government of Guam for
10 years when I was in the private sector, and we never really
had a plan to make use of the most forward-deployed piece of
U.S. territory, for which we lost a lot of lives to retain in
World War II. We're 3 hours by air from almost every part of
the Pacific Rim. It is just such a key location, with a
population that is so pro-American, pro-citizen, because they
are American citizens--they've died in all the wars and enlist
in higher percentage per capita than any other group in
America. So, for our strategic needs as a Nation, it's
absolutely essential to get this right. We're working very hard
at it.
Sir, some of the things we're doing, that we're not
including in the Guam move, like we're putting carriers in
there temporarily--in fact, one just arrived yesterday--so,
we'll be taking carriers that, when they go to Western Pacific,
Guam will be a visit for them. The Army will be putting a
ballistic missile battery in, and the Air Force is going to be
putting several things on there, as well. So, we're wrapping
everything together. But, they're coming out of different
funding pots.
Senator Burr. I appreciate the answer. Were this a weapons
platform, I would probably walk away and say, interagency,
they're still trying to figure how much stuff they're going to
put on it. That's why they can't identify what the overall cost
is. It's not a weapons platform, it's a strategic base for the
future.
I hope you understand why I'm so persistent on this,
because if, in fact, you can't provide the details to me, why
should I authorize $378 million to proceed? If you can't tell
me the overall cost of it, then how do I turn, a year from now,
2 years from now, 3 years from now, and figure out, are you in
line with exactly what you told us this was going to cost? Now,
some of you may not be here, but I plan to be, so these are
accountability methods that are going to be applied to me. I
think there's probably a warning shot here that says, if we
haven't decided everything that's going to be there, let's do
it real quick, let's figure out what it's going to be, let's
figure out what the partners' obligations are, let's figure out
what ours are, but let's get the details before we start
talking about the funding.
Mr. Penn. We should have that very soon. We were hoping to
have it by the end of next year.
Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, do you have anything you wanted to
add?
Mr. Arny. No, sir. I think we can provide general long-term
sustainment numbers for you, based on multiplier factors. We'll
work with your staffs, too, as we refine these numbers, and get
you numbers as quickly as we can.
Senator Burr. Super.
Again, on behalf of the chairman, let me thank all of you
for your testimony today. It's invaluable. Again, we apologize
for the expedited hearing, but we needed to do that to meet the
timeframe.
So, at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
relocatable facilities
1. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Arny, in light of the findings of a June
2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report sanctioned by title
28, section 5, of Senate Report 110-77 (National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008) relative to problems with the
Department of Defense's (DOD) handling of relocatable facilities, what
specific measures either are being weighed or implemented by the DOD to
address the lack of a comprehensive Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) strategy to manage and oversee the use and disposal of the
approximate 4,000 relocatable buildings which have been procured on
military installations and posts over the past 5 years?
Mr. Arny. The following steps will be taken to improve the
management and oversight of relocatable buildings:
Clarify guidance on the definition of relocatable facilities;
Develop a mechanism for collecting and maintaining complete
and reliable data on the number of relocatable facilities used
by the military Services and on the costs of acquiring them;
and
Develop and implement a strategy to help effectively manage
the use, disposal, and redistribution of relocatable facilities
across all the Services when redistribution is appropriate,
including projected costs.
2. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Arny, what is being done to address
inaccurate reporting of the number of such relocatable facilities due
in part to lack of a central OSD database and clear definition of what
constitutes such a structure?
Mr. Arny. The Department will take the necessary steps to address
the inaccuracies. Once the definition of relocatable facilities is
clarified, the Department will establish a more rigorous process for
reporting the acquisition, use, and disposal of relocatable facilities.
To the maximum extent possible, that reporting process will be
incorporated into existing data collection systems that support
facilities management.
3. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Arny, how will DOD address
characterization of relocatable structures as personal vice real
property structures to facilitate their funding via operations and
maintenance budgets vice the military construction (MILCON)
appropriations process?
Mr. Arny. Relocatable facilities are now characterized as personal
property vice real property. Department of Defense Instruction 4165.56,
Relocatable Buildings, states the following in paragraph 4.3:
``Relocatable buildings shall be accounted for as personal
property, unless these facilities are authorized for
procurement using construction procedures. In this case, the
buildings shall be accounted for as real property.''
4. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Arny, what is being done to address waste
of public funds resulting from the procurement of new relocatable
facilities rather than use of ones in storage or slated for demolition?
Mr. Arny. As part of the review of policies and procedures
pertaining to the acquisition, use, and disposal of relocatable
facilities, the Department will consider options for the economic reuse
of relocatable facilities to meet new requirements. Consideration will
be given to the condition of the relocatables, their proximity to the
location at which they are required, and the efficiency with which they
can be moved from one location to another.
5. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Arny, how much of the $7 billion that the
DOD is scheduled to receive from the American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act (ARRA) will be spent on relocatable facilities?
Mr. Arny. None of the ARRA funding will be spent to acquire
relocatable facilities.
6. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Arny, what is the DOD specific course of
action or strategy in place for the use of relocatable buildings
specifically as it relates to a rapid drawdown of forces in Iraq and
relocation to garrison facilities at bases in the United States, a
continued implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act
by 2011, and the Marine Corps and Army reaching its ``Grow the Force''
initiatives 2 years ahead of schedule?
Mr. Arny. Relocatable buildings will be used to provide temporary
facilities until a permanent MILCON solution is available. Every effort
will be made to minimize the use of relocatable facilities, and when
they are required to retain them for the minimum amount of time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Udall
readiness and environmental protection initiative
7. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI)
gives you the ability to work with State and local governments and
conservation groups to protect land important to sustaining military
readiness. How important has this program been in your efforts to
ensure the long-range sustainability of your test and training
installations, ranges, and airspace?
Secretary Penn. REPI has been an effective tool in ensuring the
long-range sustainability of the Navy's testing and training
installations, ranges, and airspace by protecting military readiness,
meeting priorities, and leveraging public funds. REPI has been embraced
by its many stakeholders and partners as making a significant
contribution to national defense while simultaneously advancing natural
resource stewardship and land use planning goals and policies.
Mr. Arny. REPI has contributed significantly to DOD's efforts to
ensure the long-range sustainability of military installations, ranges,
and airspace, and to preserve our ability to conduct the realistic
testing and training that is vital to military operations and
sustaining military readiness. REPI is a key tool in the Department's
Sustainable Ranges Initiative to promote long-term readiness and
sustainability. REPI funding has allowed the military Services to
acquire easements from willing sellers for buffer lands that in many
cases have represented the Department's only opportunities for
preventing encroachment and preserving installation, range, and
airspace capacity and flexibility. To date, REPI has protected over
76,000 acres near 53 installations in 23 States, and has taken
advantage of a 2-to-1 partner contribution ratio. REPI is also a
valuable and vital tool in fostering important relations with key
partners. DOD requirements and actions to sustain the training and
testing missions are very compatible with partner missions and
objectives--e.g., open space, recreation, preserving working lands,
economic opportunities, and the conservation of natural resources--and
DOD engagement promotes the power of innovative partnerships, all while
generating significant political, community, and partner good will.
These partnerships proactively address both mutual mission challenges
and shared opportunities.
Mr. Calcara. REPI is a key tool in the Army's Compatible Use Buffer
(ACUB) Program that promotes long-term readiness and sustainability.
REPI funding has allowed the Army to protect land with willing sellers
and partners to prevent encroachment. ACUB is preserving Army mission
capability and flexibility. To date, Army has expended $46.3 million in
REPI funding to protect 40,903 acres at 25 Army installations. To that
figure, Army contributed an additional $12.7 million in non-REPI funds
and partners contributed an additional $91.2 million. REPI is also a
valuable and vital tool in fostering important relations with key
partners. Army requirements and actions to sustain the training and
testing missions are very compatible with partner missions to conserve
open space, recreation, working lands, economic opportunities, and
other natural resources. These partnerships proactively address both
mutual mission challenges and shared opportunities.
Ms. Ferguson. REPI is a valuable tool in our encroachment toolbox.
REPI has allowed the Air Force to help ensure compatible development at
a number of our installations and ranges. Although this is not a viable
strategy for all our installations and ranges, it allows us to broaden
our outreach efforts by identifying common interests with organizations
that in the past we would not have thought to include as part of our
encroachment solution set.
8. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, under the REPI, implementing section 2684a of title 10,
U.S.C., every year the Services consider potential projects and submit
a prioritized list of projects that have been validated at the Service
headquarters as viable and necessary to ensure long-range
sustainability. OSD, with input from the Services, then combines the
list of projects submitted to create an integrated priority list (IPL)
and allocates REPI funds to those projects based on that IPL. What was
the total, in dollar terms by Service, of the REPI funding requirements
submitted by the Services during the process to allocate fiscal year
2009 REPI funding?
Secretary Penn. Navy submitted $27.5 million for 12 projects.
Mr. Arny. For fiscal year 2009, high demand for REPI projects
resulted in the Services submitting 52 project proposals with a total
funding requirement of $122.586 million. By Service, the Army's REPI
funding requirement was $58.910 million for 25 projects, the Navy's
REPI funding requirement was $27.503 million for 12 projects, the
Marine Corps' REPI funding requirement was $14.959 million for 6
projects, and the Air Force's REPI funding requirement was $21.214
million for 9 projects.
Mr. Calcara. The Army's REPI funding requirement was $58.9 million
for 25 projects.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force REPI submittal for fiscal year 2009
totaled $21.214 million for nine projects.
9. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, displayed by Service totals, how much REPI funding was
provided by OSD in response to the Service project submission?
Secretary Penn. OSD allocated $11.55 million for eight projects to
the Navy.
Mr. Arny. In response to Service requests for REPI funding, OSD was
able to allocate $45.27 million to 39 projects. By Service, the Army
received $20.49 million for 21 projects, the Navy received $11.55
million for eight projects, the Marine Corps received $8.23 million for
four projects, and the Air Force received $5.00 million for six
projects.
Mr. Calcara. For Army, of the $58.9 million submitted, $20.5
million was funded by REPI.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force was allocated $5 million for six
projects.
land use and conservation partnerships
10. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, DOD has been instrumental in establishing two regional
partnerships, one in the southeast and one in the southwest, to address
compatible land use and conservation at landscape scales. In addition
to State and local governments and conservation groups, the regional
partnerships increasingly involve efforts aimed at collaborative
planning and action with other Federal agencies. In your view, have
these regional partnerships been helpful in ensuring long-range
sustainability?
Secretary Penn. The Regional Partnership concept has been a leading
force in improving interagency coordination and communication at the
Federal level as well as at the State level. The Department of the Navy
operates, tests, and trains over large areas of the United States and
the ability to bring all the stakeholders to the table affords each of
us the opportunity to broaden our perspectives, share information, and
hopefully identify mutually agreeable solutions to land use
compatibility issues. Regional partnerships work to prevent
encroachment around military lands and provide a forum to discuss
issues of common concern such as urban sprawl, loss of wildlife
habitats, and sustainment of marine and coastal resources. From our
perspective, these partnerships provide a forum that allows us to work
regionally on land use concerns that affect the sustainment of our
readiness training, introduction of new mission requirements, and the
acquisition of new weapons systems. Through regional partnerships, the
Navy and DOD have been successful in establishing effective working
relationships with the States and Federal agencies in order to guide
State and regional land use planning. For instance, we have been able
to work with the State of North Carolina to identify working lands
(e.g., farms, forests) whose development would adversely affect our
ability meet our military readiness training requirements. This
identification is leading to mutual efforts to protect these working
lands from development via regional and local land use planning, and
through the purchase of real property rights to ensure these lands
remain undeveloped.
Mr. Arny. DOD has been a key player in both the Southeast Regional
Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) and the Western
Regional Partnership (WRP). Both SERPPAS and WRP have been helpful to
date, though as the older of the two partnerships, SERPPAS has seen
more concrete action. SERPPAS has been very helpful in: supporting
landscape/ecosystem-scale collaboration among the Federal, State, and
nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners for southern longleaf pine
forest restoration; leveraging actions by partners that have resulted
in sustaining compatible land uses that buffer DOD installations and
ranges; increasing off-post habitat for endangered and threatened
species; and providing economic benefits to private landowners. The
value of the WRP will increase as it builds off SERPPAS's successes.
WRP has identified several focus areas, including the identification
and preservation of wildlife corridors and important habitat;
sustainable land use; disaster preparedness; GIS mapping; and renewable
energy issues. As SERPPAS and WRP continue to develop, these regional
partnerships will complement and build on other long-range
sustainability activities being undertaken by DOD and the military
Services in partnership with other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, conservation NGOs, and private landowners.
Mr. Calcara. DOD led both the SERPPAS and the WRP. These regional
partnerships have been helpful. As SERPPAS and WRP continue to develop,
these regional partnerships should complement and build on other long-
range sustainability activities being undertaken by the Army in
partnership with other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
conservation NGOs, and private landowners.
Ms. Ferguson. The SERPPAS has focused a major portion of their
efforts on ecosystem-scale collaboration among Federal, State, and
nongovernmental partners for the southern longleaf pine forest
restoration. The outcome of this collaboration will benefit the Air
Force installations and ranges in the southeast that contain longleaf
pine ecosystems. The WRP is in its infancy and has recently identified
several focus areas, renewable energy, sustainable land use, GPS
mapping, and disaster preparedness.
As these partnerships mature we anticipate that they will
complement other Air Force sustainability activities.
11. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, how important is the engagement with other Federal agencies
both within these regional partnerships and more generally?
Secretary Penn. Engagement with other Federal agencies is critical
to our ability to carry out our mission. We interact with other Federal
agencies in their capacities as regulators, program managers, and land
owners. For example, the establishment of renewable energy corridors
and the potential impacts to training ranges and long range radar
facilities is one area where the regional partnerships can be effective
by sharing information and seeking solutions to critical site selection
issues. Additionally, the ability to map military training routes and
overlay those routes over maps of Federal lands provides some insight
into potential land use compatibility issues in parks, wilderness, and
reservations. Other issues, such as potential environmental impacts and
air corridor usage, require close coordination with Federal agencies
such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Mr. Arny. The integration of conservation and land management
planning and actions among Federal agencies within SERPPAS and WRP is
very important to the regional partnerships' success and the success of
long-term land use sustainability and military readiness. The missions
of many Federal agencies can both complement and conflict with one
another, and coordination and engagement through SERPPAS and WRP helps
ensure that Federal resources are effectively leveraged and that
partnerships work toward mutual benefits. Responsible management of
public lands, particularly in the west, is key to the long-term
sustainability of the military value of DOD installations and ranges
that support operations, test, and training missions, and for
conservation partnerships generally. Engagement in WRP allows the
agencies to share GPS data and develop policy regarding renewable
energy that will not encroach on DOD installations and will best
benefit the environment and endangered species. Engaging with Federal
agencies within these regional partnerships provides important
incentives for State and local government integration of
decisionmaking, while supporting the Federal agencies' abilities to
carry out their respective missions. It also encourages the
participation of private property owners in SERPPAS and WRP, as well as
in compatible land and conservation efforts more generally.
Mr. Calcara. It is very important that conservation and land
management planning be integrated among Federal agencies. Conservation
issues are usually regional in nature and transcend the boundaries of
any specific agency landholdings such as a military installation, a
national forest, national park, or refuge. Interagency coordination and
partnerships are critical to resolving issues at the regional landscape
level.
Ms. Ferguson. The engagement with Federal agencies is extremely
important. The Air Force has engaged with other Federal agencies for a
number of years. We also endorse this concept at the State and local
level. In the late 1980s the Air Force established a program of
interagency/intergovernmental coordination/collaboration for a number
of our programs and work areas. The OSD regional efforts have taken the
concept of Federal agency engagement to a new level.
national resource conservation service
12. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, in your 2009 Report to Congress submitted in accordance with
section 2684a(g) of title 10, U.S.C., you noted that the ability to
combine REPI funds with funds under the Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program (FRPP) of the Department of Agruiculture's Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) ``continues to reap great benefits for both
programs.'' It is my understanding that the DOD-NRCS partnership has
been critical to ongoing projects to protect Fort Sill, OK; Fort Riley,
KS; Fort Campbell, KY; and a consortium of bases in South Carolina, as
well as to other planned projects. However, I am advised that some
technical changes made to the FRPP program in the 2008 farm bill
threatens this collaboration and accordingly the projects to protect
those key installations. Would the ability to continue these successful
partnerships be helpful to your efforts to assure sustainability at
those installations and at others where such collaboration was planned?
Secretary Penn. Yes. The Regional Partnership concept has been a
leading force in improving interagency coordination and communication
at the Federal level as well as at the State level. The Navy operates,
tests, and trains over large areas of the United States. The ability to
bring all stakeholders together affords each the opportunity to broaden
our perspectives, share information, and hopefully identify mutually
agreeable solutions to land use compatibility issues. Regional
partnerships work to prevent encroachment around military lands and
provide a forum to discuss common issues such as urban sprawl, loss of
wildlife habitats, and sustainment of marine and coastal resources.
These partnerships provide a forum that allows the Navy to work
regionally on land use concerns that affect the sustainment of
readiness training, introduction of new mission requirements, and the
acquisition of new weapons systems. Through regional partnerships, the
Navy and DOD have been successful in establishing effective working
relationships with State and Federal agencies to guide State and
regional land use planning. For example, the Navy worked with the State
of North Carolina to identify working lands (farms and forests) whose
development would adversely affect the ability to meet military
readiness training requirements. This identification is leading to
mutual efforts to protect these working lands from development via
regional and local land use planning, and through the purchase of real
property rights to ensure these lands remain undeveloped.
Mr. Arny. The Department would welcome initiatives to preserve FRPP
support for DOD compatible land use partnerships. DOD partnerships with
NRCS are vital to ensure sustainability at installations such as Fort
Sill, Fort Riley, and Fort Campbell, and for others where such
collaboration was planned. NRCS involvement at Fort Sill was key to
buffering the installation's artillery training while also protecting
prime agricultural soils and providing economic benefits to landowners.
Particularly with economic hardship affecting many potential private
and State conservation partners, projects that anticipated
collaboration with NRCS, such as at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), CA, are
scrambling to replace FRPP funding, and matching State and local
funding will be further reduced. Without NRCS FRPP collaboration,
similar compatible land use partnerships that would work to ensure our
installations' sustainability will be at risk.
Mr. Calcara. Anny partnerships with NRCS are vital to ensure
sustainability at installations such as Forts Sill, Riley, and
Campbell, and for others where such collaboration was planned. NRCS
involvement at Fort Sill was key to buffering the installation's
artillery training while also protecting prime agricultural soils and
providing economic benefits to landowners. Particularly with economic
hardship affecting many potential private and State conservation
partners, projects that anticipated collaboration with NRCS are
scrambling to replace FRPP funding. Without NRCS FRPP collaboration,
similar compatible land use partnerships that would work to ensure our
installations' sustainability will be thrown into question, and the
Army welcomes Congress to act to ensure the continuation of FRPP
support for these partnerships.
Ms. Ferguson. The partnership with NRCS is important to
collaborative planning efforts. The Air Force has had several REPI
projects where FRPP funds were going to be part of the partner
contribution. Unfortunately the recent change in the 2008 farm bill has
resulted in impacts to Air Force REPI projects. For example, the
partner for the fiscal year 2009 Beale AFB project is now scrambling to
find funding. In addition, the economic downturn has dried up alternate
sources of funds so it is unclear what the loss of FRPP funds will mean
to this project. The ability to have these partnerships is an important
asset for partnering efforts.
interagency partnerships
13. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, in your 2009 Report to Congress submitted in accordance with
section 2684a(g) of title 10, U.S.C., you noted that consideration was
being given to ``initiatives to authorize even greater interagency
collaboration'' in actions to ensure compatible land use and range
sustainability. Would enhancements to your ability to form and
implement interagency partnerships at the Federal level and to pool
your resources with those of other Federal agencies help assure the
long range sustainability of your testing and training installations,
ranges, and airspace?
Secretary Penn. The enhanced ability to form and implement
interagency partnerships at the Federal level and to pool Federal
agency resources would greatly help assure the long range
sustainability of the Navy's testing and training installations,
ranges, and airspace. Federal level interagency partnerships would
promote more efficient and effective resource sharing and
decisionmaking, which would enable the Navy to better meet its mission
of installation, range, and airspace sustainability.
Mr. Arny. Enhancing our ability to form and implement interagency
partnerships at the Federal level, and to pool Federal agency
resources, would significantly assist in our efforts to ensure the
long-term sustainability and military value of our installations,
ranges, and airspace to support operations, testing, and training.
Facilitating interagency partnerships would allow for better resource
sharing and informed decisionmaking, which can help maintain military
readiness through installation, range, and airspace sustainability.
Coordination of land use protection policy and actions among Federal
agencies will be key to protecting the long-term viability of our
installations and ranges. Pooling Federal resources and providing
matching Federal funds would significantly extend the REPI program and
the Department's ability to leverage State, local, and private
resources, and achieve the greatest benefit from the use of REPI funds
to acquire restrictive easements to preserve conservation and buffer
lands.
Mr. Calcara. Yes. Enhancing our ability to form and implement
interagency partnerships at the Federal level, and to pool Federal
agency resources, would significantly assist us in our efforts to
ensure the long-term sustainability of our testing and training
installations. In particular, an authority enabling the Army to pool
funds with other agencies to fund with a one-time payment the perpetual
management of lands. Pooling Federal resources and providing matching
Federal funds would significantly extend the REPI program and the
Department's ability to leverage State, local, and private resources,
and achieve the greatest benefit from the use of REPI funds to acquire
restrictive easements to preserve conservation and buffer lands.
Ms. Ferguson. Long-term mission sustainability at our air
installations and ranges will benefit from enhancements to the ability
to form and implement interagency partnerships at the Federal and to
pool Federal agency resources. These kinds of partnerships would
enhance our ability to use the authority granted in 10 U.S.C., section
2684a.
climate change
14. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, section 951 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 directed DOD to
consider the effect of climate change on DOD facilities, capabilities,
and missions, and to include those assessments in the upcoming
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Are you participating in that review
with regard to the potential impacts of climate change on range
sustainability, especially for coastal installations like Camp Lejeune
and installations in arid regions such as the Mojave?
Secretary Penn. Yes, the Department of Navy is working with DOD
through the QDR to examine the capability to respond to the
consequences of climate change as tasked by section 951 of the 2008
NDAA. Specifically the Navy has established Task Force Climate Change
(TFCC) in May 2009 to develop a roadmap for Navy action regarding
climate change. The Marine Corps is planning and implementing projects
and activities that support their ability to meet and sustain the
mission of the Marine Corps. Examples of Marine Corps activities at
installations include: (1) wildfire preparation management; (2) water
conservation; (3) hurricane preparedness; and (4) natural resource
management.
Mr. Arny. Yes. The ongoing QDR is examining the capabilities of the
Armed Forces to respond to the consequences of climate change, in
particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather
events and other missions the Armed Forces may be asked to support
inside the United States and overseas, as tasked by section 951 of the
2008 NDAA. All of the military departments and numerous other DOD
agencies are participating in this effort. Some specific examples of
what DOD and the military departments are doing to address climate
change include:
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP). SERDP, DOD's environmental research program, has
initiated substantial work to understand and assess the impact
of climate change to DOD installations. Work is ongoing to
quantify the impacts of sea level rise, increased storm
intensity and frequency, and potential changes to the coast
line at DOD installations due to climate change. Areas of
particular focus include installations like Camp Lejeune, and
others in the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf Coast, and southern
California. This effort will both quantify the potential
impacts and their significance to the military mission. Work is
planned for fiscal year 2010 to assess multiple impacts to
installation in arid regions across the southwest including
installations in the Mojave desert. Information on these
efforts has been provided to the upcoming QDR.
Army
Army Water Sustainability Study: Climate change predictions
in the southeast and southwest United States indicate a
potential for more severe and extended drought conditions. This
ongoing study will evaluate the vulnerability of Army
installations to potential water shortages over the next 30
years.
Navy
Task Force Climate Change. The Navy established TFCC in May
2009. TFCC is chartered to develop a roadmap for Navy action
regarding the Arctic specifically, and climate change in
general.
Naval Studies Board Fiscal Year 2009 Study. Navy recently
sponsored a Naval Studies Board study on the National Security
Implications of Climate Change on U.S. Naval Forces (Navy,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard), to be completed late 2010.
Air Force
Climate Change Ongoing Reviews. To better understand both the
projected threats posed to Air Force operations by climate
change and the type of information that will be needed to
inform climate change-related policy decisions, the Air Force
has been monitoring public, private sector, and NGOs to
identify relevant studies and analyses. Information gleaned
from such analyses will inform future Air Force policy
decisions regarding appropriate management and adaptation
strategies.
Mr. Calcara. Yes. As part of our ongoing involvement in the QDR,
the Army is, as directed by section 951 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2008, using mid-range projections of climate change from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report
(2007) to determine the impacts of global climate change and their
implications for national security and examine the capabilities to
respond to the consequences of climate change inside the United States
and overseas. This assessment is ongoing for Army installations and
Army operational forces.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to OSD to answer questions on
climate change affecting the DOD.
15. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, Congress is now considering legislation to address climate
change, including provisions to establish and fund natural resource
adaptation plans and actions at the State level and at the Federal
agency level. Should DOD participate in such planning in order to
ensure that adaptation plans address DOD range sustainability?
Secretary Penn. Yes. Navy should participate in climate change
planning to ensure that adaptation plans address the long-term
sustainability of DOD's ranges and other testing and training areas and
other assets.
Mr. Arny. Yes, DOD should participate in such planning in order to
ensure that adaptation plans address the long-term sustainability of
DOD's ranges and other testing and training areas, and its natural
resources. DOD and the military departments are undertaking initial
efforts to address climate change issues. Some representative examples
of what DOD is doing to contribute to climate change adaptation efforts
include:
Office of the Secretary of Defense
DOD Legacy Resource Management Program (Legacy). The Legacy
program is investing in national and regional efforts that will
assist the Department in defining an adaptation strategy that
will support the long-term sustainability of its natural and
cultural resources. Current initiatives include:
A partnership with the National Wildlife Federation,
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal agencies
to develop a guidance manual that will summarize
currently available natural resource-focused
vulnerability assessment tools.
A Pacific Regional workshop in February 2010 that
will identify and prioritize potential management
strategies for listed and at-risk species expected to
be adversely affected by climate change.
A project to assess sea level rise scenarios on seven
North Carolina military installations in order to aid
decisionmaking regarding management of their natural
resources and infrastructure.
DOD's SERDP has initiated research and demonstration
activities related to climate change in terms of impact
assessment, adaptation, and mitigation.
During fiscal year 2009, SERDP initiated four
research projects focused on developing the methods,
tools, and models necessary for DOD installations to
assess the potential impacts of sea level rise and
associated storm surge phenomena on installation
infrastructure.
Also during fiscal year 2009, SERDP has initiated
natural resource-related research projects associated
with southeastern ecosystems that focus on potential
climate change impacts to shoreline bird populations,
test adaptation strategies for coastal marsh plant
communities, and incorporate climate change into
setting recovery objectives for southeastern ecological
systems.
Mr. Calcara. Yes, DOD and the military departments should
participate in such planning in order to ensure that climate change
adaptation plans for natural resources address the long-term
sustainability of DOD's ranges and training areas. Climate change and
the potential impacts to natural resources, especially those natural
resources regulated under the Endangered Species Act, are of special
concern to the Army. It is critical that the military be engaged in
natural resources climate change adaptation plans and actions at the
State level and at the Federal agency level to ensure the continued
sustainability of our training areas and ranges.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to OSD to answer questions
concerning DOD range sustainability.
16. Senator Udall. Secretary Penn, Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms.
Ferguson, would provisions to allow better integration of Federal
efforts with regard to natural resource adaptation planning and
implementation be helpful in your ability to respond to the impacts of
climate change?
Secretary Penn. The integration of global observation networks,
content standards, indicators, and baseline information related to
global climate change would assist the Department of Navy with
vulnerability assessments for national security. Initiatives for data
sharing and research among and between Federal agencies, academia,
National Academy of Science, and others would be beneficial. Although
still evaluating what our specific natural resource adaptation planning
and implementation actions will encompass, Federal agencies are, on a
national scale, addressing emissions of greenhouse gases by reductions
mandated in Federal laws and Executive orders, most recently, Executive
Order 13423. While the Navy has not identified substantial impediments
to integration of Federal efforts in response to the impacts of climate
change, provisions highlighting the cooperation of Federal agencies,
promoting the exchange of relevant information, and fostering
integration of Federal agency efforts would be a welcome addition to
our ability to respond the challenges associated with climate change.
Mr. Arny. DOD currently is taking steps to integrate its efforts,
both internally and with other agencies. For example, DOD is working
with the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change to develop an
administration approach to climate change challenges. Since the mid-
1990s, DOD and the military departments have incorporated into their
approach to land and water management the principles of ecosystem-based
management including one of its key tenets, adaptive management. These
approaches not only have led to sustainable use of natural resources to
support mission needs and meet stewardship requirements, but also may
contribute to ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change.
Maintaining ecosystem resilience is a key adaptation strategy given the
uncertainty of potential impacts.
The ongoing QDR is examining the capabilities of the Armed Forces
to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular,
preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events and
other missions the Armed Forces may be asked to support inside the
United States and overseas, as tasked by section 951 of the 2008 NDAA.
All of the military departments and numerous other DOD agencies are
participating in this effort.
Provisions to better integrate these and other DOD efforts with
other Federal efforts would be mutually beneficial.
Mr. Calcara. Yes. Provisions to better integrate all Federal
efforts with regard to natural resource climate change adaptation
planning and implementation would be mutually beneficial. Natural
resources climate change adaptation planning is best addressed in a
comprehensive manner at a regional landscape/ecosystem scale that
transcends the boundaries of any specific Federal facility. A multi-
agency coordinated effort to establish standardized climate change
vulnerability assessment methods and risk-based adaptation plans for
natural resources could ensure best science is used, all critical
agency missions are addressed, and create an economy of scale for such
plans and responses.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to OSD to answer questions
pertaining to natural resource adaptation planning and impacts of
climate change.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Burr
relocation of marines to guam
17. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, I have a few questions about the
2005 agreement between the United States Government and the Government
of Japan to relocate 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam. The agreement
was reaffirmed in February 2009 and the budget request for 2010
includes $378 million to start construction of facilities.
Aside from a basic estimate of over $4.0 billion for the U.S.
investment, does the Navy have a detailed current estimate of costs to
U.S. taxpayers to complete this initiative, including one-time
construction costs and additional annual base operations costs? If so,
can you provide exactly what these costs will be? If so, are these
costs based on the results of a master plan (MP) that details the
actual facilities that will be constructed?
Secretary Penn. Cost estimates, including annual base operations
costs, to implement the Realignment Roadmap will not be available until
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and MP are completed in 2010.
Unique to the negotiated timeline and circumstances of the Realignment
Roadmap, the master planning process and efforts to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are ongoing simultaneously and
inform one another. Until the EIS and MP are completed, the original
$10.2 billion cost estimate, with Japan contributing $6.09 billion and
the United States contributing $4.18 billion, remains valid.
18. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, are these costs captured in the
current Navy Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to accompany the 2010
budget?
Secretary Penn. We have captured a portion of those costs in the
fiscal year 2010 President's budget submit, but as the DOD Comptroller
has testified in other hearings, DOD does not have a fiscal year 2010
FYDP that is consistent with current administration policy.
environmental impact statement for guam
19. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, the EIS to support the move of
8,000 marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam is ongoing, but I
know the Marine Corps has particular concerns with their ability to
train in Guam. Are you aware of the concerns raised by the Marine Corps
about the current plan for both individual marine training on Guam and
collective training in the region?
Secretary Penn. The Guam Military Buildup EIS covers individual
skills training to support marines relocating to Guam in support of the
Realignment Roadmap. Ranges planned on Guam and on DOD-leased land in
Tinian in support of these relocating forces offer the opportunity for
individual combat skills training. Transient units, whether United
States, joint, or coalition, would have the opportunity to fall in on
these ranges for individual skills sustainment training.
The Department is well aware of and is planning for the Marine
Corps' longer-term vision to address deficiencies with integrated,
combined arms, collective-skills training in the Pacific region beyond
what will be delivered as part of the Guam Military Buildup Program.
These Marine Corps and other Service training requirements in the
Pacific theater are being addressed in the current QDR process.
20. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, what is the Navy doing to address
these concerns?
Secretary Penn. Marine Corps and other Service training
requirements in the Pacific theater, beyond individual skills training,
are being addressed in the current QDR process, and will be considered
as part of future budget submissions.
21. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, how are the Marine Corps'
training needs being evaluated and included in the EIS process
supporting the move to Guam?
Secretary Penn. The Realignment Roadmap agreement between the
United States and Japan designates the specific Marine Corps units to
relocate from Okinawa to Guam. The Guam Military Buildup EIS is based
on these units and covers the individual skills training necessary to
support individual level readiness for these Marines. Other
requirements for unit-level, collective-skills training, and the
sustainment of Marine Air-Ground Task Force core competencies and
readiness in the Pacific are being addressed in the QDR.
22. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, does the Navy consider the
establishment of adequate training resources for marines on Guam and in
the Mariana Islands to be a ``showstopper'' for the movement of marines
to Guam?
Secretary Penn. The inability for Marine units to sustain
operational readiness would be a ``showstopper'' in the relocation to
Guam. However, the Navy is committed to ensuring marines on Guam will
have access to training necessary to sustain readiness. The Navy
considers readiness of Marine units in the Pacific to be of the highest
priority.
Our current plan provides individual-skills training on Guam. Unit-
level, collective-skills training requirements are currently being
studied in the QDR.
23. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, the agreement between the two
governments stipulates that ``tangible progress'' must be made towards
completion of a Futenma Replacement Facility on Okinawa. Has the
Governor of Okinawa approved the necessary environmental review actions
needed to start building the Futenma replacement facility?
Secretary Penn. No. The environmental review actions are ongoing.
The Government of Japan, following its sovereign regulatory process,
released the draft Environmental Impact Assessment for the Futenma
Replacement Facility in April 2009.
24. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, what is the status of starting
construction of the replacement facility and when will it be completed?
Secretary Penn. On-land construction for those Camp Schwab
facilities required in advance of the runway began in June 2008. The
Government of Japan has authorized and appropriated $323 million to
continue construction in the current Japanese fiscal year (April 2009-
March 2010). We have been informed by the Japanese Government that
their objective is to complete the replacement facility in 2014.
25. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, do you see funding or other
concerns from the Japanese Government or from the United States that
give you concerns about the timeframe for completing the move?
Secretary Penn. DOD received Government of Japan funds in the
amount of $336 million on July 27, 2009, to support construction on
Guam in accordance with the Realignment Roadmap. I urge Congress to now
demonstrate the U.S. commitment to the Roadmap by approving our fiscal
year 2010 MILCON budget request of $378 million in fiscal year 2010.
Failure to authorize and appropriate a comparable amount for fiscal
year 2010 will place the Japanese $6 billion financial commitment to
Guam at high risk. Furthermore, delays resulting from deferral of
funding requirements into future years or reductions to the program,
will only serve to increase the total cost of the Realignment to the
United States and extend the time required to complete the move.
future years defense plan
26. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms. Ferguson, the
Senate has traditionally used the FYDP to assess the validity of MILCON
projects requested by Members to be inserted into the defense bill. On
May 15, 2009, the OSD Comptroller issued guidance to each Service
Secretary titled ``Congressional Add Requests Guidance,'' which
specified the only questions to be answered in response to a review of
a Member request. I'd like to enter this letter into the record. Has
each Service adhered to this guidance in response to queries about
MILCON projects? If not, where has each Service deviated from the
guidance and why?
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Arny. The Services adhered to the Congressional Add Requests
Guidance issued by the OSD (Comptroller) in May.
Mr. Calcara. The Army complied with the Congressional Add Requests
Guidance when received from OSD(C) in late May. Prior to receipt of
this guidance, Army used the normal screening process for MILCON add
requests.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force has strictly adhered to the guidance
provided and only provided MILCON information in accordance with Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and OSD directives.
military family housing in korea
27. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, regarding Army housing at Camp
Humphreys, what is the current status of the Army initiative to partner
with a private developer for the construction and operation of housing
for U.S. military personnel and their families?
Mr. Calcara. The project is on schedule to conduct the financial
and real property closing for the first phase of Humphreys Housing
Opportunity Project (HHOP) in the fall of 2009. The Army and HFC, (the
developer) completed a ``mock closing'' July 7-9, 2009, and have
finalized virtually all of the complex transactional documents. HFC is
currently making good progress in negotiations with the Republic of
Korea to obtain important assurances concerning the long-term
utilization of property at U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Humphreys. The
developers' financial team of Merrill Lynch and Bank of America are
finalizing underwriting and due diligence requirements in order to
obtain the approximately $750 million phase-one loan.
28. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, what is the schedule for
construction?
Mr. Calcara. The Army interprets this question to relate to the
HHOP at USAG Humphreys. HHOP construction is divided into two phases:
HHOP 1 and HHOP 2. Each construction phase is approximately 30 months
long. HHOP 1 is presently scheduled to begin construction in the fall
of 2009 and begin occupancy lease up in the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
year 2012 timeframe to coincide with unit moves under the Yongsan
Relocation Plan. HHOP 2 is currently planned to begin construction in
the fall of fiscal year 2011 with occupancy and lease up in fiscal year
2013-fiscal year 2014.
29. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, what is the total number of units
currently planned to be constructed and the estimated total cost for
the housing?
Mr. Calcara. The Army interprets this question to relate to the
HHOP at USAG Humphreys. The HHOP developer, HFC, will construct a total
of 2,427 units in a mix of 3, 4, and 5 bedroom floor plans. Of the
2,427 units, 1,416 will be constructed on a parcel designated as HHOP 1
and 1,011 units will be constructed on a nearby parcel designated as
HHOP 2. The HHOP 2 parcel has capacity for an additional 700+ units if
requested; however, the Army's current requirement is satisfied with
the 2,427 units. The total development budget for HHOP is approximately
$1.3 billion sourced from developer equity and private sector
financing.
30. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, I note that, in the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2009, $125 million was requested for the
construction of 216 units in the first phase of family housing in
Korea. Has this project been awarded? If not, what is the status of
this project?
Mr. Calcara. The fiscal year 2009 project was awarded on June 26,
2009, at a cost of $124.9 million to construct three towers with 204
housing units.
property disposal for defense base closures
31. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, I have a concern regarding the subject
of the 2005 BRAC, specifically, the current policy on the disposal of
property. DOD is authorized to dispose of BRAC property using a range
of methods from transfers to another Federal agency to public benefit
conveyances or public sales. DOD has the choice to convey property to
local redevelopment agencies representing communities affected by BRAC
for the purpose of economic development. From your testimony, DOD
assesses the needs of the local community and the intended use of the
property in determining the amount of compensation to be received in
exchange for the economic development conveyance (EDC). You can receive
an amount for the EDC that may range from fair market value to an
amount less than fair market, to no cost to the conveyee, depending on
the local economic conditions. What is the current policy of DOD
regarding compensation for EDCs?
Mr. Arny. Under applicable regulations at 32 CFR 174.10, the
Secretary of the military department will review the application for an
EDC and negotiate terms and conditions of each transaction with the
Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). The Secretary has discretion and
flexibility to enter into agreements that specify the form of payment
and schedule. The consideration may be in cash or in-kind and may be
paid over time. Any amount paid in the future should take into account
the time, value of money, and include repayment of interest.
The Secretary concerned shall seek to obtain consideration at least
equal to the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary. An EDC
without consideration may be made if----
(1) The LRA agrees that the proceeds from any sale or lease of
the property (or any portion thereof) received by the LRA
during at least the first 7 years after the date of the initial
transfer of property shall be used to support economic
redevelopment of, or related to, the installation; and
(2) The LRA executes the agreement for transfer of the
property and accepts control of the property within a
reasonable time after the date of the property disposal
decision.
32. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, does the Department have a position on
proposed language by the House Armed Services Committee that would
redefine the roles of EDCs and eliminates fair market value
negotiations between eligible parties and DOD prior to conveyance?
Mr. Arny. The Department strongly opposes House section 2711
because it would mandate that all EDCs be at no-cost. Current law and
implementing policy allows DOD to convey property at closed
installations at fair market value or at no-cost, depending on the
particular circumstances. The Department further opposes this provision
because it changes the basic structure of EDCs such that they would be
available for redevelopment that may not produce any long-term job
generation. Such a change, when coupled with the requirement that the
transfer be at no cost, would likely lead to subordinating all other
conveyance mechanisms to this new and ambiguous method. The cumulative
effect of these proposed changes diminishes the connection to job
creation, makes it easier for LRAs to `flip' valuable properties they
obtain at no-cost for profits that can be used for purposes unrelated
to redevelopment of the property, and diminishes potential property
disposal returns to Federal taxpayers. This section would create
potential windfalls for certain communities with high value property,
and for private sector developers working with those communities, at
the expense of other communities where DOD might otherwise be able to
accelerate environmental cleanup using property disposal proceeds. It
creates unbalanced incentives for LRAs to seek free conveyance under
this authority of any BRAC property that has commercial market value,
leaving less valuable, less desirable property for DOD to try to
dispose using public benefit conveyance authorities or other methods.
DOD experience conveying over 400,000 acres of BRAC real property to
date suggests that the current array of property conveyance
authorities, including both cost and no-cost EDCs, provides appropriate
flexibility to properly address the range of needs and circumstances
encountered at closing installations and the communities that have
hosted them. This provision would prevent the Department from tailoring
the disposal method to meet the needs and circumstances of each local
community.
33. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, what is your opinion on a proposal to
require the compensation to the U.S. Government for an EDC to rely on
actual market returns realized at the completion of the development as
opposed to a negotiated amount?
Mr. Arny. Current applicable statute and implementing regulations
provide the military departments with flexibility to negotiate the
terms and conditions of each transaction with the LRA. The military
department has discretion and flexibility to enter into agreements that
specify the form of payment and the schedule. The consideration may be
in cash or in-kind, and may be paid over time. A proposal to require
the compensation for an EDC to take a specific form, such as reliance
on actual market returns realized at the completion of the development,
may not fit every situation and would diminish the Department's ability
to negotiate agreements that tailor the form and timing of payment
depending on the unique needs and circumstances at each location.
34. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, are you currently considering
applications for no-cost conveyances for the 2005 round of BRAC?
Mr. Arny. At many BRAC 2005 locations, LRAs are still in the
process of preparing and obtaining approval of their redevelopment
plans, so the Department has only received two EDC applications at BRAC
2005 locations to date. One of those applications proposes to pay
consideration, and the other seeks conveyance at no-cost. We anticipate
additional EDC applications as more LRAs complete and obtain approval
of their redevelopment plans.
35. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, with what considerations are you
evaluating these applications?
Mr. Arny. Under regulations published at 32 CFR 174.9, the military
departments consider the following factors, as appropriate, in
evaluating an EDC application and the terms and conditions of the
proposed transfer, including price, time of payment, and other relevant
methods of compensation to the Federal Government:
(1) Adverse economic impact of closure or realignment on the
region and potential for economic recovery through an EDC.
(2) Extent of short- and long-term job generation.
(3) Consistency with the entire redevelopment plan.
(4) Financial feasibility of the development, including market
analysis and need, and extent of proposed infrastructure and
other investments.
(5) Extent of State and local investment, level of risk
incurred, and the LRA's ability to implement the plan.
(6) Current local and regional real estate market conditions.
(7) Incorporation of other Federal agency interests and
concerns, and applicability of, and conflicts with, other
Federal surplus property disposal authorities.
(8) Relationship to the overall military department disposal
plan for the installation.
(9) Economic benefit to the Federal Government, including
protection and maintenance cost savings and anticipated
consideration from the transfer.
(10) Compliance with applicable Federal, State, interstate,
and local laws and regulations.
36. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, what would be the impact to DOD
programs if you were required to convey all property under EDC
authorities at no cost?
Mr. Arny. Conveying all property under EDC authorities at no cost
would create potential windfalls for certain communities with higher
value property, and for private sector developers working with those
communities, at the expense of other communities where DOD might
otherwise be able to accelerate environmental cleanup using property
disposal proceeds. It creates unbalanced incentives for LRAs to seek
free conveyance under this authority of any BRAC property that has
commercial market value, leaving less valuable, less desirable property
for DOD to try to dispose using public benefit conveyance authorities
or other methods. This provision would prevent the Department from
tailoring the disposal method and terms to meet the needs and
circumstances of each local community.
37. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, would the Department still consider the
EDC program a sensible way to dispose of BRAC property?
Mr. Arny. If DOD were required to convey all property under EDC
authorities at no cost, the EDC program would remain a sensible way to
dispose of BRAC property in those cases in which, after consideration
of the EDC evaluation factors published at 32 CFR 174.9, a military
department determines that a no-cost EDC is appropriate based on the
location-specific facts and circumstances. DOD believes, however, that
requiring all EDCs to be at no-cost would create unbalanced incentives
for LRAs to seek free conveyance under this authority of any BRAC
property that has commercial market value, regardless of whether their
particular situation merits that approach, leaving less valuable, less
desirable property for DOD to try to dispose using public benefit
conveyance authorities or other methods. Such a requirement would
prevent the Department from tailoring the disposal method and terms to
meet the needs and circumstances of each local community.
unexploded ordnance clean-up
38. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, clean-up of unexploded ordnance (UXO)
at DOD's active installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) is
a huge task estimated to cost almost $20.0 billion. DOD's funding
levels, even after years of increases by Congress, would require
decades to complete the job. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007 required DOD
to meet its own goals to complete preliminary assessments at all active
bases and FUDS by fiscal year 2007; complete site inspections (SIs) at
those places by fiscal year 2010; and achieve a remedy in place or
response complete (RIP/RC) by the end of fiscal year 2009 at all bases
and installations closed under prior rounds of BRAC before 2005. What
is the current status of achieving these legislative mandates?
Mr. Arny. The Department has completed preliminary assessments for
95 percent of munitions response sites (MRSs) at active installations
and 99 percent of MRSs at FUDS. The Department has completed SIs for 51
percent of MRSs at active installations and 58 percent of MRSs at FUDS.
The Department has achieved RIP/RC at 67 percent of MRSs at all bases
and installations closed under prior rounds of BRAC before 2005.
39. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, what firm date has been established for
clean-up of property closed by the 2005 round of BRAC?
Mr. Arny. The clean-up remedy, for UXO, will be in place for all
BRAC 2005 installations by 2017.
40. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, last year's section 313 report
estimated that the cost to clean up UXO at all active installations and
FUDS was $17.8 billion and that another $902 million would be required
to clean up UXO at bases and installations closed by all five rounds of
BRAC. Last year's report provided no estimated date when all active
installations, FUDS, and BRAC sites would be completed. What are the
cost-to-completion estimates this year?
Mr. Arny. The estimated cost to complete clean-up, including long-
term management (LTM), at the Department's MRSs on active installations
and FUDS is $18.4 billion. The estimated cost to complete clean-up,
including LTM, at the Department's MRSs on BRAC installations is $972
million.
41. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, what is the projected date by which all
UXO clean-up will be completed?
Mr. Arny. The Department has established the following goals to
measure cleanup progress at its MRSs:
Achieve RIP/RC at all MRSs at Active installations by the end
of fiscal year 2020.
Achieve RIP/RC at all MRSs at Legacy BRAC installations (i.e.
BRAC I (1988), BRAC II (1991), BRAC III (1993), BRAC IV (1995))
by the end of fiscal year 2009.
Achieve RIP/RC at all MRSs at BRAC 2005 installations by the
end of fiscal year 2017.
The Department projects that it will achieve RIP/RC at 95 percent
of MRSs at active installations by the end of fiscal year 2017; 69 MRSs
are not projected to meet the goal. The Department projects that it
will achieve RIP/RC at 95 percent of MRSs at Legacy BRAC installations
by the end of fiscal year 2016; 15 MRSs are not projected to meet the
goal. The Department projects that it will achieve RIP/RC at 95 percent
of MRSs at BRAC 2005 installations by the end of fiscal year 2015;
three MRSs are not expected to meet the goal.
At this time, the Department has not established a goal for the
completion of FUDS MRSs. We have deferred establishing this goal until
the FUDS MRSs have been more fully characterized. The more complete
information we have on each MRS, the more accurately we can set a
challenging goal for the entire inventory of FUDS MRSs.
42. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, could Congress accelerate the time it
will take to complete these clean-ups by increasing funding? If so,
where could increased funding be best used?
Mr. Arny. No, for active DOD installation MMRP projects increased
funding will not accelerate the time it will take to complete cleanup
at MRSs, because there are certain requirements inherent in the clean-
up process that cannot be influenced by funding. For example, the
Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP), published as a
final Federal regulation on October 5, 2005, codified at 32 CFR Part
179, was developed to assign a relative priority to each MRS, based on
potential hazards and site conditions, to sequence sites for
remediation and funding. One of the Department's policies identified in
the MRSPP (at 32 CFR 179.4) is to ensure that the EPA, other Federal
agencies, State regulatory agencies, tribal governments, local
restoration advisory boards or technical review committees, and local
stakeholders are offered opportunities to participate in the
application of the MRSPP. These stakeholders are also involved in
making sequencing recommendations, and are provided the opportunity to
review and comment when sequencing changes are proposed, as well as
throughout the process of MRS investigation, remedy selection, and
clean-up. Additionally, the munitions response program is a complex and
technically challenging remediation program that must carefully
consider explosive safety risks within the Federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
response action process. While removal actions can address certain
immediate hazards, long-term remedial action for MRSs with public
access may not lend itself to quick or accelerated solutions.
clean-up of formerly used defense sites
43. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, for the last several years, Congress
has increased the funding for clean-up of FUDS. For example, the
President's budget for fiscal year 2008 was $250 million--an amount
lower than the $254 million appropriated by Congress for fiscal year
2007. Congress increased the amount for FUDS in fiscal year 2008 to
$270 million, an increase of $20 million over the President's budget.
How much has the Department requested for FUDS clean-up for fiscal year
2009?
Mr. Arny. The Department follows an established budgeting process
to allocate funds for cleanup at FUDS and other defense sites. DOD
components plan, program, and budget resources to meet the goals and
objectives developed for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program
(DERP). The DOD components use these goals and objectives to guide
investment decisions and set restoration targets for each fiscal year.
Each program may be adjusted based on site level data, goals, and
objectives. The President's budget request for the FUDS program each
year reflects this analysis.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
-------------------------------
2007 2008 2009 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Budget Request.............. $243 $250 $258 $268
Appropriated............................ $263 $286 $292
------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, how long will it take to clean up FUDS
at the level of funding in the President's budget?
Mr. Arny. The Department projects that it will meet its goal of
achieving RIP/RC at 99 percent of all hazardous substance sites at FUDS
by the end of fiscal year 2020. The Department also projects that it
will achieve its goal of completing SIs at 79 percent of MRSs by the
end of fiscal year 2010; the remaining SIs will be completed by the end
of fiscal year 2013. Once the SIs have been completed, the Department
will have a more accurate picture of the clean-up requirements at the
MRSs on FUDS, and be better able to forecast clean-up requirements for
military munition response sites.
45. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, if Congress increased the funding level
for FUDS clean-up, could the Department effectively use the money to
increase the level of effort and shorten the time line for completion?
Mr. Arny. No. The Department provides adequate funding to complete
FUDS conventional contamination clean-up by the end of fiscal year
2020. The Department also provides adequate funding to complete SIs at
MRSs on FUDS. Once these SIs are completed, the Department will have a
more accurate picture of munitions response requirements, and will
review funding levels to ensure they are sufficient for completing
environmental restoration in a timely manner.
superfund sites
46. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms. Ferguson, during
2008, DOD was involved in a significant dispute with the EPA over
cleaning up DOD Superfund sites and related Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreements for DOD installations, particularly those of the
Army and Air Force. Where are we now on the bases that were the subject
of the Superfund clean-up dispute with EPA? How many bases were at
issue?
Mr. Arny. Four DOD installations--Air Force Plant 44, AZ; McGuire
AFB, NJ; Tyndall AFB, FL; and Fort Meade, MD--were the subject of the
dispute with the EPA. The Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for Fort
Meade was signed by the EPA, Army, Department of Interior, and the
Architect of the Capitol on June 19, 2009, and is currently in the a
45-day public comment period. The Air Force is in the process of
finalizing negotiations with EPA on the FFA for McGuire AFB. The FFAs
for Air Force Plant 44 and Tyndall AFB are currently being drafted with
EPA and the respective State.
Mr. Calcara. The Army had two installations that did not have
signed FFAs--Fort George G. Meade and Redstone Arsenal. The Fort Meade
FFA was signed by the EPA, Army, Department of the Interior, and the
Architect of the Capitol on June 19, 2009. The Redstone Arsenal FFA is
currently being discussed between the EPA and the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM), which has issued a permit to the Army
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
corresponding Alabama statute to regulate the clean-up of Redstone
Arsenal. Once those regulators determine their roles and
responsibilities, the Army will be able to negotiate a final FFA. There
was no dispute over clean-up at either of these installations.
Investigation and clean-up efforts continued in cooperation with EPA
and the State regulators during the dispute over the content of the
FFA, and we are making good progress. In April 2009, Fort Detrick was
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Although the law does not
require the Army to begin negotiations of all FFA for Fort Detrick at
this time, the Army and EPA have discussed scheduling the negotiation
of this FFA in the near future.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to OSD to answer questions on
clean-up of DOD Superfund sites.
47. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms. Ferguson, at one
point, Maryland was threatening to bring a lawsuit against DOD to force
compliance with the cleanup at Fort Meade. What has happened?
Mr. Arny. In December 2008, the State of Maryland sued the Army to
enforce the RCRA Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA in 2007
for Fort Meade. Pursuant to agreements between the United States and
Maryland, the Court has extended the time for an answer to be filed
until October 19, 2009. EPA has agreed to withdraw the RCRA Order when
the FFA is finalized, which is currently expected to be in October of
this year. The Army, EPA, Department of Interior, and Architect of the
Capitol signed the FFA on June 19, 2009. The FFA public comment period
was initiated on July 3, 2009, and will run for 45 days. After an
additional period to consider any public comments the FFA will be
final.
Mr. Calcara. In December 2008, the State of Maryland sued to
enforce the RCRA Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA in 2007.
Pursuant to agreements between the United States and Maryland, the
Court has extended the time for an answer to be filed until October 19,
2009. The EPA will withdraw the RCRA Order when the FFA is finalized,
which is currently expected to be in October of this year. The Army
expects Maryland to dismiss the lawsuit when the FFA is finalized. The
FFA public comment period began on July 3, 2009, and will run for 45
days. After an additional period to consider any public comments, the
parties to the FFA will decide if it requires any changes or can become
final in its current form.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to the Army on questions
pertaining to Fort Meade.
48. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms. Ferguson, how many
DOD installations that are on the Superfund list still do not have the
details of the required clean-up worked out in a Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement with the EPA?
Mr. Arny. DOD has 141 installations listed on the EPA's NPL, 132
have signed interagency agreements, commonly referred to as FFAs.
During negotiations the appropriate clean-up details will be
incorporated into the FFA.
Two of the nine installations without signed FFAs are Army
installations--Redstone Arsenal, AL; and Fort Detrick, MD. The EPA,
Army, and ADEM are currently negotiating the FFA for Redstone Arsenal.
Fort Detrick was listed on the NPL in April 2009, and negotiations for
the FFA have not been initiated.
The seven remaining installations without signed FFAs are Air Force
installations--Air Force Plant 44, AZ; Andrews AFB, MD; Brandywine
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office, MD; Hanscom AFB, MA;
Langley AFB, VA; McGuire AFB, NJ; and Tyndall AFB, FL. All seven FFAs
have been drafted and are in various stages of review within DOD, or
are being negotiated with EPA.
Mr. Calcara. Discussions regarding an FFA for Redstone Arsenal
between EPA, the ADEM, and the Army are taking place. The clean-up work
at Redstone Arsenal is currently regulated under an ADEM RCRA permit
that provides for the details of all required response actions, subject
to ADEM approval. In April 2009, Fort Detrick was placed on the NPL.
Although the law does not require the Army and EPA to begin negotiation
of an FFA for Fort Detrick at this time, the Army and EPA have
discussed scheduling the negotiation of this FFA in the near future.
For all of these installations, the details of the clean-up work have
been fully coordinated with EPA, the State regulators, and the public
for many years, and that will continue for the remaining clean-up
actions.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to OSD to answer questions
pertaining to DOD installations on the Superfund list.
49. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, Mr. Calcara, and Ms. Ferguson, do any
of the clean ups of DOD sites on the Superfund list require additional
funding in fiscal year 2010 in addition to that being sought in the
President's budget to remain on schedule to achieve the required clean-
up levels?
Mr. Arny. No additional funding is required in fiscal year 2010 to
ensure DOD sites remain on schedule to achieve required clean-up
levels. Many of the remaining hazardous substance sites have complex
clean-up requirements that will take several years to complete. DOD has
appropriately planned, programmed, and budgeted for these sites to meet
its clean-up objectives.
Mr. Calcara. No additional environmental restoration funding is
needed in fiscal year 2010 for the Army installation NPL sites. The
Army has planned, programmed, and budgeted an adequate amount for the
remaining necessary clean-up work.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to OSD to answer questions
pertaining to additional funds needed for clean-up of DOD sites on the
Superfund list.
navy litigation over sonar
50. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, what is the status of the Navy's
litigation with California over sonar training in the crucial Southern
California at-sea training ranges?
Secretary Penn. We need to distinguish between the two cases that
challenged Navy training in Southern California. In March 2007, the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other plaintiffs first
filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California challenging major exercises in Southern California under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act and NEPA. NRDC argued that the Navy
should have completed a longer EIS rather than the 293-page
environmental assessment it prepared before deciding to conduct a
series of 14 major certification exercises off Southern California
during the period from January 2007 through January 2009. NRDC sought a
preliminary injunction pending the outcome of its challenge. In a
companion case, the California Coastal Commission, an independent State
agency, then filed a challenge related solely to alleged violations of
the Coastal Zone Management Act. The State of California never filed a
lawsuit on these issues and never participated in these lawsuits.
While these two cases involve different statutes, both challenges
involve concerns over impacts of sonar use on marine mammals during
training activities in Southern California and mitigation measures
which, if implemented, would have seriously threatened the Navy's
ability to train effectively.
In the NRDC case, the District Court granted an injunction
completely prohibiting the use of mid-frequency active sonar (MFAS)
during these exercises. After several appeals and more decisions by the
District Court, during which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled that the original injunction was too broad, the complete
injunction was superceded by an injunction that included six
restrictions on use of MFAS during these exercises. Because this
tailored injunction still threatened the Navy's ability to train
effectively, the Navy appealed, focusing on two of the six restrictions
that imposed the most serious threats to the Navy's ability to train.
These two restrictions involved a condition known as ``surface
ducting'' and another that related to the size of the zone around the
sonar that would require reduced sonar power or complete shutdown (the
``shutdown zone'') in the event a marine mammal was sighted.
Specifically, the Navy determined that the surface ducting condition
would ``unreasonably prevent realistic training'' and the shutdown zone
would ``result in a significant, adverse impact to realistic
training.'' The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Navy a writ of
certiorari, and expedited the arguments based on the time-critical
nature of the training. In November 2008, the Supreme Court held that
the district court applied the incorrect standard for issuing a
preliminary injunction and vacated the preliminary injunction as it
applied to these two restrictions. Following this favorable U.S.
Supreme Court decision, the California Coastal Commission dismissed its
case against the Navy in December 2008.
The Navy completed the last of the challenged exercises in December
2008. In January 2009, the Navy completed the Southern California Range
Complex EIS and the National Marine Fisheries Service issued the
necessary incidental take authorizations under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and Endangered Species Act necessary for similar
exercises to continue in the future and Navy has continued to train. In
April 2009, the District Court dismissed NRDC's underlying cause of
action as moot.
51. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, are you satisfied that the Navy
can train effectively using active sonar not only in California, but in
all other training locations, such as off Hawaii?
Secretary Penn. At this time, the Navy can conduct effective
training with MFAS on U.S. training ranges such as those located in
Southern California, Hawaii, and east coast range complexes running
from Virginia to northern Florida. There is the potential, however, for
litigation imposed restrictions and additional regulatory requirements
that could adversely affect Navy's ability to train effectively in the
future. Further restrictions that interfere with the Navy's ability to
train effectively for the Navy's number one threat--quiet enemy
submarines--may require the Navy, at some point in the future, to
return to Congress for assistance.
Over the past 5 years, Navy has expended significant effort
preparing environmental planning documentation and has been proactively
engaged in permitting actions and consultations with cognizant Federal
regulatory agencies, regarding training activities on its major
training and testing ranges. Planning, permitting, and consultations
for the remaining testing and training ranges is scheduled for
completion in late calendar year 2010. The Navy has been working
closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service to complete the
permitting and consultation processes.
The Navy continues to face other environmental challenges in
fulfilling its statutory mandate to organize, train, and equip naval
forces for combat due to other environmental laws, specifically with
regard to requirements of the NEPA, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
and the Endangered Species Act. Over the past several years, the Navy
defended itself against four separate lawsuits wherein plaintiffs,
relying on these environmental laws, sought to impose additional
training restrictions on the Navy's use of MFAS that would
significantly degrade military readiness. Without the U.S. Supreme
Court's action in one case, Navy training would have been subject to
the full impact of a District Court's preliminary injunction that could
have precluded our ability to properly train and certify our forces,
significantly increasing risk to our sailors and jeopardizing our
national security. This case was vital to our Nation's security and the
combat readiness of the U.S. Navy. In a separate lawsuit challenging
Navy's worldwide MFAS training and testing, Navy and six environmental
groups settled the case without imposing additional training
restrictions but only after lengthy, expensive litigation. Favorable
resolution of these cases, however, does not necessarily represent the
end of such challenges that would prevent Navy from training and
testing effectively with MFAS. Continued challenges could result in
additional restrictions that would serve as the baseline upon which
even more stringent restrictions could be imposed during subsequent
litigation or by inclusion in permitting and consultation requirements.
Further restrictions may necessitate the Navy's returning to Congress
for assistance.
eis for f-35 lightning
52. Senator Burr. Ms. Ferguson, as a result of a BRAC 2005
decision, Eglin AFB, FL, was to be the Joint Initial Training Site for
the F-35. The ongoing EIS to support the BRAC decision for basing joint
initial training on the F-35 at Eglin has been threatened by
controversy over the amount of noise the F-35 will produce and its
impact on the local community. Litigation has threatened to delay the
ability to stand up the training squadrons for the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps by the BRAC implementation deadline of September 2011.
What is the status of the EIS for the F-35 Joint Initial Training Site
at Eglin and what is the Air Force doing to ensure the ability to train
on this new aircraft is available on time?
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force completed an EIS for the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) Initial Joint Training Site in October 2008. The EIS
evaluated the basing of 107 F-35 Primary Assigned Aircraft (PAA). Based
on further consideration of potential noise impacts, mitigation
measures, and public comments, the Air Force signed a Record of
Decision in February 2009 allowing delivery of 59 F-35 PAA with flight
operation limitations until the completion of a Supplemental EIS
(SEIS).
The Air Force is still working toward a goal of basing 107 F-35 PAA
at Eglin. However, the SEIS will analyze the beddown and operational
alternatives and mitigations for a full complement of the 59 F-35 PAA
to include potential impacts of moving beyond 59 aircraft, to include
the additional 48 aircraft. The SEIS is expected to be completed in
September 2010.
53. Senator Burr. Ms. Ferguson, the process of evaluating other
training and operational squadron sites for the new F-35 has begun, but
the start of a formal EIS process has been delayed from the planned
original start date in early 2009. When will the EIS process start for
training and operational bases for the F-35?
Ms. Ferguson. We will begin the formal environmental analysis and
conduct public meetings with communities around the candidate bases
this fall.
54. Senator Burr. Ms. Ferguson, what criteria are being evaluated
to determine the range of potential alternative sites?
Ms. Ferguson. The criteria is being finalized now and our plan is
to make it available through a briefing to all interested Members of
Congress and their staffs, which we expect to provide in early August
2009.
55. Senator Burr. Ms. Ferguson, will this criteria be publicly
released?
Ms. Ferguson. Yes, The Air Force will release the JSF criteria in
early August 2009.
navy outlying landing field in north carolina
56. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, what is the status of the new EIS
for an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) to support East Coast Navy and
Marine Corps pilot training?
Secretary Penn. The Navy continues to evaluate five sites, three in
southeastern Virginia and two in northeastern North Carolina, for
construction and operation of an additional OLF to support Field
Carrier Landing Practice operations for all Carrier Air Wing (CVW)
fixed-wing squadrons home based and transient to NAS Oceana and Naval
Station Norfolk. The required environmental analysis and documentation
is underway and progressing. With multiple Federal and State agencies
involved, the Navy is scheduling the time required to complete data
collection and analysis to ensure we have taken the necessary hard look
under NEPA to make an informed decision.
57. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, what does the Navy intend to do
with real estate purchased in Washington County, NC, which is no longer
being considered as the site for the new OLF?
Secretary Penn. The Navy has determined that no further requirement
exists for the 1,163 acres purchased in Washington County, NC.
Accordingly, the Navy is proceeding under normal Federal real property
disposal procedures in compliance with the Federal Management
Regulation dealing with real property disposal. After confirming that
there is no foreseeable DOD military requirement, no special provisions
regarding disposal of the property, and no other congressional
legislative action that would provide such a provision, the Navy will
report the property to GSA as excess property for disposal in
accordance with applicable regulations.
58. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, is the Navy committed to
addressing the concerns of local communities during the selection
process? If so, how will those concerns be addressed?
Secretary Penn. The Navy has been fully committed to addressing the
concerns of local communities from the very beginnings of this new EIS
process, and, to that end, has engaged in an ongoing outreach program
with elected officials, businesses and business associations, and
civic, community, educational, and veterans' organizations. This
outreach has resulted in over 60 meetings over the last 24 months,
allowing the Navy to better understand the concerns of local
communities as we move forward in the EIS process.
As we meet our responsibilities under the NEPA to prepare an EIS to
inform a decision with respect to the five potential OLF sites, we
remain fully committed to seeking public input and exhaustively
examining alternatives prior to making a final decision. As such, we
are working with agencies in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State
of North Carolina, NGOs, and public and private enterprises to identify
economic and environmental opportunities to further benefit a local
community hosting an OLF. These opportunities could include protection
and enhancement of the natural environment, lease opportunities to
increase community revenues, facilitation with community accepted
development, and/or assistance in keeping the land in its natural state
and preserving the vital rural way of life that these communities
cherish. However, it is important to understand that the Navy does not
wish to impose a vision of the future on any county or region, but as
able, will provide assistance in implementing a local, community
vision. To that end, it may be necessary in the future to seek
additional authorities not allowed under current law to enable the Navy
to address those concerns. The Navy will be better able to address such
concerns once a preferred alternative is identified.
However, one example of the Navy recognizing and addressing
community concerns is in regard to the issue of private property and
local tax losses, which have been central to any discussion on the OLF
project from the outset. To address these community concerns, the Navy
adjusted its requirement such that it will only seek to acquire
property or property interests as necessary to meet the military
mission, while concurrently providing the opportunity for landowners
and residences impacted by the construction and operation of an OLF to
voluntarily sell their property to the Navy.
management of housing privatization transactions
59. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, I have a question about the
contracts used by the Army to manage housing privatization transactions
involving partnerships. I read the testimony from last year when
Secretary Eastin stated that the Army's Portfolio and Asset Management
program was strong and proactive. The overwhelming majority of the
Army's housing inventories are now privatized and under management of
the partnership. DOD's efforts over the past 10 years to increase a
servicemember's base allowance for housing has resulted in sizeable
reserves growing in housing privatization reserve accounts, which can
be used to accelerate renovation and recapitalization activities.
Eventually though, the housing inventory for each transaction will
reach a point of optimal performance as measured by occupancy rates,
and reserve funds will still be growing. Please provide your assessment
of the current management practices used by the Army for housing
privatization.
Mr. Calcara. The testimony that Secretary Eastin gave last year is
still valid. The Portfolio and Asset Management program remains strong
and proactive, and we continue to identify potential challenges and
opportunities and to develop appropriate responses to ensure that the
quality of life for soldiers and their families remains high. While
reserve funds will continue to grow, those funds will be utilized to
continue to replace and renovate the housing at each project to ensure
that the condition of the homes remains at the levels required to
sustain resident satisfaction and quality of communities. This
sustainment program differentiates the Residential Communities
Initiative (RCI) program from past initiatives with the private sector
such as section 801 Build-to-Lease, Capehart, and Wherry housing
programs. To determine the optimal use and investment of funds, the
Army works with its partners to evaluate current capital market
conditions, resident satisfaction survey results, the condition of the
housing stock at each project, and the long-term needs of the project.
Out-year planning is reviewed every few years and more frequently as
the project nears the end of its initial development period. Relying on
expertise from the private sector, we participate in decisionmaking
related to balancing investment opportunities with capital
requirements.
60. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, do you see a need to change the
methods or processes used by the Army to manage the partnerships? If
so, are you in the process of evaluating potential changes to the
Army's Portfolio and Asset Management program, and can you describe
these changes?
Mr. Calcara. No, I do not see a need to change the methods or
processes used by the Army to manage partnerships. In 2006, the GAO
conducted a review of the portfolio and asset management (PAM) programs
of all three Services and determined that those of the Army and Air
Force were strong, viable programs that provided mechanisms for the
early identification and resolution of issues. The Army's PAM program
is based on the investment management practices of one of the largest
private sector real estate firms. The Army recognizes that any changes
to the current program could jeopardize the Army's ability to assess
the risk of its investments and could compromise the Army's ability to
ensure appropriate execution of its military housing privatization
projects.
use of sea ranges
61. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, the Navy is well underway with a
programmatic effort to comply with the NEPA and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act that involves completing an EIS for each of its major
at-sea training ranges. This will require a sustained, dedicated effort
by both the Navy and the regulatory agency, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, since the letter of authorization for impacts on
marine mammals must be renewed annually and must take into account the
evolving science regarding how marine mammals are affected by sonar.
Are you confident that the Navy and the regulatory agency have
sufficient personnel and resources to meet the demand for renewal of
these permits?
Secretary Penn. I am confident that the Navy has sufficient
personnel and resources to meet the critical milestones of its
environmental compliance plan. We understand, however, that
implementation of the Navy's plan has placed a significant new and
continuing regulatory burden on the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). NMFS plays a major role as a cooperating agency with the Navy
in preparing environmental analyses under the NEPA and Executive Order
12114, and in conducting regulatory processes under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. NMFS itself can best speak
to whether it could benefit from additional resources to meet its
increased regulatory workload.
62. Senator Burr. Secretary Penn, what would happen if the Navy and
the regulatory agency did not complete the annual renewal process on
time?
Secretary Penn. The Navy would need to stop using the range for the
regulated activity. If the renewal processes are not completed on time,
the Navy would have to evaluate readiness levels and operational
requirements and whether training schedules and corresponding
deployments could be shifted to a time period when the annual renewal
processes would be completed. The longer the delay in issuing renewals,
the greater the impacts will be to military readiness and the Navy's
ability to meet its operational requirements.
The Navy's Fleet Response Plan (FRP) is at the heart of our
training schedules. That plan ensures continuously available and surge-
ready forces are prepared to respond to crisis; but FRP is also
integral to preparations for scheduled deployments. Delays in any
training causes ripple effects in several regards. First, individual
unit skills could atrophy and require additional time to be regained.
Second, delays in training could impact deployment of naval forces and
their ability to timely relieve or support forces that are already
deployed.
barracks privatization
63. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, the Army has recently completed
transactions with local private partners to construct unaccompanied
officer and senior enlisted barracks at Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Stewart,
GA; and three other locations. From initial reports, these townhouse-
style complexes seem to be a raging success. What are the pros and cons
to using a private developer, similar to housing privatization to build
and maintain Army barracks for junior enlisted personnel?
Mr. Calcara. I fully agree that the privatization of senior soldier
unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH) has been very successful.
However, our current position is that UPH privatization will be limited
to single staff sergeants and above. Although there are many positive
aspects of housing privatization (e.g., potential savings/cost
avoidance of scarce resources, ability to fix and sustain barracks over
the long-term, better amenities for soldiers, etc.), there are many
challenges with the privatization of accommodations for our junior,
single soldiers, i.e. barracks. Significant ``scoring'' issues by the
OMB must be resolved before the Army can consider any barracks
privatization projects. OMB would score such issues as mandatory
assignments, equity contributions, or loan guarantees. Further, junior
soldiers cannot be required to live in privatized barracks and would
have to have the option to take their housing allowances and live off-
post. The Army does not currently authorize these soldiers any housing
allowances or to live off post, and there are concerns about how
privatization can be balanced with the Army's Warrior Ethos and unit
integrity. Other issues that must be addressed include extended
deployments and use of the resident ``waterfall'' (possibility of
civilian assignments into barracks).
64. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, does it make economic sense over the
life cycle of a barracks?
Mr. Calcara. We do not know at this time. We are conducting an
internal analysis to determine the feasibility of barracks
privatization to supplement (not replace) the Anny's Holistic Barracks
Strategy. All previous analyses will be considered and made part of the
final analysis.
65. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, what are the concerns within the
Department of the Army with using a public-private venture to build and
maintain junior enlisted barracks?
Mr. Calcara. There are many challenges with the privatization of
accommodations for our junior, single soldiers, i.e., barracks.
Significant ``scoring'' issues by the OMB must be resolved before the
Army can consider any barracks privatization projects. OMB would score
such issues as mandatory assignments, equity contributions, or loan
guarantees. Further, junior soldiers cannot be required to live in
privatized barracks and would have to have the option to take their
housing allowances and live off-post. The Army does not currently
authorize these soldiers any housing allowances or to live off post,
and there are concerns about how privatization can be balanced with the
Army's Warrior Ethos and unit integrity. Other issues that must be
addressed include extended deployments and use of the resident
``waterfall'' (possibility of civilian assignments into barracks).
66. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara, should the Army be directed by
Congress to carry out barracks privatization initiatives for junior
enlisted personnel?
Mr. Calcara. No. If the Army is directed to privatize barracks,
there may be some unnecessary, negative impacts on the Army. For
example, the OMB would score the projects, thus costing the Army
millions or billions of dollars unnecessarily, and it would put our
entire MILCON program at risk. Further, privatization would negatively
affect the Army's warfighting Ethos and culture. The Army is conducting
an internal analysis to determine the feasibility of barracks
privatization to supplement (not replace) the Army's Holistic Barracks
Strategy. All previous reports and strategies will be considered and
made part of the final analyses on the way ahead.
facilities for iraq redeployment
67. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny and Mr. Calcara, the redeployment of
U.S. forces from Iraq, a process DOD refers to as ``reposturing,'' will
be a massive and expensive effort. As of March 2008, for example, there
were about 173,000 pieces of equipment in Iraq, worth about $16.5
billion, that will need to be returned to the United States. I have a
few questions regarding the development of a comprehensive plan for
reposturing U.S. forces from Iraq. Does DOD have agreed-upon guidance
for environmental clean-up and the disposition of property, which could
affect the time and cost of closing bases in Iraq? If so, can you
describe the guidance?
Mr. Arny. Guidance was developed and published in the form of an
Operations Order by Multinational Force-Iraq covering reposture and
drawdown that includes equipment disposition and environmental
considerations. The process is based on a 140-day model for closure/
transfer developed in Iraq and details turn-over standards for
facilities.
Disposition of Materiel (both equipment and supplies) will be
accomplished utilizing the traditional 5-Step Redeployment Process
(applied in order): Consume, Redistribute (or Redeploy), Transfer (in
conjunction with Base turnover), Transfer (not in conjunction with Base
turnover), and Dispose (through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office (DRMO) or Destroy). Equipment and supplies excess to theater or
worldwide requirements will be considered for transfer utilizing
available authorities (such as Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Excess
Personal Property, or Excess Defense Articles).
Guidance for environmental considerations provides for removal of
stored hazardous and medical wastes, hazardous materials, insurgent
chemicals, fuels, and U.S. controlled munitions, and for collection and
disposal of solid waste. Additionally we will close and secure
environmental systems such as water and wastewater systems, burn pits,
dumps, landfills, and above and below ground storage tanks to the
extent the Government of Iraq has not identified a follow-on use. We do
not perform remediation for purposes of return of facilities. We are
preparing environmental closure reports that document the environmental
condition as we return the bases which can be used by the Government of
Iraq to guide future actions and to protect the United States from
unwarranted claims. This guidance takes into account our commitment to
work with the Government of Iraq on potential future use of the
facility to help minimize resources and time required.
Mr. Calcara. I concur with Mr. Arny's response and have no further
information to add.
68. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny and Mr. Calcara, is there an associated
estimate of the costs for this activity?
Mr. Arny. No, the costs for individual components of base closure
and return are not broken out.
Mr. Calcara. I concur with Mr. Arny's response and have no further
information to add.
69. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny and Mr. Calcara, does DOD foresee the
possibility of restrictive conditions on the use of facilities in
Kuwait and other neighboring countries? If so, how will these
restrictive conditions affect reposturing plans?
Mr. Arny. The use of military facilities in Kuwait is governed by
the U.S.-Kuwait Defense Cooperation Agreement. The United States will
work with Kuwait and other regional partners on access to and use of
facilities, and is prepared to address contingency requirements.
Mr. Calcara. I concur with Mr. Arny's response and have no further
information to add.
70. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny and Mr. Calcara, will there be adequate
infrastructure and facilities in the United States to house and provide
work space for returning units?
Mr. Arny. The Department will pursue all means available to provide
adequate facilities for units returning from Iraq. That will include
building new facilities, using vacant facilities, and purchasing or
reusing relocatable facilities. In those cases where the immediate
solution is not a permanent solution, the Department will implement a
permanent solution as quickly as possible.
Mr. Calcara. The acceleration of the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
drawdown is expected to complicate the Army's already tightly
synchronized facility support plan. The Army has a strategy to
accommodate returning units, which includes new construction, vacant
facilities, and where required, the use of temporary relocatable
buildings until permanent facilities are built. Upon release of the
United States Central Command OIF Drawdown Plan, the Army will gain
greater fidelity on the impact of our installations and its ability to
ensure adequate facility support.
status of 2005 defense base realignment and closure round
71. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, according to GAO, ``The 2005 BRAC round
is the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever.'' Their
recent report went on to say that ``DOD has made progress in
implementing the BRAC 2005 round but faces challenges in its ability to
meet the September 15, 2011, statutory completion deadline. DOD expects
almost half of the 800 defense locations implementing BRAC
recommendations to complete their actions in 2011; however, about 230
of these almost 400 locations anticipate completion within the last 2
weeks of the deadline.'' Will the Department meet the statutory
deadline of September 15, 2011?
Mr. Arny. Yes, the Department intends to meet the statutory
deadline of September 15, 2011. The Department recognizes the unique
challenges associated with implementing the more complex
recommendations and the synchronization efforts required to manage the
interdependencies among many recommendations. To apprise senior
leadership of problems requiring intervention as early as possible, the
Department institutionalized an implementation execution update
briefing program in November 2008. These update briefings, representing
83 percent of the investment value of all recommendations, provide an
excellent forum for business plan managers to explain their actions
underway to mitigate the impacts of problem issues. The business
managers have and will continue to brief the status of implementation
actions associated with recommendations which exceed $100 million on a
continuing basis through statutory completion of all recommendations
(September 15, 2011). The business managers are also required to brief
other plans for which they have concerns.
72. Senator Burr. Mr. Arny, are you requiring BRAC officials at
both the Army and the Air Force to update their savings estimates in
order to provide Congress with a realistic assessment of the value of
this process?
Mr. Arny. Because the Department considers the updating of savings
estimates to be essential, it is requiring all components to update
these estimates on a regular basis. While sufficient guidance already
exists in the financial management regulation, additional emphasis on
this effort is being provided during all BRAC program execution update
discussions and in all business plan update approval documentation.
Business plans serve as the basis for guiding BRAC implementation
actions and specifying the required funding.
impact of force structure decisions on host nation support
73. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara and Ms. Ferguson, this committee has
encouraged DOD to work with nations hosting U.S. military personnel at
bases and in local communities to develop partnerships in order to
address housing, infrastructure, and community support requirements.
These efforts allow U.S. taxpayer funds to be used for other critical
mission requirements. Two recent decisions by the Army and the Air
Force related to force structure in Germany has jeopardized ongoing
initiatives for local governments to provide private resources for
construction of housing and provision of other resources, and
discourages any future cooperative efforts. What are the future
possibilities for the German Government to be able to work with the
Army and the Air Force to provide housing for U.S. military forces?
Mr. Calcara. The U.S. Army in Europe continues to work very closely
with German agencies to further housing and infrastructure initiatives.
The U.S. Army strongly supports and pursues opportunities for Host
Nation funding of infrastructure and housing. We are not aware of any
ongoing initiatives with local governments being jeopardized. To the
contrary, we have experienced recent success in the German State of
Baden-Wuerttemberg with two German funded alternate construction
partnerships affecting both family housing and community
infrastructure.
We have also experienced great success in the State of Hessen as
they worked with city and Federal agencies to acquire real estate for
housing and improved vehicular access to military facilities at
Wiesbaden. We continue to meet with our Host Nation partners in
Rhineland--Palatinate to develop an innovative rental partnership
program that will potentially service the Baumholder military
community.
Finally, the State of Bavaria continues to assist with various
build-to-lease initiatives that support the Grafenwoehr/Vilseck
community. The environment remains positive as we continue hi-lateral
discussions seeking burdensharing opportunities that are realistic and
remain within the parameters of governing Status of Forces Treaty
Agreements and accommodations protocols. We are optimistic about future
possibilities for the German federal and state governments to assist in
providing housing and infrastructure support to U.S. military forces.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force was working, in close cooperation with
the German Federal Real Estate Office, to facilitate a build-to-lease
initiative for 271 housing units at Spangdahlem, AB Germany. The
request for proposals, issued in June 2008, was based on the 2006
Housing Requirements Market Analysis (HRMA) which projected
requirements through 2011. The 2009 HRMA indicated a need for only 38
units beyond the existing installation inventory and private sector
supply. The build-to-lease proposals received in October 2008 totaled
134 units. Through mutual agreement between headquarters USAFE and the
German agencies it was determined that a reduced build-to-lease project
for 38 units would not be financially viable. As a result, the build-
to-lease initiative was cancelled. If the requirement increases at some
future date, it can be pursued through cooperative efforts between the
Air Force and the German Government.
74. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara and Ms. Ferguson, as for the future
of Baumholder, what major units does the Army plan to station there?
Mr. Calcara. At this time, the Army has not decided which major
units to station in Baumholder. As soon as we reach a decision, we will
notify the committees of concern.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to the Army on questions
pertaining to Baumholder.
75. Senator Burr. Mr. Calcara and Ms. Ferguson, how many personnel
and families will end up being stationed at Baumholder?
Mr. Calcara. The Army will have greater fidelity on the number of
military personnel and families as soon as we decide which units to
station in Baumholder.
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force defers to the Army on questions
pertaining to Baumholder.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
alternative fuel goals
76. Senator Thune. Ms. Ferguson, last year, Secretary Donley signed
the Air Force Energy Policy which, among other things, establishes a
couple of goals with respect to using alternative fuels in the Air
Force aircraft fleet. One goal is to test and certify the aircraft
fleet on a 50/50 alternative fuel blend by 2011. A follow-on goal is to
acquire 50 percent of the Air Force's domestic aviation fuel
requirement via an alternative fuel blend in which the alternative
component is derived from domestic sources. From what I understand, an
initiative to build a Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) plant on Malmstrom AFB in
Montana was abandoned earlier this year and a similar plan to build a
plant in Alaska with a guaranteed 5-year contract is still up for grabs
with no takers. How well is the Air Force proceeding toward reaching
these alternative fuel goals?
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force is proceeding well towards reaching its
alternative aviation fuel goals of certifying its aircraft fleet for
use of a 50/50 synthetic fuel blend by 2011 and the follow-on goal of
being prepared to acquire 50 percent of the Air Force's domestic
aviation fuel requirement via an alternative aviation fuel blend in
which the alternative component is derived from domestic sources.
The Air Force's Alternative Aviation Fuel Initiative encompasses
certification and testing of synthetic fuel blends produced via the
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process and recently initiated efforts involving
biomass-derived fuel blends.
The Air Force is on track to certify its aircraft, applicable
vehicles and support equipment, and associated storage and distribution
infrastructure for unrestricted operational use of a synthetic fuel
blend by early 2011. The B-52, C-17, B-1B, and F-15 have been certified
for unrestricted operations using the synthetic fuel blend and the F-
22, KC-135, C-5, and T-38 are expected to be certified by the end of
2009. Certification of applicable support equipment and vehicles is
over 90 percent complete. Full certification is expected by late 2009.
Full certification of storage and distribution infrastructure is
expected to be completed by 2010.
In addition to the synthetic fuel blend certification, the Air
Force initiated a biomass-derived aviation fuel certification program
in January 2009. To support this effort, the Defense Energy Support
Center is currently managing an active solicitation for up to 400,000
gallons of renewable aviation fuel derived from biomass. Once the Air
Force receives this fuel, it will be used to fulfill biomass-derived
fuel blend certification efforts.
Both certification efforts ensure the Air Force will be prepared to
cost competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel
requirement by 2016 via an alternative fuel blend in which the
alternative component is derived from domestic sources produced in a
manner that is greener than fuels produced from conventional petroleum.
The Air Force examined the possibility of developing a CTL facility
on Malmstrom AFB through an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL); however, SAF/IEI
determined there were no viable responses to the RFQ and that proposed
plant adversely impacts the mission of 341st Missile Wing. Currently,
the Air Force is examining the feasibility, cost effectiveness, and
environmental impacts of building siting a coal/biomass-to-liquid on or
nearby Eielson AFB utilizing EUL authorities. The Air Force is working
in partnership with the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation and
other local community officials. While a CTL plant could eventually be
sited on Air Force property using EUL authorities or another public-
private partnership agreement, the Air Force will not own, operate, or
finance any plant.
77. Senator Thune. Ms. Ferguson, how can this committee help the
Air Force reach its goal of using domestically produced alternative
fuel?
Ms. Ferguson. The Air Force is currently certifying its aircraft,
applicable vehicles and support equipment, and associated storage and
distribution infrastructure for unrestricted operational use of a
synthetic fuel blend by early 2011. Ultimately, the Air Force goal is
to be prepared to cost competitively acquire 50 percent of the Air
Force's domestic aviation fuel requirement via an alternative fuel
blend in which the alternative component is derived from domestic
sources produced in a manner that is greener than fuels produced from
conventional petroleum by 2016. While the Air Force appreciates both
the Senator's and the committee's continued strong support of the
certification efforts specifically and, more generally, the Air Force
energy plans, programs, and strategies, no additional assistance is
needed at this time.
draft environmental impact statement
78. Senator Thune. Ms. Ferguson, the Air Force has proposed to
expand the Powder River Training Complex. According to a recent update,
the draft EIS will probably be published early this summer and made
available for public comment. What is the status of the draft EIS?
Ms. Ferguson. The draft EIS has been extended due to mitigation
procedures between the proponent and the FAA as well as weather issues.
Representatives from the 28th Bomb Wing and the Western Service Area
Air Force FAA liaison met with FAA representatives (Denver,
Minneapolis, Salt Lake) at Ellsworth AFB in an effort to mitigate FAA
concerns regarding Instrument Flight Rules access to airspace and local
airports. Significant progress was made to resolve arrival and
departure concerns as well as some issues related to the Air Traffic
Control Assigned Airspace. Ellsworth AFB is revising operational data
while the FAA generates the data regarding civil air traffic.
79. Senator Thune. Ms. Ferguson, when do you expect the draft EIS
to be completed and made available for public comment?
Ms. Ferguson. We anticipate the draft EIS will be released in
spring 2010 at the public hearings as part of the EIS development
process.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
