Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges
but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives
(20-JUN-06, GAO-06-725R).
Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, required the Secretary of
Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for the sustainment of
training ranges using existing authorities available to the
Secretaries of Defense and the military departments to address
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace available both in the United
States and overseas. Section 366 also required the Secretary to
submit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive training
range sustainment plan, the results of an assessment and
evaluation of current and future training range requirements, and
any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative
or regulatory changes to address training constraints. It also
directed the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain an
inventory of training ranges for each of the armed forces, which
identifies all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints
at each training range. The Department of Defense (DOD) was to
submit both the report and the training range inventory to
Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for
fiscal year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for
fiscal years 2005 through 2008. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) submitted its first report--Implementation of the
Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan--and its
training range inventory to Congress on February 27, 2004, and
its second annual report and inventory to Congress on July 14,
2005. OSD presented its current annual sustainable ranges report
and inventory to Congress on February 17, 2006. Section 366 also
required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of OSD's
annual reports. In our prior reports, we found that OSD's
training range reports and inventories provided to Congress did
not fully address several reporting requirements. For example,
both previous OSD reports did not meet requirements because they
did not include an assessment of current and future training
range requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current
resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet
current and future training range requirements; or
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints--although specifically required to do so by
section 366. Nevertheless, as we pointed out in our prior report,
there was a noteworthy change from 2004 to 2005 reporting--OSD's
2005 report included some elements of a plan, such as general
goals, actions, and milestones, needed to address the long-term
sustainability of ranges, but did not identify funding
requirements for implementing planned actions, although specified
by section 366, and did not assign responsibility for
implementation of specific tasks or provide performance metrics
to measure progress--critical elements for a meaningful plan. We
also found that the inventories in both reports did not fully
identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training
constraints for all ranges as required by section 366. This
letter, our third report, summarizes our observations on the
extent to which OSD's 2006 sustainable ranges report and range
inventory address the requirements specified by section 366, and
the department's key initiatives to sustain its training ranges.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-725R
ACCNO: A55727
TITLE: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key
Initiatives
DATE: 06/20/2006
SUBJECT: Combat readiness
Defense capabilities
Military facilities
Military forces
Military inventories
Military training
Reporting requirements
Strategic planning
Training utilization
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-725R
* Summary
* Opportunities Remain to Further Improve Compliance with Se
* Under OSD Leadership, the Services Have Started a Broad Ran
* Concluding Observations
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* Order by Mail or Phone
June 20, 2006
Congressional Committees
Subject: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges
but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives
Recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the
world have highlighted the need for U.S. forces to train as they intend to
fight. The use of military training ranges enhances the success of the
training by providing realistic, hand-on experience. However, the military
services report they have increasingly lost training range capabilities
due to encroachment1 and other factors, such as a lack of maintenance and
modernization. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), encroachment
pressures generally fall within three broad categories: (1) competition
for resources (e.g., access to land, water, air, and key frequencies in
the communications spectrum); (2) civilian community objections to
military training exercises (e.g., noise complaints); and (3) heightened
focus on environmental enforcement and compliance issues. DOD officials
report that encroachment has resulted in a slow but steady increase in
problems affecting the realistic use of their ranges and that the gradual
accumulation of these limitations will increasingly threaten training
readiness. For example, urban development around many installations has
made noise generated by military training a leading cause of community
complaints and claims, resulting in nighttime and weekend training
curfews, range closures, and aircraft flight changes.
Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003,2 required the Secretary of Defense to develop a
comprehensive plan for the sustainment of training ranges using existing
authorities available to the Secretaries of Defense and the military
departments to address training constraints caused by limitations on the
use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace available both in the
United States and overseas. Section 366 also required the Secretary to
submit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive training range
sustainment plan, the results of an assessment and evaluation of current
and future training range requirements, and any recommendations that the
Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints. It also directed the Secretary of Defense to develop
and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the armed forces,
which identifies all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at
each training range. DOD was to submit both the report and the training
range inventory to Congress at the same time the President submitted the
budget for fiscal year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for
fiscal years 2005 through 2008. The Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) submitted its first report-Implementation of the Department of
Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan-and its training range inventory
to Congress on February 27, 2004, and its second annual report and
inventory to Congress on July 14, 2005.3 OSD presented its current annual
sustainable ranges report and inventory to Congress on February 17, 2006.4
1 DOD defines "encroachment" as the cumulative result of any and all
outside influences that impede normal training and testing. DOD initially
identified the following eight encroachment factors: endangered species
and critical habitat, unexploded ordinance and munitions constituents,
competition for frequency spectrum, protected marine resources,
competition for airspace, air pollution, noise, and urban growth around
installations. Emerging encroachment issues involve cultural resources,
clean water, and wetlands.
2 Pub. L. No. 107-314, Title III, Section 366 (2002).
Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of
OSD's annual reports. In our prior reports, we found that OSD's training
range reports and inventories provided to Congress did not fully address
several reporting requirements.5 For example, both previous OSD reports
did not meet requirements because they did not include an assessment of
current and future training range requirements; an evaluation of the
adequacy of current resources, including virtual and constructive assets,
to meet current and future training range requirements; or recommendations
for legislative or regulatory changes to address training
constraints-although specifically required to do so by section 366.
Nevertheless, as we pointed out in our prior report, there was a
noteworthy change from 2004 to 2005 reporting-OSD's 2005 report included
some elements of a plan, such as general goals, actions, and milestones,
needed to address the long-term sustainability of ranges, but did not
identify funding requirements for implementing planned actions, although
specified by section 366, and did not assign responsibility for
implementation of specific tasks or provide performance metrics to measure
progress-critical elements for a meaningful plan. We also found that the
inventories in both reports did not fully identify specific capacities,
capabilities, and training constraints for all ranges as required by
section 366.
3 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness,
Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive
Plan (Washington, D.C.: July 2005).
4 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Report
to Congress On Sustainable Ranges (Washington, D.C.: February 2006).
5 GAO, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully
Address Congressional Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington,
D.C.: June 4, 2004); and Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual
Training Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements, GAO-06-29R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 25, 2005). See the
Related GAO Products section at the end of this report for a list of our
products related to the issues discussed in this report.
This letter, our third report, summarizes our observations on the extent
to which OSD's 2006 sustainable ranges report and range inventory address
the requirements specified by section 366, and the department's key
initiatives to sustain its training ranges.
To address these objectives, we met with OSD and service officials to
discuss the extent to which the 2006 report and inventory meet the
mandated requirements, and to obtain information about key initiatives
undertaken to address range sustainment. In addition, we reviewed OSD's
2006 report to determine if it addressed the requirements mandated by the
act-a comprehensive training range sustainment plan; an assessment of
current and future training range requirements; an evaluation of the
adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive
assets, to meet current and future training range requirements;
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training
constraints; and plans to improve the readiness reporting system. We also
evaluated the quality of OSD's plan presented in the 2006 report by
comparing it to sound management principles for strategic planning, such
as the identification of quantifiable goals, planned actions, funding
requirements, milestones to measure progress, and organizations
responsible for implementing the planned actions. Because OSD's 2006
report notes that it should be viewed as a supplement to the department's
prior reports, we evaluated this year's report within the context of the
2004 and 2005 reports considering the degree to which all three reports
met the requirements of section 366. We also reviewed OSD's 2006 range
inventory to assess whether the inventory identified training
capabilities, capacities, and constraints caused by limitations at each
training range as specified in section 366. Due to the limited time frame
for this review, we did not attempt to comprehensively evaluate the
quality of the data presented in OSD's report.
We conducted our work from March through May 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary
While still not fully addressing all elements of the congressionally
mandated reporting requirements, such as providing an assessment of
training range requirements and recommendations for legislative or
regulatory changes, OSD has continued to improve its annual sustainable
range reporting by better describing the encroachment challenges and their
effects on training, identifying tools for range management, and focusing
on key initiatives needed to address encroachment.6 This year's report
provides a more complete picture of the impacts of encroachment on the
operations of military installations and training ranges and of the
challenges OSD and the services face in addressing the sustainability of
their ranges than is available in other reports and documents. It also
discusses in greater detail the department's efforts to promote compatible
land use around military installations and ranges by partnering with local
governments and other organizations to protect these areas from
development that could potentially impact military operations and training
activities. For example, each of the services has acquired restrictive
easements governing development or entered into cooperative agreements
with state and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and
individuals to establish buffer zones around or near military
installations to maintain and improve natural resources and protect
against development that could affect their ability to operate and train.
In addition, this year's report provides more information than prior
years' reports about the multiple initiatives underway by the individual
military services to sustain ranges, which over time could become key
components of a long-term strategic plan that has broader applicability
than these initial efforts. OSD reports that its ultimate goal is to
integrate the various objectives and associated requirements of the
services into one comprehensive planning process that can be maintained
well into the future.
6 The 2006 report also addresses the reporting requirements of section 320
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. (See Pub.
L. No.108-136, Title III, Section 320 (2003)). Among other items, section
320 requires DOD to report on the impacts of civilian community
encroachment on military installations and operational ranges. While the
reporting requirements of sections 366 and 320 complement one another, we
did not assess information pertaining to section 320.
Although specifically required by section 366, OSD's 2006 inventory does
not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and constraints of all the
ranges. OSD officials said that it is impractical to include such a large
volume of data needed to identify capacities, capabilities, and
constraints where they are known as, in most instances, these data only
exist at individual ranges, and the department would have to expend
significant time and resources to retrieve and centralize the information.
Elsewhere in the 2006 report, OSD describes the department's efforts to
develop a more integrated range information enterprise for range
management and sustainment, and a more integrated and standardized range
scheduling system. Each military service also has developed range
inventories and is in the process of developing specific information on
the capacities, capabilities, and constraints of its ranges.
Opportunities Remain to Further Improve Compliance with Section 366 Reporting
Requirements
Even with the improvement in this year's report, opportunities remain for
OSD to more fully address the requirements specified in section 366 in the
following areas.
o Comprehensive planning efforts. With respect to the requirement
that OSD develop a comprehensive plan for the sustainment of
training ranges and provide annual status reports, the 2006
sustainable ranges report provides an update of the actions taken
in response to goals and milestones OSD reported last year.
However, as with last year's report, the 2006 update does not
identify funding requirements for implementing planned
actions-although specifically required to do so by section 366.
OSD officials said that funding for sustainable range efforts
continues to be spread among many different appropriations and
program elements and is managed differently among the services,
making this task extremely challenging. In an effort to address
the funding issue, DOD formed a working group in 2004 that meets
periodically to develop and refine a framework for funding
sustainable range activities. However, due to the complexity of
the issue, OSD officials would not speculate on how long it would
take to develop a satisfactory solution for this effort. The
updated plan also does not assign responsibility for
implementation of actions or provide specific performance metrics
to measure progress in addressing sustainment issues, although
both are critical elements of a meaningful strategic plan. The
Marine Corps reported that, while progress had been made in
defining range requirements, goals and milestones have been more
difficult to realistically plan because of the uncertain funding
levels associated with requirements emerging from ongoing
operations. As in prior reports, OSD officials maintain that the
sustainment of ranges is a long-term process, and that a
comprehensive plan should be expected to take several years to
develop fully and become more defined as additional sustainment
challenges are identified and addressed. We agree with DOD's
assertion that ensuring the sustainment of its training ranges
requires a long-term commitment that will take several years to
execute.
o Training range requirements. As in prior reports, OSD's 2006
report does not include an assessment of current and future
training range requirements or an evaluation of the adequacy of
current resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to
meet current and future training range requirements-although
specifically required by section 366. While each of the services
has completed or initiated assessments of its training range
requirements and adequacy of resources, not all of these
assessments are complete. In addition, senior OSD range officials
believe that it is impractical to provide detailed results of such
assessments in an OSD-level report due to the large volume of data
it would require, but they are considering including summary
statements that highlight the key results of the services'
requirements assessments in the next sustainable ranges report.
o Legislative and regulatory changes. Like prior reports, OSD's
2006 report does not include recommendations for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints-although
section 366 requires inclusion of any such recommendations DOD may
have. OSD officials believe that this annual reporting requirement
is not the most appropriate method to propose legislative and
regulatory changes to Congress, and they plan to continue using
the department's more traditional methods to make such proposals.
For example, DOD submitted proposed legislation separately to
Congress on April 3, 2006, in its annual proposed national defense
authorization bill for fiscal year 2007, in which DOD recommended
legislative changes intended to clarify sections of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and the
Clear Air Act. In addition, OSD officials said that it is
difficult to synchronize the process of obtaining the approval
required from both DOD and the Office of Management and Budget for
any legislative or regulatory proposal, while also issuing an
OSD-level report, such as the annual sustainable ranges report.
o Readiness reporting improvements. Like prior reports, OSD's
2006 report does not describe the department's plans to improve
its readiness reporting system, despite a specific mandate in
section 366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003. Although
the mandate specifically identified the Global Status of Resources
and Training System as the vehicle for reporting readiness, DOD
plans to incorporate this type of information in its expanded
Defense Readiness Reporting System. The expanded system is
intended to enlarge DOD's readiness reporting process from simple
resource-based reporting to the use of near real-time readiness
information and tools to determine the capability of an
organization to execute tasks and missions. The system is
scheduled to be fully operational by the end of fiscal year 2007.
Depending on the status of the system, senior OSD range officials
stated that they plan to report on the system in OSD's next
sustainable ranges report.
o Training range inventories. As in prior inventories, OSD's 2006
inventory does not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and
constraints of all the ranges-although specifically required by
section 366. Instead, the 2006 inventory lists available
operational training ranges and provides data on the size and type
of ranges (e.g., air to ground, land maneuver, and urbanized
terrain). OSD officials said that it is impractical to include the
large volume of data needed to identify capacities, capabilities,
and constraints where they are known in its inventory, and as a
result these types of data were omitted. Plus, because in most
instances these data only exist at individual ranges, the
department would have to expend significant time and resources to
retrieve and centralize the information. Elsewhere in the 2006
report, OSD describes the department's efforts to develop a more
integrated range information enterprise for range management and
sustainment, and a more integrated and standardized range
scheduling system. For example, in 2005, the department conducted
an initial baseline survey of the range information systems within
DOD and examined 16 different systems, which covered a wide range
of functional areas to include scheduling, munitions tracking,
safety, and range management. During 2006, OSD plans to update
this effort to include systems not yet analyzed, as well as any
enhancement of systems already examined. However, due to the
differences in range missions, scheduling requirements, and
processes, OSD reports that significant challenges exist in
completing a more integrated information enterprise, and OSD
officials would not speculate on when this effort would be
complete.
In OSD's 2006 sustainable ranges report, the Marine Corps commented that
we have taken an expansive definition of the mandate to provide a range
inventory when we recommended in our prior reports the development of an
enterprise-level information system that would facilitate cross-service or
joint planning of ranges. The Marine Corps also reported that such an OSD
system would be expensive and infrequently used. In technical comments on
a draft of this report, DOD noted that the Marine Corps has acknowledged
the potential value of the services having access to each other's range
inventories and scheduling systems. DOD further commented that the Marine
Corps has invested, like the other services, considerable time, effort,
and money to build a range management system that suits the requirements
of its primary users and that Marine Corps and Army range users already
have access to each other's scheduling systems and a considerable amount
of range information through the Web-based range facility management
support system. DOD also commented that the Marine Corps has suggested
that a system of such Web-based links to each service's range inventories
and schedules, when they are made available, is an achievable and
satisfactory way to arrive at a DOD-wide enterprise level system. We
believe that this suggestion warrants further consideration and may
achieve many of the benefits we envisioned in our prior recommendation for
an inventory that could be readily accessible to users across the
department. At the same time, in addition to our prior recommendation, DOD
reports-including OSD's current sustainable ranges report-and Defense
officials have also called for a range information management system that
would allow range offices and users to share information within and across
the services, and that such a Web-based system could also include data on
best practices, policies, points of contact, funding, and range conditions
and capabilities.
Under OSD Leadership, the Services Have Started a Broad Range of Initiatives to
Address Training Range Sustainment
The 2006 report provides information about a broad range of service
initiatives, developed under OSD leadership, that are underway to address
training range sustainment but which will require some time to complete.
In 2003, OSD issued a directive outlining the overarching policy for the
department's sustainment program.7 The directive requires DOD components
to identify encroachment concerns, environmental considerations, financial
obligations, and safety factors that may influence current or future
training range activities and uses. It also requires that inventories of
training ranges be completed, updated every 5 years, and maintained in a
geographical information system that is readily accessible by installation
and range decision makers. It further requires multitiered coordination
and outreach programs at the national, regional, and local levels to
promote sustainment of ranges. According to OSD, the sustainment of its
training and testing capability, while also engaging in environmental
stewardship and mitigating encroachment concerns, is a long-term process.
Ultimately, its goal is to integrate the various services' objectives and
associated funding requirements into one comprehensive planning process
that can be maintained well into the future.
Individually, the military services have initiated a planning and
management process as an integral part of the department's sustainable
ranges program. For example, the Army issued a detailed sustainable range
program plan in July 20038 and recently started developing a tool for
standardized local range plans, which will identify current and future
ranges and training land assets, and integrate training requirements and
constraints. The Army expects to test this management tool during fiscal
year 2006 and field it in final form in fiscal year 2007. The Navy has
also started to develop management plans for its training range complexes
that, among other things, include a description of each of the training
areas, an investment strategy, analyses of encroachment and sustainment
challenges and capability shortfalls, identification of existing
environmental planning requirements, and a blueprint for obtaining
community involvement.9 The Navy expects to have management plans
completed for 15 of its 17 range complexes by October 2006, and does not
plan to prepare such plans for the remaining 2 complexes because these
complexes are not involved in any ongoing training operations. The Marine
Corps has started to develop local range complex management plans for
their training ranges that will, at a minimum, describe the condition of
the ranges, organizational relationships, and encroachment and sustainment
challenges; assess range capabilities against requirements; outline
community outreach programs; and identify investment requirements for
sustainment and modernization. Marine Corps officials said that they
funded six plans that are being developed and expect the remaining two
plans to be completed in the 2008-2009 time frame. Furthermore, according
to Air Force officials, local range offices have plans to manage their
ranges and Air Force headquarters is creating a management system,
scheduled to be operational in 2007, to update and provide for more
standardized plans across its ranges.
7 DOD Directive 3200.15, Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2003).
8 Army Publication, Army Sustainable Range Program Plan (Washington, D.C.:
July 14, 2003).
In addition, each military service has developed range inventories and is
in the process of developing specific information on the capacities,
capabilities, and constraints of their ranges. For example, Army officials
told us that they have an inventory that identifies capacities and
capabilities of their ranges and are in the process of developing a model
to quantify the impacts of encroachment on the Army's training mission.
They are testing the encroachment model now and expect it to be
operational in fiscal year 2007. The Navy has also initiated an effort to
identify the capabilities and constraints of its training complexes as
part of its local planning effort. The Marine Corps' current Web-based
inventory, called the range and training area management system, provides
both general and detailed information about each of its ranges, identifies
range capabilities and capability shortfalls, tracks encroachment impacts
on training and readiness, and allows commanders from any service to
schedule their training events remotely. Senior Marine Corps officials
said that, while the system is fully operational, they continue to update
its data and capabilities as funding becomes available and new management
needs and requirements are identified. Furthermore, each Air Force range
has its own Web page for its potential users and Air Force headquarters is
developing an information system that will provide range managers
worldwide with a single point of access to range management documentation,
procedures, and data collection. Among other items, the system will
contain information on daily operations, planning requirements, training
procedures, range usage by aircraft and weapon, and target status. While
the initial release of the system was scheduled for spring 2006, with
greater expanded functionality scheduled for fall 2006, these milestones
have slipped 11 months recently due to the need to fund other Air Force
priorities.
9 The Navy has approximately 300 individual ranges and operating areas-not
including small arms ranges-that consist of a combination of land, sea
space, or airspace. Operating areas are sections of the ocean that are not
owned by the Navy in the way that land ranges are traditionally owned but
where routine training and testing take place. For decades, the Navy has
grouped most of its ranges and operating areas into 17 geographical
complexes-identified in OSD's 2006 report-for operational use and has
applied this geographical concept to its sustainable range management.
In addition to the planning efforts and steps taken to inventory their
training ranges discussed above, the military services have started a
broad range of initiatives to combat encroachment, as discussed below.
While some of these initiatives have been implemented, most are still
being developed and will take several more years to test and evaluate
before they are fully implemented.
Army Sustainable Range Program: In July 2003, the Army issued a plan to
describe its sustainable range program and serve as implementing
guidelines for DOD guidance pertaining to the sustainment of training
ranges.10 The Army also issued a regulation in August 2005 that outlines
its sustainable range program and approach for improving how it designs,
manages, and uses ranges to ensure long-term sustainability.11 The
regulation also defines responsibilities, prescribes policies for
Army-controlled training ranges and lands, describes the Army's public
outreach efforts, and provides tools for identifying and assessing current
and future encroachment challenges. Within the program, Army has initiated
several key efforts to address issues associated with the sustainment of
its training ranges, to include the following.
o To improve public support and the Army's understanding of
public concerns related to live fire training, Army developed a
public outreach and involvement campaign. The campaign provides
installations with a strategy to communicate with the public
regarding live fire training and encroachment challenges, and
consists of a training package to assist installations in
communicating with and educating the public. As a part of its
overall outreach program, the Army also hosted range tours at Fort
Carson, Colorado; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and Fort Hood,
Texas, in 2005, to provide the public with an opportunity to visit
an installation and see firsthand the types of training conducted
and how encroachment issues affect training. Army officials expect
more tours will be conducted in the future.
o Because noise remains one of its leading encroachment
challenges, the Army developed several different tools to more
accurately forecast the effects of weapon noise on humans and
animals. One such tool calculates and displays blast noise
exposure contours resulting from large weapons and explosive
charges. Another tool calculates and displays noise level contours
at small arms ranges. Also, as of April 2006, the Army reports it
has completed 60 operational noise management plans for its
installations that describe the noise environment, specify
education and public outreach, outline complaint management, and
identify noise abatement procedures. Twenty plans are under
development and another 14 plans are scheduled for 2007.
o To obtain the information necessary to address threatened and
endangered species, the Army initiated a research program designed
to quantify the effects of training on high-priority species found
on military lands. This program focuses on quantifying the
relationship among such military-unique activities as artillery
noise, vehicular training, and smoke with species viability.
According to the Army, these efforts have reduced training
restrictions. For example, restrictions at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, and Fort Stewart, Georgia, to protect the red-cockaded
woodpecker have been relaxed due to the results of this program.
In addition, the Army has initiated research and management
efforts for the gray bat at eight installations. The project is
scheduled to be completed by December 2006 and a senior Army range
official believes it could result in reduced training restrictions
starting in 2007.
o To quantify the effects of encroachment on training, the Army
is developing an encroachment condition model. Using geographic
data, the model will capture the effects of the encroachment
factors on training, such as limitations on digging; bivouacs;
maneuvers; and the use of live fire, smoke, and pyrotechnics.
These results will be integrated with another existing planning
tool that determines training-throughput capacities and
requirements for installations. The Army completed the prototype
of the model at Fort Riley, Kansas, in September 2005, and plans
to continue the data collection phase of the project through 2006.
If successful, the Army plans to field the model at all of its
ranges by the end of 2007.
10 Army Publication, Army Sustainable Range Program Plan (Washington,
D.C.: July 14, 2003).
11 Army Regulation 350-19, The Army Sustainable Range Program (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 30, 2005).
Navy Training Range Sustainment Program: The Navy began developing its
range sustainment program in 2001 to assess and help manage its ranges,
ensure adequate range access for effective training of sailors, and
provide for consistency across range complexes, minimizing individual
range-by-range responses to issues that affect ranges as a whole. As part
of the program, the Navy has made organizational changes, initiated
specific range management and environmental planning initiatives, and
focused on knowledge advancement about marine mammals and related issues
that are relevant to encroachment of ranges. In addition, the Navy
continues to collect density data to make assessments of potential impacts
to marine species from training; implement operational range clearance of
unexploded ordnance and target debris to minimize the potential for future
contamination; conduct environmental planning to help ensure operations
and maintenance of ranges are conducted in a manner that is protective of
human health and the environment; and issue range sustainability and
environmental program assessments that document the environmental
conditions at each Navy range. The Navy also drafted a range capability
document to quantify its training requirements. This document describes
the required capabilities for each range at the three levels of training
complexity-basic, intermediate, and advanced. The Navy headquarters range
office, in conjunction with the Navy environmental readiness office, is
developing a servicewide range sustainment policy that will assign
specific range sustainment responsibilities to each level of the range
support command structure and integrate sustainment strategies from the
various test and training communities. The policy is scheduled to be
issued by September 2006. The Navy also plans to establish a Navy-wide
encroachment database by the end of July 2006 that identifies and
quantifies encroachment challenges. It is also developing encroachment
partnering projects to acquire minimal interests in lands adjacent to or
near Navy ranges where local planning and zoning initiatives are
insufficient to preserve off-base habitat in order to relieve current or
avoid future restrictions on training. For example, the Navy has partnered
with the State of California and The Nature Conservancy to acquire
easements near La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Range, California, to
prevent development that would be incompatible with its training
activities.
Marine Corps Mission Capable Ranges Program: The Marine Corps initiated
its mission capable ranges program in 2003 for operations, maintenance,
and modernization of its ranges and training areas. Within the program, it
has specified six tasks: (1) preserve and enhance live fire combined arms
training, (2) recapture littoral training capabilities, (3) leverage
technology to provide feedback for better training, (4) guard against
encroachment, (5) facilitate cross-service utilization, and (6) support
the joint national training capability. In addition, the Marine Corps is
developing a document that validates the requirements for its ranges and
training areas over the next 10-year period. The document identifies
shortfalls in range capabilities that will form the basis for the Marine
Corps' investment strategies for range operations, maintenance, and
modernization. Senior Marine Corps officials expect the document to be
issued by the end of fiscal year 2006. The Marine Corps has also developed
several management tools, such as its training range encroachment
information system and range environmental vulnerability assessment
program, to evaluate and report to decision makers on encroachment and its
impacts and to assist in the development of strategies to engage federal,
state, and local agencies in solving encroachment issues. The encroachment
information system was initiated at Camp Pendleton in 2003, and Marine
Corps officials plan to implement the system at all of their ranges by the
end of 2006. The Marine Corps also implemented its range environmental
vulnerability assessment program in fiscal year 2004 and plans to initiate
assessments of all operational ranges by 2008. Also growing in importance,
according to the Marine Corps officials, are partnerships with states,
local governments, and conservation-minded nongovernmental organizations
to acquire undeveloped land from willing sellers to prevent its
development in a manner inconsistent with military readiness requirements.
Air Force Sustainable Range Program: Under its sustainable range program,
the Air Force has instituted a four-point strategy to address encroachment
issues: (1) identify and quantify the resources needed to perform the Air
Force training mission and the readiness impairments resulting from
encroachment, including the impacts on joint use of training facilities
managed by other DOD components; (2) institute routine dialogue with other
federal agencies to develop regulatory and administrative improvements
that address encroachment issues; (3) communicate with states, tribes,
local governments, and other interested organizations regarding how
unintended consequences of resource management programs can impair
military readiness; and (4) explore the possible need for statutory
changes. In addition, the Air Force has initiated the development of
several management tools to help address sustainment issues, including the
following.
o The Air Force is developing an approach for assessing and
managing the capability of the installation's natural
infrastructure to support current and future military
missions-called Natural Infrastructure Capability and Resource
Management. Within this approach, the Air Force incorporates urban
encroachment, infrastructure limits, and other operating
constraints into an assessment process to quantify the adequacy of
land, air, and water infrastructure to support mission needs on a
range or installation. The Air Force has completed more than 30
assessments over the last 2 years and plans to assess all of its
installations and ranges by the end of 2007.
o The Air Force has developed an operational range environmental
database for the collection and storage of specific environmental
information useful in making decisions related to the sustainment
of ranges. The first module consists of general range attributes
such as location, range type, size, and usage. The second module
is focused on range specifics such as air media, range residue,
hazardous waste, contaminant release, landfills, natural and
cultural resources, and clean water.
Concluding Observations
Each of the military services has initiated important individual
initiatives that over time could provide a more cohesive approach to
addressing training range limitations and needs. We believe that OSD has
an important role to play in fostering coordination, collaboration, and
expansion of the best ideas and actions of the individual services and
shaping these efforts into a cohesive plan for its training ranges. At the
same time, as we previously reported, we continue to believe there are
opportunities for DOD to develop a report that addresses more fully the
reporting requirements specified in section 366, and we have made
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense in our prior reports that
highlight these opportunities. Because our previous recommendations remain
open, we are not recommending any new executive actions in this report.
However, we agree with DOD's assertion that ensuring the sustainment of
its training ranges requires a long-term commitment that will take several
years to execute. As a result, the incremental changes reflected in OSD's
reporting from year to year may not necessitate the requirement to report
annually on the department's process to address the sustainment of
training ranges. Until DOD is further along in this long-term process, our
observations on OSD's compliance with the specified reporting requirements
may continue to change little from year to year, providing little or no
new information to Congress for carrying out its oversight
responsibilities. Also, ending the reporting requirement in fiscal year
2008 as now envisioned by section 366 could result in Congress not
receiving information on the final disposition of several of the long-term
initiatives. A more comprehensive review of the status and management of
the ongoing efforts to sustain training ranges at an appropriate date in
the future may be more beneficial to Congress than our annual reporting
specified in section 366.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
In comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Readiness stated that DOD has made significant process in
assessing the encroachment challenges facing the nation's military
training and testing ranges and mitigating this threat, and that its
annual report reflected the importance DOD accords this subject. The
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense also stated that DOD agreed with us on
the need for an effective and coordinated response to address this issue
and that our report did a good job highlighting many of the initiatives
undertaken to sustain training ranges, which are the foundation for any
comprehensive solution. The department also committed to continuing
efforts to effectively oversee and report on its collective range
sustainment activities, and to do so using measurable goals and
milestones.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense's comments are reprinted in their
entirety in enclosure I. DOD also provided technical clarifications, which
we incorporated as appropriate.
- - - - -
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and members; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretaries of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The report is also available at no charge
on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov . The GAO staff members who made
key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure II.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-5581 or [email protected] . Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report.
Barry W. Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and Management
List of Congressional Committees
The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Comments from the Department of Defense
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Barry W. Holman, (202) 512-5581 ( [email protected] )
Acknowledgments
In addition to the person named above, Renee S. Brown, Mark A. Little, and
Andy G. Marek also made major contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products
Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban Operations Training
and Facilities Should Be Based on Sound Strategy and Requirements.
GAO-06-193 . Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2005.
Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range Reporting
but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements. GAO-06-29R
. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2005.
Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to Transform
Joint Training. GAO-05-548 . Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005.
Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve
Conditions of Military Training Ranges. GAO-05-534 . Washington, D.C.:
June 10, 2005.
Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address
Congressional Reporting Requirements. GAO-04-608. Washington, D.C.: June
4, 2004.
Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency
Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges. GAO-03-976.
Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003.
Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training
Ranges Still Evolving. GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003.
Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment
on Training Ranges. GAO-02-614. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment
on Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002.
Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in
Readiness Reporting. GAO-02-525. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
(350834)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
*** End of document. ***