Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan
Gao ID: GAO-08-10R October 11, 2007In the midst of the global war on terrorism and recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is working to make U.S. forces more agile and expeditionary. This transformation involves a shift from a Cold War era defense posture to a military that can surge quickly to trouble spots around the globe. In order to accomplish this transformation, it is vital for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. New advances in technology, coupled with this shift in force posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few acres--for small arms training--to over a million acres for large maneuver exercises and weapons testing, as well as broad open ocean areas that provide for offshore training and testing. These ranges face ever increasing limitations and restrictions on land, water, and airspace as residential, commercial, and industrial development continues to expand around and encroach upon once remote military training and testing installations. Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, dated December 2, 2002, required that the Secretary of Defense report on several items. First, the Secretary of Defense was required to develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the military services to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace--both in the United States and overseas. As part of the preparation of the plan, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range requirements. Second, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress, not later than June 30, 2003, on the plans to improve DOD's system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific units of the military services. Third, section 366 required the Secretary to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all training range capacities and capabilities, and any training constraints caused by limitations at each training range in fiscal year 2004, and provide an updated inventory to Congress for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of DOD's report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its readiness reporting improvements within 90 days of receiving the report from DOD. This report is our fourth review in response to our mandate in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This report discusses (1) the extent to which DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and training range inventory address the elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD's fiscal year 2004 sustainable ranges report and (2) an opportunity for DOD to improve its comprehensive plan within the sustainable ranges report to better address the elements of section 366.
Although DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory still do not fully address all of the elements of section 366 required for DOD's original fiscal year 2004 report and inventory, DOD has continued to improve them and the current report and inventory represent an improvement over those from previous years. First, in an effort to improve the annual report and inventory, DOD has taken initial steps to provide the results of an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources. These assessments also help improve the training range inventory by helping to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at each training range and to identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range. Until better criteria and a more standardized methodology are developed, DOD and the services will not be presenting a consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities and needs, and will therefore be unable to identify shortfalls or gaps in their capabilities or make informed decisions about where to invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide. Second, like previous years' reports, DOD's 2007 report does not provide new recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, although DOD's original 2004 report was required by section 366 to include any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory change to address training constraints identified pursuant to section 366. Third, although DOD's readiness reporting system does not yet include training ranges, DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report describes DOD's plans to improve its reporting system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints have on the services. DOD officials told us that workshops had been scheduled to develop the system and that it should be initially operational by the end of calendar year 2008. Even with these improvements in the sustainable range report and inventory, DOD has the opportunity to improve its comprehensive plan presented within its sustainable ranges report by including projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. We asked the services for information about their range sustainment funding, and each service was able to provide us with an estimate of its budget for range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, this information was not included in the report because it presents only a partial picture of the money being spent on range sustainment. We believe, however, that even this partial information is important to include in the report because without it, Congress will have difficulty making informed decisions about funding range sustainment activities.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Brian J. Lepore Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202) 512-4523GAO-08-10R, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan
This is the accessible text file for CG speech number GAO-08-10R
entitled 'Training Ranges: Improvement Continues in DOD‘s Reporting on
Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range
Assessments and Comprehensive Plan' which was released on October 11,
2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 11, 2007:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Improvement Continues in DOD‘s Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan.
In the midst of the global war on terrorism and recent operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is working to
make U.S. forces more agile and expeditionary. This transformation
involves a shift from a Cold War era defense posture to a military that
can surge quickly to trouble spots around the globe. In order to
accomplish this transformation, it is vital for U.S. forces to train as
they intend to fight. New advances in technology, coupled with this
shift in force posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and
maintain its training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size
from a few acres”for small arms training”to over a million acres for
large maneuver exercises and weapons testing, as well as broad open
ocean areas that provide for offshore training and testing. These
ranges face ever increasing limitations and restrictions on land,
water, and airspace as residential, commercial, and industrial
development continues to expand around and encroach upon once remote
military training and testing installations.
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003, [Footnote 1] dated December 2, 2002, required that
the Secretary of Defense report on several items. First, the Secretary
of Defense was required to develop a comprehensive plan for using
existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the
military services to address training constraints caused by limitations
on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace”both in the
United States and overseas. As part of the preparation of the plan,
section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment
of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of
the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and
constructive assets, to meet current and future training range
requirements. Section 366 further required the Secretary to submit the
plan, the results of the assessment and evaluation, and any
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints in a report to Congress at the same time the
President submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004. Further, the
Secretary was required to submit to Congress a report annually between
fiscal years 2005 and 2013 [Footnote 2] describing the progress made in
implementing the 2004 plan and any additional actions taken or to be
taken to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use
of military land, marine areas, or airspace. Second, section 366
required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress, not later than
June 30, 2003, on the plans to improve DOD‘s system to reflect the
readiness impact that training constraints caused by limitations on the
use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific
units of the military services. Third, section 366 required the
Secretary to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all
available operational training ranges, all training range capacities
and capabilities, and any training constraints caused by limitations at
each training range in fiscal year 2004, and provide an updated
inventory to Congress for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. [Footnote 3]
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness signed DOD‘s
fourth annual sustainable ranges report and inventory on July 13, 2007.
[Footnote 4] We received the report and inventory on July 20, 2007.
(Enclosure I contains the text of section 366 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.)
Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of
DOD‘s report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its
readiness reporting improvements within 90 days [Footnote 5] of
receiving the report from DOD. In 2006, we found that DOD had made
improvements to its annual sustainable ranges report, but it needed
additional time to fully implement key sustainment initiatives.
[Footnote 6] Enclosure II summarizes our prior reports about military
training ranges sustainment.
This report is our fourth review in response to our mandate in section
366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003. [Footnote 7] This report discusses (1) the extent to which DOD‘s
2007 sustainable ranges report and training range inventory address the
elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD‘s fiscal year
2004 sustainable ranges report and (2) an opportunity for DOD to
improve its comprehensive plan within the sustainable ranges report to
better address the elements of section 366. Enclosure III discusses the
progress that the services have made in their individual initiatives to
sustain their training ranges.
Because DOD has not yet satisfied all of the elements of section 366
that were to be addressed in fiscal year 2004, we focused our review on
the progress DOD has made in addressing these original elements and not
on the subsequent requirement for DOD to describe its progress made in
implementing its original comprehensive plan. To determine the extent
to which DOD‘s 2007 sustainable ranges report and training range
inventory address the elements of section 366 that were required to be
in DOD‘s original fiscal year 2004 plan, we reviewed the report and
inventory and met with DOD and service officials to discuss them. We
discussed challenges DOD faced in meeting the congressionally mandated
requirements in fiscal year 2004 and continues to face and changes in
the report and inventory since 2006. We also compared the report and
inventory to the criteria in section 366 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to determine the extent to which
this year‘s report addresses the elements of section 366 that were
required to be in DOD‘s original fiscal year 2004 plan. To identify
opportunities for DOD to improve its comprehensive plan within the
sustainable ranges report, we compared the 2007 report with elements of
the comprehensive plan required by section 366. We also compared DOD‘s
2007 report and inventory to prior DOD and GAO reports. To determine
the progress that the services have made in their initiatives to
sustain their training ranges, we met with service officials about
their inputs to DOD‘s 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory, key
initiatives they have undertaken to address range sustainment,
challenges in addressing range sustainment and encroachment issues, and
progress or changes since we last reported. Due to the 90-day
requirement for this review, we did not attempt to comprehensively
evaluate the data presented in the report.
We conducted our work from April 2007 through August 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary:
Although DOD‘s 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory still do
not fully address all of the elements of section 366 required for DOD‘s
original fiscal year 2004 report and inventory, DOD has continued to
improve them and the current report and inventory represent an
improvement over those from previous years. First, in an effort to
improve the annual report and inventory, DOD has taken initial steps to
provide the results of an assessment of current and future training
range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD
resources. DOD‘s 2007 report presents information that illustrates the
services‘ assessments of their range capabilities and encroachment
issues. These assessments also help improve the training range
inventory by helping to identify all training capacities and
capabilities available at each training range and to identify training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine
areas, and airspace at each training range. However, some of the
capability assessments provided in the DOD report are based on
subjective evaluations rather than evaluations against standardized
criteria, and the factors used for the assessments vary from service to
service. DOD officials told us that they need to develop better
criteria and a more standardized methodology for the assessment of
range capabilities and encroachment across the department, but that
these criteria and methods had not yet been fully developed because DOD
has just begun to develop these processes in the past year and intends
to improve on them over time. Until better criteria and a more
standardized methodology are developed, DOD and the services will not
be presenting a consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities
and needs, and will therefore be unable to identify shortfalls or gaps
in their capabilities or make informed decisions about where to invest
sustainment dollars DOD-wide. Second, like previous years‘ reports,
DOD‘s 2007 report does not provide new recommendations for legislative
or regulatory changes to address training constraints, although DOD‘s
original 2004 report was required by section 366 to include any
recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or
regulatory change to address training constraints identified pursuant
to section 366. However, the 2007 report provides a summary of
legislative changes that DOD has recommended through other means and
explains DOD‘s position as to why this report is not the appropriate
place for making such proposals. Third, although DOD‘s readiness
reporting system does not yet include training ranges, DOD‘s 2007
sustainable ranges report describes DOD‘s plans to improve its
reporting system to reflect the readiness impact that training
constraints have on the services. DOD officials told us that workshops
had been scheduled to develop the system and that it should be
initially operational by the end of calendar year 2008.
Even with these improvements in the sustainable range report and
inventory, DOD has the opportunity to improve its comprehensive plan
presented within its sustainable ranges report by including projected
funding requirements for implementing planned actions. Like previous
years‘ reports, DOD‘s 2007 report does not provide projected funding
requirements for implementing planned actions. Instead, the report
provides a general explanation of the challenges of projecting funding
requirements. According to DOD, this requirement is difficult to meet
for several reasons, particularly because funding for range sustainment
is spread across multiple funding lines within each service‘s budget.
We asked the services for information about their range sustainment
funding, and each service was able to provide us with an estimate of
its budget for range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD
officials, this information was not included in the report because it
presents only a partial picture of the money being spent on range
sustainment. We believe, however, that even this partial information is
important to include in the report because without it, Congress will
have difficulty making informed decisions about funding range
sustainment activities.
We are making recommendations designed to improve the range
requirements and capabilities assessments and future comprehensive
plans. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our
recommendations. We discuss DOD‘s comments later in this report. DOD
also provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we
incorporated where appropriate.
Progress Made in Addressing Section 366 Requirements:
DOD‘s 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory are responsive to
the congressionally mandated requirement to describe the progress made
in implementing its sustainable ranges plan and any additional actions
taken, or to be taken, to address training constraints caused by
limitations, and contains an updated training range inventory. In
addition, DOD has continued to improve its annual sustainable ranges
report and inventory and has taken steps toward addressing the
congressionally mandated reporting requirements that were to be
addressed in DOD‘s fiscal year 2004 report, but previously had not been
addressed. Specifically, DOD has made progress in providing the results
of an assessment of current and future training range requirements;
identifying training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at
training ranges; making recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes to address training constraints; and detailing plans for
improving DOD‘s readiness reporting system to reflect the readiness
impact of constraints on training.
Assessment of Current and Future Training Range Requirements:
In an effort to address the elements of section 366 that required DOD,
in its fiscal year 2004 report, to provide the results of an assessment
of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of
the adequacy of current DOD resources to meet those requirements, DOD‘s
current report includes assessments of the services‘ current range
capabilities and the external pressures that constrain training ranges.
These assessments are presented in table format to convey the severity
of impacts caused by shortfalls in required capabilities. For example,
the Army assessed shortfalls in Fort Irwin‘s military operations on
urban terrain facilities as severely affecting Fort Irwin‘s overall
mission while shortfalls in its range scheduling system have only
minimal impact on the mission. In addition, the services have begun
individual efforts to more fully assess training range requirements and
identify gaps in capabilities. For example, the Marine Corps has fully
assessed 5 of its 14 range complexes, including providing information
on shortfalls and plans to address these shortfalls. In its Range
Complex Management Plan for Hawaii, it identifies several gaps in
capabilities, such as lack of a training facility for military
operations on urban terrain and limited targets for artillery training,
and it lays out plans to address these gaps. As the overall assessments
develop, they will also help DOD‘s efforts to propose enhancements to
training range capabilities and to address any shortfalls in current
DOD resources.
These assessments are an important first step toward addressing the
congressionally mandated requirement; however, the assessments are
based on best available data, which may not be complete or accurate
enough to reflect current conditions. In addition, they were not
conducted using a common set of issues or standard criteria for
measuring the impact of capability against requirements, and they are
partially based on subjective evaluation. According to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials, the overall capability and
encroachment assessments are fairly accurate based on available data,
and serve as a starting point to develop methodologies for assessing
capabilities and encroachment. DOD‘s directive on the sustainment of
ranges states that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness is responsible for establishing means to assess the readiness
benefits of range sustainment initiatives and to monitor the impact
that external encroachment has on training ranges. [Footnote 8]
However, when collecting information for the sustainable ranges report,
DOD provided guidance to the services only in the form of a reporting
structure, and did not establish clear criteria for how to assess the
ranges. Therefore, the services used an informal process to develop
their assessments and based their assessments on different levels of
documentation. The Navy provided assessments based on preexisting Range
Complex Management Plans that matched the format that DOD prescribed
for the assessments, but because the databases and reports that Army
officials used did not align with the format prescribed by DOD, Army
officials had to quickly figure out how to fit existing information
into the format provided. In addition, according to service officials,
there was relatively little time to conduct these assessments and
information needed to make the assessments was sometimes difficult to
obtain or unavailable. DOD officials said that they need to develop
better criteria and a more standardized methodology for these
assessments, but that these criteria and methods had not yet been fully
developed because the department has just begun to develop these
processes in the past year and intends to improve on them over time.
Until better criteria and a more standardized method are developed, DOD
and the services will be unable to present a consistent and accurate
picture of range capabilities or needs, or to make informed decisions
about where to invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide.
Training Capabilities and Capacities:
Like prior range inventories, DOD‘s 2007 inventory does not identify
the specific capacities, capabilities, and constraints of all the
ranges, although it was required by section 366 to do so in DOD‘s
fiscal year 2004 inventory. However, the capability and encroachment
assessments, included for the first time in this year‘s report, provide
some of this information for selected ranges and represent a first step
toward meeting this requirement. As stated above, each service
presented a summary of the capabilities of selected ranges or range
complexes and evaluated the status of these capabilities. For example,
the Navy evaluated its ranges based on nine capabilities, including
airspace, sea space, and communication systems. These capabilities were
evaluated based on the level of impact that shortfalls in these areas
have on each range‘s mission and were presented in table format. These
tables allow the reader to quickly see specific capability areas that
are affected at selected ranges. In addition, the services present
encroachment assessments, summarizing the constraints experienced by
the individual ranges in specific encroachment areas. For these
assessments, all of the services used the same 12 encroachment issues
to assess their ranges. [Footnote 9]
OSD officials stated that the inventory deviates very little from last
year‘s. The 2007 inventory, like 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 stated that it is impractical to include the large volume of
data needed to identify the specific capacities, capabilities, and
constraints of each range, and as a result these types of detailed data
were omitted. In addition, because in most instances these data exist
only at individual ranges, DOD would have to expend significant time
and resources to retrieve and centralize the information.
We previously recommended that the Secretary of Defense create a DOD
database that identifies all ranges available to the department and
what they offer, regardless of service ownership, so that commanders
can schedule the best available resources to provide required training.
DOD did not concur with this recommendation and reported that
significant challenges exist in creating a common range scheduling
tool. Therefore, DOD is exploring the feasibility of leveraging
existing service scheduling systems to create a net-centric scheduling
visibility capability that permits a cross-service look at available
range capacity. For example, the Marine Corps and the Army both have a
Web based inventory and scheduling system that is accessible to all
users, regardless of service, for scheduling training exercises. DOD
stated again this year that a Web-based system similar to those
developed by the Marine Corps and the Army, which could be linked to
each service‘s range inventories and schedules, is an achievable and
satisfactory way to arrive at a DOD-wide system. We continue to believe
that this suggestion is a step in the right direction and could achieve
many of the benefits we envisioned in our prior recommendation for an
inventory that could be readily accessible to users across the
department.
Recommendations for Legislative or Regulatory Changes:
Like prior reports, DOD‘s 2007 report does not include new
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints, although section 366 required the inclusion of
any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints in DOD‘s fiscal year
2004 report. In this year‘s report, DOD states that there is an
existing process by which DOD must submit all requests for legislative
language that includes, among other things, obtaining approval from
DOD‘s Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Management and
Budget, and that the deadline for this process is the same as the
deadline for the sustainable ranges report. Therefore, DOD states that
it is unable to include final DOD legislative or regulatory proposals
in the sustainable ranges report and believes this requirement should
be omitted from this report. However, DOD does include a summary of
proposals previously submitted to Congress, including recommendations
to modify the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Readiness Reporting Improvements:
In describing plans to improve the readiness reporting system to
reflect the readiness impact of training constraints, DOD‘s 2007 report
states that the Defense Readiness Reporting System is currently being
modified to provide the ability to relate changes in reported unit
readiness to training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace. Although DOD was required
to submit a report on its plans to improve its readiness reporting
system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused
by certain limitations have on specific units no later than June 30,
2003, this is the first time that the Defense Readiness Reporting
System has been addressed in DOD‘s sustainable ranges report. OSD
officials told us that the system is scheduled to be initially
operational by the end of calendar year 2008, although this is not
mentioned in the sustainable ranges report. To meet this deadline, DOD
has scheduled a series of workshops during 2007 that will bring
together various DOD range stakeholders with the intent of establishing
clear expectations and coordinating actions to support this readiness
reporting functionality. DOD officials expect that next year‘s report
will describe the status of DOD‘s efforts to improve the reporting
system to reflect the readiness impact caused by training constraints.
Opportunity to Improve DOD‘s Comprehensive Plan:
DOD‘s 2007 comprehensive plan within its sustainable ranges report, as
in previous years‘ reports, still does not provide projected funding
requirements for implementing planned actions, although this was
required to be included in DOD‘s fiscal year 2004 report. According to
DOD‘s report, it is difficult to quantify funding needs for range
sustainment because such funding is managed differently by each
service, and the costs are spread across multiple funding categories
(e.g., manpower and training) and types of funds (e.g., operations and
maintenance and military construction). DOD formed a working group in
2004 that meets periodically to develop and refine a framework for
funding sustainable range activities. However, this group has been
unable to develop a framework for capturing information from the
services about their range sustainment funding.
We asked the military services for information about their range
sustainment funding and each service was able to provide us with an
estimate of its budget for range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. The
Navy has budgeted about $24 million, the Air Force $200 million, the
Marine Corps $60 million, and the Army $129 million, primarily from
operations and maintenance funds. [Footnote 10] In addition, DOD has
budgeted $30 million for fiscal year 2008 for the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Initiative to provide funding for the military
to work with state and local governments and nongovernmental
organizations to pursue cooperative sustainability and conservation
efforts around key test and training ranges. According to OSD
officials, this information was not included in the 2007 sustainable
ranges report because it presents only a partial picture of the money
being spent on range sustainment and may not be consistent across
services. Although we agree that there may be money spent on range
sustainment that is in addition to these amounts, we believe that DOD
should include this information in its reports so that Congress can
begin to see the amount of money that is needed to adequately sustain
the services‘ training ranges and can therefore make more informed
decisions about funding range sustainment activities.
Conclusions:
DOD has continued to improve its annual sustainable ranges report over
the past few years. Yet, as we have reported since 2004, opportunities
still exist to provide more standardized range requirements and
capabilities assessments and a more complete plan. DOD has taken steps
toward addressing the elements of section 366 that were required to be
in DOD‘s original fiscal year 2004 report to assess current and future
training range requirements and evaluate the adequacy of current DOD
resources; however, it has not developed clear criteria or standard
methods for the assessments presented in the report. Without clear
criteria and standard methodology, DOD and the services will be unable
to present a consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities or
shortfalls or to make informed decisions about where to focus their
sustainment efforts or invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide. In
addition, DOD still has not presented information on the funding
required for range sustainment. DOD has noted that it faces several
challenges in presenting this information, such as the individual ways
that the services manage their own budgets. However, we were able to
identify range sustainment funding from each service for fiscal year
2008, and we believe that this information, even if it is not complete,
should be included in future annual reports to help Congress make more
informed funding decisions related to the sustainment of training
ranges.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the range requirements and capabilities assessments and
future comprehensive plans within the sustainable ranges reports, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the
secretaries of the military departments, to take the following two
actions:
* Develop clear criteria and standard methods for assessing current and
future training range requirements and capabilities.
* Include funding information on the services‘ range sustainment
efforts in future reports.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Readiness agreed with our recommendations and
indicated that actions were under way to address them. The Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense‘s comments are reprinted in enclosure IV. DOD also
provided technical comments, which we have incorporated where
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of
the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any questions about this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key
contributions to this report are listed in enclosure V.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003:
SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources
and Training System, and Training Range Inventory.
(a) PLAN REQUIRED”(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a
comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the
United States and overseas for training of the Armed Forces.
(2) As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense
shall conduct the following:
(A) An assessment of current and future training range requirements of
the Armed Forces.
(B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of Defense
resources (including virtual and constructive training assets as well
as military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United
States and overseas) to meet those current and future training range
requirements.
(3) The plan shall include the following:
(A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any
shortfalls in current Department of Defense resources identified
pursuant to the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph
(2).
(B) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring
progress.
(C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions.
(D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and in each of the military departments that will have lead
responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan.
(4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget
for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress
a report describing the progress made in implementing this subsection,
including:
(A) the plan developed under paragraph (1);
(B) the results of the assessment and evaluation conducted under
paragraph (2); and:
(C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints identified pursuant
to this section.
(5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, [Footnote 11] the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in
implementing the plan and any additional actions taken, or to be taken,
to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace.
(b) Readiness Reporting Improvement”Not later than June 30, 2003, the
Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority of
the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans of the
Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources and
Training System to reflect the readiness impact that training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine
areas, and airspace have on specific units of the Armed Forces.
(c) Training Range Inventory”(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop
and maintain a training range inventory for each of the Armed Forces:
(A) to identify all available operational training ranges;
(B) to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at
each training range; and;
(C) to identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use
of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory to
Congress at the same time as the President submits the budget for
fiscal year 2004 and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at
the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005
through 2008.
(d) GAO Evaluation”The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies of
each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller
General. Within 60 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report. [Footnote
12]
(e) Armed Forces Defined”In this section, the term …Armed Forces‘ means
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II:
GAO Prior Work Related to Military Training Ranges Sustainment:
The following tables summarize our previous reports related to military
training ranges sustainment. Table 1 lists our previous reports
evaluating the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) annual sustainable ranges
report. Table 2 lists our related reports on military training ranges
sustainment. Overall, for the past several years, we have pointed to
the need for DOD to have a comprehensive plan for managing its training
ranges.
Table 1: Summary of GAO‘s Previous Evaluations of DOD‘s Sustainable
Ranges Report:
GAO report: Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not
Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements (GAO-04-608, June 4,
2004);
Summary: The Office of the Secretary of Defense‘s (OSD) training range
inventory does not yet contain sufficient information to use as a
baseline for developing the comprehensive training range plan required
by section 366. As a result, OSD‘s training range report does not lay
out a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace
that are available in the United States and overseas for training. In
addition, OSD‘s training range report does not fully address other
requirements mandated by section 366. For example, the report does not
fully assess current and future training range requirements; fully
evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet current and future
training range requirements in the United States and overseas; identify
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints, even though DOD submitted legislative changes for
congressional consideration on April 6, 2004; or contain plans to
improve readiness reporting.
GAO report: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training
Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements (GAO-06-29R, Oct. 25, 2005);
Summary: Similar to the inventory OSD submitted to Congress in 2004,
the 2005 training range inventory does not contain sufficient information
to use as a baseline for developing a comprehensive plan to address
training constraints and help ensure range sustainability because it
does not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training
constraints for ranges of all the services as required by section 366.
Instead, it is a consolidated list of ranges provided by the individual
services that lacks critical data and is not integrated or easily
accessible by potential users. OSD's 2005 training range report”similar
to the one issued to Congress in 2004”fails to meet other requirements
mandated by section 366 that could help guide OSD and the services in
ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training ranges. Like
the 2004 report, OSD's 2005 report does 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. In
addition, OSD's 2005 report does not include its plans to improve the
department's readiness reporting system, despite a specific mandate in
section 366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003.
GAO report: Improvement Continues in DOD‘s Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives
(GAO-06-725R, June 20, 2006);
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. 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.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 2: Summary of Related Reports on Military Training Ranges
Sustainment:
GAO report: Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not
Reflected in Readiness Reporting (GAO-02-525, Apr. 30, 2002);
Summary: Our objectives in this report were to assess (1) the types of
training constraints that forces overseas face and whether they are likely
to increase in the future, (2) the impact these constraints have had on
the ability of military units to meet their training requirements and
on their reported readiness, and (3) alternatives that exist to
increase training opportunities for these forces. We found that:
* Combat units stationed outside the continental United States are able
to meet many of their training requirements but face constraints in
such areas as (1) maneuver operations, (2) live ordnance practice, and
(3) night and low altitude flying;
* Training constraints cause adverse effects, including (1) requiring
workarounds that can breed bad habits affecting combat performance, (2)
requiring military personnel to be away from home more often, and (3)
preventing training from being accomplished;
* To address these concerns, military commands and services are
negotiating with host governments to lessen restrictions on existing
training areas, but such actions are often done at an individual-
service level and sometimes create unforeseen problems for other
services and for existing training capabilities.
GAO report: Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges (GAO-02-614, June 11, 2002);
Summary: We examined (1) the impact that encroachment has had, or is
likely to have, on the services‘ training range capabilities; (2) the
effect training range losses have on the services‘ readiness and costs;
and (3) DOD‘s progress in formulating a comprehensive plan for addressing
encroachment issues. We found that over time, the military services
report they have increasingly lost training range capabilities because
of encroachment. Each of the four installations and two major commands
we visited reported having lost some capabilities in terms of the time
training ranges were available or the types of training that could be
conducted. Despite the loss of some capabilities, service readiness
data do not indicate the extent to which encroachment has significantly
affected reported training readiness. Although encroachment workarounds
may affect costs, the services have not documented the overall impact
of encroachment on training costs. The services face difficulties in
fully assessing the impact of training ranges on readiness because they
have not fully defined their training range requirements and lack
information on the training resources available to support those
requirements. DOD officials recognize the need for a comprehensive plan
to address encroachment issues but have not yet finalized a plan for
doing so. We recommended that DOD finalize a comprehensive plan for
managing encroachment issues, develop the ability to report critical
encroachment-related training problems, and develop and maintain
inventories of its training infrastructure and quantify its training
requirements. DOD concurred with our recommendations.
GAO report: Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to
Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting
Training Ranges (GAO-03-976, Sept. 29, 2003);
Summary: DOD and other federal land managers have taken some steps to
implement interagency cooperative efforts to manage endangered species
on a regional basis, but the extent to which they are using this approach
for military training ranges is limited. The Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture have issued policies, and DOD has issued directives to
promote cooperative management of natural resources. They have also
outlined specific actions to be taken”such as identifying geographic
regions for species management and forming working groups. However,
follow-through on these actions has been limited, with few of the
prescribed actions being implemented. The Departments of Defense, the
Interior, and Agriculture have identified a number of factors that can
limit cooperative management for endangered species on military
training ranges, such as limited interaction among agencies and limited
resources to employ cooperative programs. Moreover, federal agencies
cannot easily share information”such as best practices and land
management plans”because there is no centralized source of such
information. Given that federal agencies have made little progress in
implementing the various agreements for cooperative management, an
interagency reporting requirement would provide a basis to hold
agencies accountable for sharing endangered species management on
training ranges.
GAO report: Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority
Needed to Improve Conditions of Military Training Ranges (GAO-05-534,
June 10, 2005);
Summary: Our visits to eight training ranges, along with DOD‘s own
assessments, show that ranges are deteriorating and lack modernization,
adversely affecting training activities and jeopardizing the safety of
military personnel. Without adequate ranges, DOD compromises the
opportunity to achieve its transformation goal and assumes the risk
that its forces will be less prepared for missions and subjected to
hazards. DOD‘s progress in improving training range conditions has been
limited, and this is partially caused by a lack of a comprehensive
approach to ensure that ranges provide the proper setting for
effectively preparing its forces for warfare.
GAO report: Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program
to Transform Joint Training (GAO-05-548, June 21, 2005);
Summary: DOD expects its Training Transformation Program, currently in
its early implementation stages, to be fully operational by 2009, when
it has established a robust network of training capabilities that are
integrated throughout the department to provide enhanced joint
individual and unit training focused on combatant commanders‘ needs and
linked to readiness assessments. Two significant challenges that have
emerged early and will require continued focus are (1) establishing
effective partnerships with program stakeholders via comprehensive
communication and coordination to gain their full participation and buy-
in to achieve training transformation goals and (2) developing joint
training requirements”and the specific training tasks that support the
requirements”that meet combatant command mission needs. Both these
challenges, if left unaddressed, have the potential for eroding support
among program stakeholders, which in turn places the goals of the
Training Transformation Program at risk.
GAO report: Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban
Operations Training and Facilities Should Be Based on Sound Strategy
and Requirements (GAO-06-193, Dec. 8, 2005);
Summary: Since 2002, DOD has made limited progress in developing an
overall joint strategy for urban operations training and related
facility and training requirements. While the services have identified
some facility needs, Joint Forces Command and service representatives
have been unable to reach consensus on the level or types of joint
training necessary to prepare troops for urban operations. As a result,
Joint Forces Command has been unable to finalize the strategy or the
facility and joint training requirements that will form the baseline
for measuring capabilities within each service and across DOD. Until
Joint Forces Command develops an overall strategy for joint urban operations
training and related requirements, neither the Secretary of Defense nor
Congress will have a sound basis for evaluating service facility and
training plans and related funding requests. Despite DOD's increased
emphasis on the importance of training for joint urban operations
before deployment, few opportunities currently exist for joint urban
operations training that places troops from different services on the
ground working under a joint headquarters. Without a strategy, defined
requirements, and a joint scheduling mechanism, DOD cannot be assured
that joint urban operations training will occur or that it will
maximize the joint usage of training facilities. To increase the
opportunities for joint urban operations training, we are recommending
that DOD establish a mechanism for joint scheduling of joint urban
operations training at major training centers.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure III:
The Services Continue to Make Progress in Their Initiatives to Address
Training Range Sustainment:
The services continue to make various degrees of progress in their
individual sustainable range initiatives since we last reported.
Summary of Army Initiatives:
The Army continues initiatives to improve its assessment and management
of training ranges as part of its sustainable range program through the
following key efforts.
* The Army developed the Sustainable Range Program Web Portal, a single
entry point for Sustainable Range Program information, tools, and
capabilities related to Sustainable Range Program activities and
management. This Web portal facilitates information exchange among unit
commanders and trainers.
* The Army is in the process of conducting environmental assessments on
all of its training ranges in the United States as part of its
operational range assessment program. The Army plans to complete these
initial assessments, designed to better manage the ranges to have a
trained and ready force while ensuring the protection of human health
and the environment in the communities surrounding ranges, in fiscal
year 2009.
* Within its sustainable range program regulation issued in 2005, the
Army developed a policy to address clearance of training ranges. Range
clearance is conducted to allow safe access to ranges and preclude
accumulation of munitions and debris.
* To develop an Army-wide range inventory and database, the Army is
using geographic information system data and storing this information
on a central server managed by the Office of the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management.
* To more effectively address encroachment concerns, the Army has
completed its Sustainable Range Program Outreach Policy and
Communications Plan, which it began in 2003. The plan provides policy
guidance and tools to assist installations in effectively communicating
live training requirements and encroachment challenges with the public.
Summary of Navy Initiatives:
Listed below are several of the Navy‘s initiatives to improve its
assessment and management of training ranges.
* The Navy has completed Range Complex Management Plans on 12 out of 16
range complexes, and intends to complete the remaining plans by the end
of 2007. The purpose of the Range Complex Management Plans is to assess
training range capabilities and encroachment issues and to assist in
the day-to-day management of the training ranges.
* The Navy headquarters range office, in conjunction with the Navy
environmental readiness office, is a developing servicewide range
sustainment policy that assigns specific range sustainment
responsibilities to each level of the range support command structure
and integrates sustainment strategies from the test and training
communities. The policy was originally scheduled to be issued by
September 2006; however, due to funding issues and changes in
organizational responsibility, Navy officials believe this policy will
not be issued until September 2007.
* To assess off-range migration of munitions contaminants, the Navy
conducted range assessments on 11 training range complexes and 2 major
range and test facilities bases.
* In late 2006, the Navy completed initial development of a Navy-wide
encroachment database. The Navy will work to finalize database
development and link it to established repositories of information. The
Navy will use this repository of information to prepare reports and
testimony to Congress and for encroachment program funding
justification.
Summary of Marine Corps Initiatives:
The Marine Corps has made progress though the following initiatives to
improve its assessment and management of training ranges.
* The Marine Corps has been working to modernize its ranges to include
more urban terrain and improvised explosive device training.
* The Marine Corps issued its Training Ranges Required Capabilities
Document in June 2006. This document validates the requirements for its
ranges and training areas over the next 10-year period and identifies
shortfalls in range capabilities that will form the basis for the
Marine Corps‘ investment strategies for range operations, maintenance,
and modernization.
* The Marine Corps has 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. According to Marine Corps officials, current
plans are to implement the system at all of their ranges by the end of
2007. The prior year‘s plans were to have the system completely
implemented by the end of fiscal year 2006, but actual system
implementation was more difficult than originally planned.
* To assess off-range migration of munitions contaminants, the Marine
Corps conducted eight visits to Marine Corps training ranges between
fiscal years 2004 and 2006. The Marine Corps is currently conducting
analysis of the data gathered during these site visits. During fiscal
year 2007, the Marine Corps will conduct an additional four site
visits.
* The Marine Corps developed a Training Range Encroachment Information
System Tool to automate range and training capability analyses. This
tool will interface with and provide capabilities assessment data to
the Marine Corps‘ Range and Training Area Management System and the
Range Complex Management Plans. This tool is entering a proof-of-
concept phase to be completed in 2007.
Summary of Air Force Initiatives:
The Air Force has also made strides through the following initiatives
to improve its assessment and management of training ranges.
* The Air Force developed a management tool to standardize its
comprehensive range plans and intends to have comprehensive range plans
for all training ranges by 2008.
* The Air Force completed its Operational Range Assessment Plan in
March 2006, which provided guidance for assessing off-range migration
of munitions contaminants. By the end of 2006, eight major air-to-
ground ranges or range complexes had been assessed, with three more
scheduled to begin in 2007.
* The Air Force developed a Natural Infrastructure Assessment Process
to evaluate the availability or lack of availability of the natural
infrastructure needed to support current and future mission
requirements at major installations and ranges. This assessment
includes quantifying mission impacts caused by encroachment and will
assist commanders in identifying and prioritizing initiatives to
address mission inefficiencies and encroachment. The Air Force plans to
assess all of its installations and ranges by the end of 2008.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
September 26 2007:
Mr. Brian J. Lepore:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability
Office: Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office Draft Report GAO-08-10R, "Training Ranges:
Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges but
Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive
Plan," August 30, 2007.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft. The DoD
appreciates the GAO's assessment of the encroachment challenges facing
our nation's military ranges and operating areas and the Department's
comprehensive plan to sustain these critical assets. As the GAO
observes, we believe that annual reporting to Congress continues to
improve over time as the Department's sustainable ranges effort
matures. Further improvement is possible in some subject areas, and DoD
is committed to continuing the development of and reporting on our
range assessment and comprehensive planning processes, in consonance
with the GAO recommendations.
DoD responses on the specific GAO recommendations are enclosed. Several
technical comments on the report have also been provided for GAO
consideration. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress and
the GAO to maintain a ready and sustainable military testing and
training infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Paul W. Mayberry:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness):
Enclosure:
As stated:
GAO-08-10R Draft Report:
"Training Ranges: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on
Sustainable Ranges but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range
Assessments and Comprehensive Plan"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the secretaries of the military departments to
develop clear criteria and standard methods for assessing current and
future training range requirements and capabilities. (p. 12/GAO Draft
Report)
DOD Response: The DoD concurs with this recommendation, and will
continue to develop and improve the criteria and methodology associated
with our range requirements and capabilities assessment processes in
our subsequent reports.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the secretaries of the military departments to
include funding information on the services' range sustainment efforts
in future reports. (p. 12/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: The DoD concurs. Programmed funding data associated with
range sustainment will be captured and documented in future Sustainable
Ranges Reports to Congress to the extent possible. However, any funding
data presented beyond the current year will be subject to the caveat
that final Service budgets for out years are subject to change.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure V:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brian Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Mark Little, Assistant Director;
Leslie Bharadwaja; Larry Bridges; Joanne Landesman; and Katherine
Lenane made key contributions to this report.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-314 (2002).
[2] Section 366 originally required reports for fiscal years 2005
through 2008. However, this requirement was extended through 2013 by
section 348 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006).
[3] Id.
[4] Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges
(Washington, D.C.: July 2007).
[5] Section 366 originally required GAO to submit its report to
Congress within 60 days of receiving the original report from DOD, but
this was extended to 90 days by section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364
(2006).
[6] GAO, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges
but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives, GAO-
06-725R (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006).
[7] GAO was not specifically required by section 366 to review DOD‘s
training range inventory. However, because DOD submits this inventory
with its sustainable ranges report, we elected to review DOD‘s training
range inventory, as we have done in past years.
[8] Department of Defense Directive 3200.15, Sustainment of Ranges and
Operating Areas (Jan. 10, 2003).
[9] The 12 encroachment issues are endangered species/critical habitat,
unexploded ordnance/munitions, frequency encroachment, maritime
sustainability, airspace restrictions, air quality, airborne noise,
urban growth, cultural resources, water quality, wetlands, and range
transients.
[10] The figures provided by the Marine Corps also include procurement
and research, development, test, and evaluation funds.
[11] This requirement was extended through 2013 by section 348 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
[12] This requirement was extended to 90 days by section 348 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov,:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
