[CPEO-MEF] ENCROACHMENT: GAO evaluates DOD'S Reporting on Sustainable Ranges

[Lenny Siegel]

Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but 
Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan

GAO-09-128R
December 15, 2008
[For the full summary and links to the entire report, go to 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-128R]

Summary

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. Department of Defense (DOD) training ranges and operating 
areas are required to be managed and operated to support their long-term 
viability and utility to meet the national defense mission. The use of 
military training ranges enhances training by providing realistic, 
hands-on experience. Sustainable training range management focuses on 
the practices that allow the military to manage its ranges in a way that 
ensures their usefulness well into the future. Because the military 
faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands, the preservation and 
sustainable management of its current lands must be priorities. New 
advances in technology, coupled with a 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, and include broad open ocean areas 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(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. 
We received the report and inventory on September 16, 2008. In 2007, we 
found that DOD had made improvements to its annual sustainable ranges 
report, but further improvements could be made. This is our fifth review 
in response to our mandate in section 366 of the act. It discusses (1) 
the extent to which DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report and training 
range inventory address the elements of section 366 and (2) 
opportunities for DOD to further improve its sustainable ranges report.

DOD continues to make progress in addressing most of the elements of 
section 366. This year's report describes the progress DOD has made in 
implementing its range sustainment plan, as required by section 366. 
Further, DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report has made progress in 
addressing the elements of section 366 required for DOD's original 
fiscal year 2004 report, but the report does not fully address three of 
these elements. The report updates improvements made in addressing four 
elements of the act required for DOD's fiscal year 2004 report: (1) the 
evaluation of the adequacy of resources to meet current and future 
requirements; (2) DOD's goals and milestones for tracking planned 
actions and measuring progress; (3) designation of offices within OSD 
and the military departments that are responsible for overseeing plans 
to improve its readiness reporting system. To address the adequacy of 
its current resources to meet current and future requirements, DOD 
established standardized criteria and identified common factors to 
assess range capabilities and encroachment, as we recommended in our 
2007 report. DOD officials said that they worked closely with service 
officials to build a common set of capability attributes and 
encroachment factors and service-specific mission areas to evaluate them 
against. In addition, for the first time, DOD's sustainable ranges 
report also includes three elements of section 366 required to be 
included in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report: (1) an assessment of current 
and future training range requirements, (2) an evaluation of virtual and 
constructive8 assets to meet range requirements, and (3) projected 
funding requirements for implementing planned range sustainability 
actions. On the other hand, the report did not put forth any 
recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or 
regulatory changes to address training constraints, nor did it explain 
the omission. Additionally, while DOD did not identify training 
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine 
areas, and airspace for each of its ranges, it included an assessment of 
such constraints on its major training ranges. As in prior years, DOD 
officials told us that the large volume of data required to identify 
capacities, capabilities, and constraints on all of its ranges makes 
doing so impractical. Finally, DOD did not provide proposals to enhance 
training range capabilities or address any shortfalls in its resources 
identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation under Section 
366(a)(2), although each of the services has assessed their current 
resources to meet current and future requirements, which has allowed 
them to determine their shortfalls in resources.

...

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: To improve the range requirements and capabilities 
assessments and future comprehensive plans within the sustainable ranges 
reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the 
Secretaries of the military departments, to include four items in future 
sustainable ranges reports: (1) each service's rationale for excluding 
training ranges from its assessment of the adequacy of current resources 
to meet requirements, (2) the Marine Corps' individual combat training 
elements as the mission areas in the range capability and encroachment 
assessment, (3) an update on the actions taken by the Air Force to 
address DOD's modernization and investment goals for range sustainment, 
and (4) a detailed description of all funding data included in each 
funding category, for each of the military services.

...


-- 


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel at cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org