This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-725R 
entitled 'Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable 
Ranges but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key 
Initiatives' which was released on , 2006. 

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. 

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 encroachment[Footnote 1] 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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 3] OSD presented its current annual sustainable ranges 
report and inventory to Congress on February 17, 2006.[Footnote 4] 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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. 

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. 

² 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. 

² 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. 

² 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. 

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.[Footnote 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 2003[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 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. 

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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

² 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. 

² 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. 

² 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. 

² 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. 

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. 

² 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. 

² 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 [Hyperlink, 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 holmanb@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Signed by: 

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: 

Enclosure 1: 
Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Personnel And Readiness: 
Under Secretary Of Defense: 
4000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000: 

June 9, 2006: 

Mr. Barry W. Holman: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Holman: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government 
Accountability Office Draft Report GAO-06-725R, "MILITARY TRAINING: 
Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges but 
Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives," dated 
May 10, 2006 (GAO code 350834). 

The Department thanks the GAO for its efforts over the past several 
years in assessing the encroachment challenges facing our nation's 
military training and testing ranges and our actions to mitigate this 
threat. The Department agrees with the GAO on the need for an effective 
and coordinated response. We feel we have made significant progress in 
this regard, as the GAO Report states, and believe our February 2006 
submission to Congress reflects the importance we place on this 
initiative. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services are working 
closely together to refine and execute a comprehensive range 
sustainment response that will counter encroachment and protect this 
nation's investment in our irreplaceable land, sea, air and spectrum 
resources. We are committed to improving our ability to track, 
coordinate and manage overall range sustainment planning and 
programming. The GAO report does a good job highlighting many of the 
initiatives undertaken by the Services to sustain their training; these 
efforts are the foundation of any comprehensive solution. The 
Department will continue its efforts to effectively oversee and report 
on our collective range sustainment activities, and to do so using 
measurable goals and milestones. 

The Department continues to work to better define and project forward 
our training requirements in order to identify and protect needed 
resources. As we increasingly partner with states and localities in 
protecting vital military assets, we have learned that being able to 
clearly state our long-range requirements is vital to charting a 
successful course ahead. Such long-range planning is admittedly a 
challenge, given the dynamic nature of national security objectives and 
training needs; we will describe our progress in our future reports. 
Similarly, our ability to track training range sustainment as part of 
future readiness reporting is essential; we will ensure this is more 
fully addressed in future reports as well. 

Several technical comments on the report have been provided separately 
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): 

[End of Section] 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Barry W. Holman, (202) 512-5581 (holmanb@gao.gov): 

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): 

FOOTNOTES 

[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). 

[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. 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

[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). 

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: 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: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: