[CPEO-MEF] GAO report on encroachment

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

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
For the original abstract and links to the full report, go to
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-725R

Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003, required the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive plan for the sustainment of training ranges using existing 
authorities available to the Secretaries of Defense and the military 
departments to address training constraints caused by limitations on the 
use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace available both in the 
United States and overseas. Section 366 also required the Secretary to 
submit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive training range 
sustainment plan, the results of an assessment and evaluation of current 
and future training range requirements, and any recommendations that the 
Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address 
training constraints. It also directed the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the 
armed forces, which identifies all training capacities, capabilities, 
and constraints at each training range. The Department of Defense (DOD) 
was to submit both the report and the training range inventory to 
Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for fiscal 
year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for fiscal years 2005 
through 2008. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted its 
first report--Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range 
Comprehensive Plan--and its training range inventory to Congress on 
February 27, 2004, and its second annual report and inventory to 
Congress on July 14, 2005. OSD presented its current annual sustainable 
ranges report and inventory to Congress on February 17, 2006. Section 
366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of OSD's 
annual reports. In our prior reports, we found that OSD's training range 
reports and inventories provided to Congress did not fully address 
several reporting requirements. For example, both previous OSD reports 
did not meet requirements because they did not include an assessment of 
current and future training range requirements; an evaluation of the 
adequacy of current resources, including virtual and constructive 
assets, to meet current and future training range requirements; or 
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address 
training constraints--although specifically required to do so by section 
366. Nevertheless, as we pointed out in our prior report, there was a 
noteworthy change from 2004 to 2005 reporting--OSD's 2005 report 
included some elements of a plan, such as general goals, actions, and 
milestones, needed to address the long-term sustainability of ranges, 
but did not identify funding requirements for implementing planned 
actions, although specified by section 366, and did not assign 
responsibility for implementation of specific tasks or provide 
performance metrics to measure progress--critical elements for a 
meaningful plan. We also found that the inventories in both reports did 
not fully identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training 
constraints for all ranges as required by section 366. This letter, our 
third report, summarizes our observations on the extent to which OSD's 
2006 sustainable ranges report and range inventory address the 
requirements specified by section 366, and the department's key 
initiatives to sustain its training ranges.

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. 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.
--


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org


_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military