Page 1 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 20, 2006 

Congressional Committees

Subject: Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges but 

Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives

Recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the world have 

highlighted the need for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. The use of 

military training ranges enhances the success of the training by providing realistic, 

hand-on experience. However, the military services report they have increasingly lost 

training range capabilities due to encroachment1

 and other factors, such as a lack of 

maintenance and modernization. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), 

encroachment pressures generally fall within three broad categories: (1) competition 

for resources (e.g., access to land, water, air, and key frequencies in the 

communications spectrum); (2) civilian community objections to military training 

exercises (e.g., noise complaints); and (3) heightened focus on environmental 

enforcement and compliance issues. DOD officials report that encroachment has 

resulted in a slow but steady increase in problems affecting the realistic use of their 

ranges and that the gradual accumulation of these limitations will increasingly 

threaten training readiness. For example, urban development around many 

installations has made noise generated by military training a leading cause of 

community complaints and claims, resulting in nighttime and weekend training 

curfews, range closures, and aircraft flight changes. 

Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003,2

 required the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for the 

sustainment of training ranges using existing authorities available to the Secretaries 

of Defense and the military departments to address training constraints caused by 

limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace available both in 

the United States and overseas. Section 366 also required the Secretary to submit to 

 

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). 
 

Page 2 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

 

Congress a report containing the comprehensive training range sustainment plan, the 

results of an assessment and evaluation of current and future training range 

requirements, and any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative 

or regulatory changes to address training constraints. It also directed the Secretary 

of Defense to develop and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the 

armed forces, which identifies all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at 

each training range. DOD was to submit both the report and the training range 

inventory to Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for fiscal 

year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted its first report—

Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive 

Plan—and its training range inventory to Congress on February 27, 2004, and its 

second annual report and inventory to Congress on July 14, 2005.3

 OSD presented its 

current annual sustainable ranges report and inventory to Congress on February 17, 

2006.4

Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of OSD’s 

annual reports. In our prior reports, we found that OSD's training range reports and 

inventories provided to Congress did not fully address several reporting 

requirements.5

 For example, both previous OSD reports did not meet requirements 

because they did not include an assessment of current and future training range 

requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current resources, including virtual 

and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range requirements; or 

recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training 

constraints—although specifically required to do so by section 366. Nevertheless, as 

we pointed out in our prior report, there was a noteworthy change from 2004 to 2005 

reporting—OSD’s 2005 report included some elements of a plan, such as general 

goals, actions, and milestones, needed to address the long-term sustainability of 

ranges, but did not identify funding requirements for implementing planned actions, 

although specified by section 366, and did not assign responsibility for 

implementation of specific tasks or provide performance metrics to measure 

progress—critical elements for a meaningful plan. We also found that the inventories 

in both reports did not fully identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training 

constraints for all ranges as required by section 366. 

3

 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Implementation of the Department 

of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan (Washington, D.C.: July 2005). 

4

 DOD, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Report to Congress On Sustainable 

Ranges (Washington, D.C.: February 2006). 

5

 GAO, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional 

Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004); and Some Improvements 

Have Been Made in DOD’s Annual Training Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address 

Congressional Requirements, GAO-06-29R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 25, 2005). See the Related GAO 

Products section at the end of this report for a list of our products related to the issues discussed in 

this report. 
 

Page 3 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

 

This letter, our third report, summarizes our observations on the extent to which 

OSD's 2006 sustainable ranges report and range inventory address the requirements 

specified by section 366, and the department’s key initiatives to sustain its training 

ranges. 

To address these objectives, we met with OSD and service officials to discuss the 

extent to which the 2006 report and inventory meet the mandated requirements, and 

to obtain information about key initiatives undertaken to address range sustainment. 

In addition, we reviewed OSD’s 2006 report to determine if it addressed the 

requirements mandated by the act—a comprehensive training range sustainment 

plan; an assessment of current and future training range requirements; an evaluation 

of the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, 

to meet current and future training range requirements; recommendations for 

legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints; and plans to improve 

the readiness reporting system. We also evaluated the quality of OSD’s plan 

presented in the 2006 report by comparing it to sound management principles for 

strategic planning, such as the identification of quantifiable goals, planned actions, 

funding requirements, milestones to measure progress, and organizations responsible 

for implementing the planned actions. Because OSD’s 2006 report notes that it 

should be viewed as a supplement to the department’s prior reports, we evaluated 

this year’s report within the context of the 2004 and 2005 reports considering the 

degree to which all three reports met the requirements of section 366. We also 

reviewed OSD’s 2006 range inventory to assess whether the inventory identified 

training capabilities, capacities, and constraints caused by limitations at each training 

range as specified in section 366. Due to the limited time frame for this review, we 

did not attempt to comprehensively evaluate the quality of the data presented in 

OSD’s report. 

We conducted our work from March through May 2006 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Summary 

While still not fully addressing all elements of the congressionally mandated reporting 

requirements, such as providing an assessment of training range requirements and 

recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes, OSD has continued to 

improve its annual sustainable range reporting by better describing the encroachment 

challenges and their effects on training, identifying tools for range management, and 

focusing on key initiatives needed to address encroachment.6

 This year’s report 

provides a more complete picture of the impacts of encroachment on the operations 

of military installations and training ranges and of the challenges OSD and the 

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. 
 

Page 4 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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 
 

Page 5 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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 longterm 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 OSDlevel report, such as the annual sustainable ranges report. 
 

Page 6 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

• 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 realtime 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 
 

Page 7 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

 

users and that Marine Corps and Army range users already have access to each 

other’s scheduling systems and a considerable amount of range information through 

the Web-based range facility management support system. DOD also commented 

that the Marine Corps has suggested that a system of such Web-based links to each 

service's range inventories and schedules, when they are made available, is an 

achievable and satisfactory way to arrive at a DOD-wide enterprise level system. We 

believe that this suggestion warrants further consideration and may achieve many of 

the benefits we envisioned in our prior recommendation for an inventory that could 

be readily accessible to users across the department. At the same time, in addition to 

our prior recommendation, DOD reports—including OSD’s current sustainable ranges 

report—and Defense officials have also called for a range information management 

system that would allow range offices and users to share information within and 

across the services, and that such a Web-based system could also include data on 

best practices, policies, points of contact, funding, and range conditions and 

capabilities. 

Under OSD Leadership, the Services 

Have Started a Broad Range of Initiatives 

to Address Training Range Sustainment 

The 2006 report provides information about a broad range of service initiatives, 

developed under OSD leadership, that are underway to address training range 

sustainment but which will require some time to complete. In 2003, OSD issued a 

directive outlining the overarching policy for the department’s sustainment program.7

 

The directive requires DOD components to identify encroachment concerns, 

environmental considerations, financial obligations, and safety factors that may 

influence current or future training range activities and uses. It also requires that 

inventories of training ranges be completed, updated every 5 years, and maintained in 

a geographical information system that is readily accessible by installation and range 

decision makers. It further requires multitiered coordination and outreach programs 

at the national, regional, and local levels to promote sustainment of ranges. 

According to OSD, the sustainment of its training and testing capability, while also 

engaging in environmental stewardship and mitigating encroachment concerns, is a 

long-term process. Ultimately, its goal is to integrate the various services’ objectives 

and associated funding requirements into one comprehensive planning process that 

can be maintained well into the future. 

Individually, the military services have initiated a planning and management process 

as an integral part of the department’s sustainable ranges program. For example, the 

Army issued a detailed sustainable range program plan in July 20038

 and recently 

started developing a tool for standardized local range plans, which will identify 

current and future ranges and training land assets, and integrate training 

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). 
 

Page 8 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

 

requirements and constraints. The Army expects to test this management tool during 

fiscal year 2006 and field it in final form in fiscal year 2007. The Navy has also started 

to develop management plans for its training range complexes that, among other 

things, include a description of each of the training areas, an investment strategy, 

analyses of encroachment and sustainment challenges and capability shortfalls, 

identification of existing environmental planning requirements, and a blueprint for 

obtaining community involvement.9

 The Navy expects to have management plans 

completed for 15 of its 17 range complexes by October 2006, and does not plan to 

prepare such plans for the remaining 2 complexes because these complexes are not 

involved in any ongoing training operations. The Marine Corps has started to develop 

local range complex management plans for their training ranges that will, at a 

minimum, describe the condition of the ranges, organizational relationships, and 

encroachment and sustainment challenges; assess range capabilities against 

requirements; outline community outreach programs; and identify investment 

requirements for sustainment and modernization. Marine Corps officials said that 

they funded six plans that are being developed and expect the remaining two plans to 

be completed in the 2008-2009 time frame. Furthermore, according to Air Force 

officials, local range offices have plans to manage their ranges and Air Force 

headquarters is creating a management system, scheduled to be operational in 2007, 

to update and provide for more standardized plans across its ranges. 

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 

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. 
 

Page 9 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

 

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.10 The Army also issued a 

regulation in August 2005 that outlines its sustainable range program and approach 

for improving how it designs, manages, and uses ranges to ensure long-term 

sustainability.11 The regulation also defines responsibilities, prescribes policies for 

Army-controlled training ranges and lands, describes the Army’s public outreach 

efforts, and provides tools for identifying and assessing current and future 

encroachment challenges. Within the program, Army has initiated several key efforts 

to address issues associated with the sustainment of its training ranges, to include the 

following. 

• 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. 

• 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, 

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). 
 

Page 10 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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. 

• 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 redcockaded 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. 

• 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 
 

Page 11 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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 offbase 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, 
 

Page 12 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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. 

• 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. 

• 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 
 

Page 13 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

comprehensive review of the status and management of the ongoing efforts to sustain 

training ranges at an appropriate date in the future may be more beneficial to 

Congress than our annual reporting specified in section 366. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

In comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Readiness stated that DOD has made significant process in assessing the 

encroachment challenges facing the nation’s military training and testing ranges and 

mitigating this threat, and that its annual report reflected the importance DOD 

accords this subject. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense also stated that DOD 

agreed with us on the need for an effective and coordinated response to address this 

issue and that our report did a good job highlighting many of the initiatives 

undertaken to sustain training ranges, which are the foundation for any 

comprehensive solution. The department also committed to continuing efforts to 

effectively oversee and report on its collective range sustainment activities, and to do 

so using measurable goals and milestones. 

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in 

enclosure I. DOD also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and 

members; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. The GAO staff members who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in enclosure II. 

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-5581 or holmanb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. 

Barry W. Holman, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 
 

Page 14 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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 I Enclosure I 

Page 15 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

Comments from the Department of Defense 
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

Page 16 GAO-06-725R Military Training 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 17 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

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. 
 

Page 18 GAO-06-725R Military Training 

Related GAO Products 

Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban Operations Training and 

Facilities Should Be Based on Sound Strategy and Requirements. GAO-06-193. 

Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2005. 

Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range Reporting 

but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements. GAO-06-29R. 

Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2005. 

Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to Transform Joint 

Training. GAO-05-548. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005. 

Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve 

Conditions of Military Training Ranges. GAO-05-534. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 

2005. 

Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address 

Congressional Reporting Requirements. GAO-04-608. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004. 

Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency 

Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges. GAO-03-976. 

Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003. 

Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges 

Still Evolving. GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003. 

Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on 

Training Ranges. GAO-02-614. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002. 

Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on 

Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002. 

Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness 

Reporting. GAO-02-525. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002. 

(350834) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.