Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives

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.