December 4, 2021

News

News Network

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

12 min read
<div>In the midst of the global war on terrorism and recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is working to make U.S. forces more agile and expeditionary. This transformation involves a shift from a Cold War era defense posture to a military that can surge quickly to trouble spots around the globe. In order to accomplish this transformation, it is vital for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. New advances in technology, coupled with this shift in force posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few acres--for small arms training--to over a million acres for large maneuver exercises and weapons testing, as well as broad open ocean areas that provide for offshore training and testing. These ranges face ever increasing limitations and restrictions on land, water, and airspace as residential, commercial, and industrial development continues to expand around and encroach upon once remote military training and testing installations. Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, dated December 2, 2002, required that the Secretary of Defense report on several items. First, the Secretary of Defense was required to develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the military services to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace--both in the United States and overseas. As part of the preparation of the plan, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range requirements. Second, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress, not later than June 30, 2003, on the plans to improve DOD's system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific units of the military services. Third, section 366 required the Secretary to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all training range capacities and capabilities, and any training constraints caused by limitations at each training range in fiscal year 2004, and provide an updated inventory to Congress for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of DOD's report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its readiness reporting improvements within 90 days of receiving the report from DOD. This report is our fourth review in response to our mandate in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This report discusses (1) the extent to which DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and training range inventory address the elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD's fiscal year 2004 sustainable ranges report and (2) an opportunity for DOD to improve its comprehensive plan within the sustainable ranges report to better address the elements of section 366.Although DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory still do not fully address all of the elements of section 366 required for DOD's original fiscal year 2004 report and inventory, DOD has continued to improve them and the current report and inventory represent an improvement over those from previous years. First, in an effort to improve the annual report and inventory, DOD has taken initial steps to provide the results of an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources. These assessments also help improve the training range inventory by helping to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at each training range and to identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range. Until better criteria and a more standardized methodology are developed, DOD and the services will not be presenting a consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities and needs, and will therefore be unable to identify shortfalls or gaps in their capabilities or make informed decisions about where to invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide. Second, like previous years' reports, DOD's 2007 report does not provide new recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, although DOD's original 2004 report was required by section 366 to include any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory change to address training constraints identified pursuant to section 366. Third, although DOD's readiness reporting system does not yet include training ranges, DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report describes DOD's plans to improve its reporting system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints have on the services. DOD officials told us that workshops had been scheduled to develop the system and that it should be initially operational by the end of calendar year 2008. Even with these improvements in the sustainable range report and inventory, DOD has the opportunity to improve its comprehensive plan presented within its sustainable ranges report by including projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. We asked the services for information about their range sustainment funding, and each service was able to provide us with an estimate of its budget for range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, this information was not included in the report because it presents only a partial picture of the money being spent on range sustainment. We believe, however, that even this partial information is important to include in the report because without it, Congress will have difficulty making informed decisions about funding range sustainment activities.</div>

In the midst of the global war on terrorism and recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is working to make U.S. forces more agile and expeditionary. This transformation involves a shift from a Cold War era defense posture to a military that can surge quickly to trouble spots around the globe. In order to accomplish this transformation, it is vital for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. New advances in technology, coupled with this shift in force posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few acres–for small arms training–to over a million acres for large maneuver exercises and weapons testing, as well as broad open ocean areas that provide for offshore training and testing. These ranges face ever increasing limitations and restrictions on land, water, and airspace as residential, commercial, and industrial development continues to expand around and encroach upon once remote military training and testing installations. Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, dated December 2, 2002, required that the Secretary of Defense report on several items. First, the Secretary of Defense was required to develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the military services to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace–both in the United States and overseas. As part of the preparation of the plan, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range requirements. Second, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress, not later than June 30, 2003, on the plans to improve DOD’s system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific units of the military services. Third, section 366 required the Secretary to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all training range capacities and capabilities, and any training constraints caused by limitations at each training range in fiscal year 2004, and provide an updated inventory to Congress for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of DOD’s report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its readiness reporting improvements within 90 days of receiving the report from DOD. This report is our fourth review in response to our mandate in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This report discusses (1) the extent to which DOD’s 2007 sustainable ranges report and training range inventory address the elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD’s fiscal year 2004 sustainable ranges report and (2) an opportunity for DOD to improve its comprehensive plan within the sustainable ranges report to better address the elements of section 366.

Although DOD’s 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory still do not fully address all of the elements of section 366 required for DOD’s original fiscal year 2004 report and inventory, DOD has continued to improve them and the current report and inventory represent an improvement over those from previous years. First, in an effort to improve the annual report and inventory, DOD has taken initial steps to provide the results of an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources. These assessments also help improve the training range inventory by helping to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at each training range and to identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range. Until better criteria and a more standardized methodology are developed, DOD and the services will not be presenting a consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities and needs, and will therefore be unable to identify shortfalls or gaps in their capabilities or make informed decisions about where to invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide. Second, like previous years’ reports, DOD’s 2007 report does not provide new recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, although DOD’s original 2004 report was required by section 366 to include any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory change to address training constraints identified pursuant to section 366. Third, although DOD’s readiness reporting system does not yet include training ranges, DOD’s 2007 sustainable ranges report describes DOD’s plans to improve its reporting system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints have on the services. DOD officials told us that workshops had been scheduled to develop the system and that it should be initially operational by the end of calendar year 2008. Even with these improvements in the sustainable range report and inventory, DOD has the opportunity to improve its comprehensive plan presented within its sustainable ranges report by including projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. We asked the services for information about their range sustainment funding, and each service was able to provide us with an estimate of its budget for range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, this information was not included in the report because it presents only a partial picture of the money being spent on range sustainment. We believe, however, that even this partial information is important to include in the report because without it, Congress will have difficulty making informed decisions about funding range sustainment activities.

More from:

News Network

  • Sinaloa Cartel Money Launderer Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison
    In Crime News
    A money launderer for the Sinaloa Cartel was sentenced yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for laundering approximately $15 million from the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin that were smuggled into the United States by the Sinaloa Cartel.
    [Read More…]
  • The United States Designates Al Qa’ida Financial Facilitator
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Passing of Marja’ Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Saeed al-Hakim
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt Delivers Remarks Announcing Goldman Sachs/1mdb Enforcement Actions
    In Crime News
    Good Afternoon. I am Brian Rabbitt, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division. I am joined today by Acting U.S. Attorney Seth DuCharme of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Director in Charge Bill Sweeney of the FBI, Stephanie Avakian, Director of the Enforcement Division at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement Jason Gonzalez of the Federal Reserve Board. We are here today to announce enforcement actions of historic significance.
    [Read More…]
  • COVID-19 Pandemic: Observations on the Ongoing Recovery of the Aviation Industry
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The COVID-19 pandemic severely affected the aviation and aerospace sectors that depend on commercial passenger travel. As demand for air travel plummeted and remained low throughout 2020, effects cascaded across sectors including U.S. passenger airlines, airports, aviation manufacturers, and repair station operators. For example, in response to reduced demand, airlines parked or retired a substantial portion of their aircraft fleet, which, in turn, reduced demand for aircraft maintenance services. Aircraft Temporarily Stored at Denver International Airport in 2020 In response to the pandemic's effects, aviation stakeholders reported that they acted quickly to mitigate financial losses and position themselves to maintain business viability until demand increased. Stakeholders' actions included: managing costs, such as by implementing early retirement programs; raising funds in the private market to increase liquidity; and taking steps to mitigate COVID-19's spread among employees and customers. Stakeholders also noted the importance of the over $100 billion in payroll support payments, loans, and other financial assistance provided through COVID-19 relief legislation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reported taking quick action to help the aviation industry adjust operations in response to the pandemic. These actions included providing temporary relief from some regulatory requirements—such as airline crewmember medical certifications—and issuing guidance to airlines and airports on mitigating COVID-19 risks. FAA has phased out many of these relief measures. Although airlines experienced a rebound in demand for U.S. leisure travel in 2021, operational challenges and concerns about the COVID-19 Delta variant have slowed recovery. Forecasts suggest that industry recovery will be uneven as business and international air travel—the most profitable segments—are likely to lag. Stakeholders identified areas of concern for policymakers to consider, such as strengthening aviation workforce pipelines, as they determine how or whether to continue to assist the industry in evolving market conditions. Further, developing a national aviation-preparedness plan for communicable disease, as GAO recommended, would provide greater coordination among federal and industry stakeholders and help better prepare the U.S. for future pandemics. Why GAO Did This Study International flight restrictions, local stay-at-home orders, and a general fear of contracting and spreading COVID-19 through air travel had a sudden and profound effect on the U.S. aviation industry. According to Department of Transportation (DOT) statistics, passenger traffic in April 2020 was 96 percent lower system-wide than April 2019, and remained 60 percent below 2019 traffic levels throughout 2020. This report examines (1) immediate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on businesses across the aviation industry; (2) actions those businesses took in response; (3) actions the FAA took to help the industry respond to the pandemic; and (4) the outlook for industry recovery, among other issues. GAO reviewed DOT airline operational and financial data from calendar years 2019 through 2020, financial statements from various aviation-related businesses, FAA regulations and operational guidance, and industry recovery forecasts. GAO conducted a generalizable survey of 1,136 smaller airports. GAO also interviewed officials from FAA and representatives from a judgmental sample of 47 aviation and aerospace industry stakeholders selected based on location and industry sector.
    [Read More…]
  • Earth Day 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin With Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga Before Their Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Ambassador Reeker’s Travel to Turkey
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Owner of Michigan Payroll Tax Services Firm Charged With Employment Tax Fraud
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Detroit, Michigan, returned an indictment today charging a Farwell, Michigan, businessman with failing to pay payroll taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and failing to file his own returns, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider for the Eastern District of Michigan.
    [Read More…]
  • Additional Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Homeland Security
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In August 2021, GAO identified 38 priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security. GAO is now adding two recommendations related to domestic intelligence and information sharing, bringing the total number of priority recommendations to 40. These additional two recommendations are from GAO's August 2021 report on DHS's special event designations as related to the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021. DHS's continued attention to the issues addressed in these 40 recommendations could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or johnsoncm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Broiler Chicken Producer Indicted for Price Fixing and Bid Rigging
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Denver, Colorado, returned an indictment charging Norman W. Fries Inc., dba Claxton Poultry Farms (Claxton), headquartered in Claxton, Georgia, with participating in a nationwide conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products.
    [Read More…]
  • The Ironclad U.S. Commitment to NATO
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • OPCW Condemns Syria’s Repeated Use of Chemical Weapons
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • 2020 END Wildlife Trafficking Report
    In Climate - Environment - Conservation
    Bureau of Oceans and [Read More…]
  • Celebrating 70 Years of the ANZUS Treaty
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Pompeo’s Call with Japanese Foreign Minister Motegi
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • United States Hosts December 2-8 Lead-Up Events in Advance of Summit for Democracy
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Information Security: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Made Progress, but Further Actions Are Needed to Protect Financial Data
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO FoundAlthough FDIC had implemented numerous controls in its systems, it had not always implemented access and other controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its financial systems and information. FDIC has implemented controls to detect and change default user accounts and passwords in vendor-supplied software, restricted access to network management servers, developed and tested contingency plans for major systems, and improved mainframe logging controls. However, the corporation had not always (1) required strong passwords on financial systems and databases; (2) reviewed user access to financial information in its document sharing system in accordance with policy; (3) encrypted financial information transmitted over and stored on its network; and (4) protected powerful database accounts and privileges from unauthorized use. In addition, other weaknesses existed in FDIC’s controls that were intended to appropriately segregate incompatible duties, manage system configurations, and implement patches.An underlying reason for the information security weaknesses is that FDIC had not always implemented key information security program activities. To its credit, FDIC had developed and documented a security program and had completed actions to correct or mitigate 26 of the 33 information security weaknesses that were previously identified by GAO. However, the corporation had not assessed risks, documented security controls, or performed periodic testing on the programs and data used to support the estimates of losses and costs associated with the servicing and disposal of the assets of failed institutions. Additionally, FDIC had not always implemented its policies for restricting user access or for monitoring the progress of security patch installation.Because FDIC had made progress in correcting or mitigating previously reported weaknesses and had implemented compensating management and reconciliation controls during 2010, GAO concluded that FDIC had resolved the significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting related to information security that was reported in GAO’s 2009 audit, and that the remaining unresolved issues and the new issues identified did not individually or collectively constitute a material weakness or significant deficiency in 2010. However, if left unaddressed, these issues will continue to increase FDIC’s risk that its sensitive and financial information will be subject to unauthorized disclosure, modification, or destruction.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has a demanding responsibility enforcing banking laws, regulating financial institutions, and protecting depositors. Because of the importance of FDIC’s work, effective information security controls are essential to ensure that the corporation’s systems and information are adequately protected from inadvertent misuse, fraudulent use, or improper disclosure.As part of its audits of the 2010 financial statements of the Deposit Insurance Fund and the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation Resolution Fund administrated by FDIC, GAO assessed the effectiveness of the corporation’s controls in protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its financial systems and information. To perform the audit, GAO examined security policies, procedures, reports, and other documents; tested controls over key financial applications; and interviewed key FDIC personnel.
    [Read More…]
  • Social Security and Medicare: Improving the Timeliness of Trust Fund Reports
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Treasury took some steps to improve its management of the schedule for developing the Social Security and Medicare Trustees reports but the boards of trustees did not meet the statutory deadline of April 1 for the reports due in 2020 and 2021. In 2019, GAO issued two recommendations to try to improve the timeliness of the reports. Consistent with GAO's first recommendation in 2019, Treasury developed schedules for preparing the annual reports that included the planned and actual dates for meeting intermediate goals and the statutory deadline of April 1. Other than tracking the planned and actual dates of each reporting cycle, however, Treasury has not told GAO about any other steps it took to better manage the schedule, as GAO recommended. Therefore the recommendation has not been fully implemented. GAO also recommended that Treasury inform Congress of reporting delays. Treasury reported that the working group—agency officials involved in the preparation of the reports— established a policy in December 2020 to notify Congress if the trustees anticipate issuing the reports after the April 1 statutory deadline. The policy states that the chairperson will "assess the need to notify Congress of the reports' timing." The policy does not specify how they would make that assessment, nor does it mention including the reasons for the delay. A Treasury official stated that they did not interpret our recommendation to mean that the policy itself had to address communicating the reasons for delayed reports—only that those reasons be included in the information communicated to Congress. This policy does not fully address GAO's recommendation because it implies that notifying Congress should be discretionary and does not call for any explanation of the delays and updated timeframes. The policy should serve as a prompt for subsequent working groups to provide timely updates and address all of the information we recommended communicating to Congress. There are potential actions Treasury, in consultation with the boards of trustees, could take to help address GAO's prior recommendations. For example, Treasury, in its role as chairperson of the boards, could prioritize meeting the statutory deadline, review progress in developing the reports, obtain buy-in on timeliness goals from key officials, learn from past reporting cycles, and strengthen the policy to inform Congress of delays. In addition, the boards of trustees could amend their bylaws to state explicitly the goal of meeting the April 1 statutory deadline, and require that Congress be informed of report issuance delays, the reasons for delays, and the updated issuance date estimates. Finally, if Congress does not believe sufficient progress has been made to address GAO's recommendations, it could codify GAO's 2019 recommendations to Treasury with explicit requirements for reporting and communication. In commenting on a draft of this report, Treasury emphasized the unique circumstance and challenge that the COVID-19 pandemic presented to completing the modeling underlying the Trustees reports. They explained that the working group made a deliberate decision to take additional time to prepare the reports in order to accurately incorporate the effects of the pandemic and that this was necessary in order to ensure a high-quality report. Why GAO Did This Study Boards of trustees manage the trust funds that largely provide funding for benefits paid under the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Social Security Act requires the trustees to report on the trust funds' financial status to Congress each year by April 1. In 2019, GAO reported that the trustees issued the reports after this statutory deadline in 17 of the 25 years from 1995 to 2019, and were more than 2 months late in 6 years from 2010 to 2019. GAO's report recommended two actions to the Secretary of the Treasury, in their capacity as the chairperson of the boards. The first recommendation was that Treasury work with the other trustees, in consultation with the chief actuaries of Social Security and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to improve the management of the report development schedules in order to provide the Trustees reports to Congress by the April 1 statutory deadline. The second recommended that Treasury work with other trustees to establish a policy to inform congressional committees of jurisdiction when the reports are expected to miss this deadline; we recommended that this outreach include the factors contributing to the delay and the updated expected dates. Treasury concurred with these recommendations. GAO was asked about additional actions to better ensure the timely issuance of the Trustees reports, including considering changes to the trustees' bylaws and Congressional action. This report (1) describes Treasury's progress in addressing GAO's 2019 recommendations, and (2) offers potential actions, consistent with GAO's recommendations, that could help ensure timely completion of the Trustees reports. GAO reviewed the 2019 report, relevant documentation from the reporting cycles for the 2020 and 2021 Trustees reports, and information Treasury provided about actions it has taken to implement GAO's recommendations from the 2019 report. For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Mauritius Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Exercise increased [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.