Military Training
DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements Gao ID: GAO-04-608 June 4, 2004Section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required the Secretary of Defense to develop a report outlining a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and air space that are available in the United States and overseas for training. The foundation for that plan is an inventory identifying training resources, capacities and capabilities, and limitations. In response to section 366, this report discusses the extent to which (1) the Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) training range inventory is sufficient for developing the comprehensive training range plan and (2) OSD's 2004 training range report meets other requirements mandated by section 366.
OSD's training range inventory does not yet contain sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive training range plan required by section 366. As a result, OSD's training range report does not lay out a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and air space that are available in the United States and overseas for training. First, OSD's training range inventory does not fully identify available training resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and existing training constraints caused by encroachment or other factors to serve as the baseline for the comprehensive training range plan. Second, OSD and the services' inventories are not integrated, readily available, or accessible by potential users so that commanders can schedule the best available resources to provide the required training. Third, OSD's training range report does not include a comprehensive plan with quantifiable goals or milestones for tracking planned actions to measure progress, or projected funding requirements needed to implement the plan. Instead, the report provides the current status of the four services' various sustainable range efforts in the United States, which if successful, overtime should provide a more complete picture of the magnitude and impact of constraints on training. OSD's training range report does not fully address other requirements mandated by section 366. For example, the report does not: (1) fully assess current and future training range requirements; (2) fully evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet current and future training range requirements in the United States and overseas; (3) identify recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, even though the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted legislative changes for congressional consideration on April 6, 2004; or (4) contain plans to improve readiness reporting.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-608, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-608
entitled 'Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not
Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements' which was released
on June 04, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
June 2004:
Military Training:
DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional
Reporting Requirements:
GAO-04-608:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-608, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 required the Secretary of Defense to develop a report outlining a
comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and air space
that are available in the United States and overseas for training. The
foundation for that plan is an inventory identifying training
resources, capacities and capabilities, and limitations. In response to
section 366, this report discusses the extent to which (1) the Office
of the Secretary of Defense‘s (OSD) training range inventory is
sufficient for developing the comprehensive training range plan and (2)
OSD‘s 2004 training range report meets other requirements mandated by
section 366.
What GAO Found:
OSD‘s training range inventory does not yet contain sufficient
information to use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive
training range plan required by section 366. As a result, OSD‘s
training range report does not lay out a comprehensive plan to address
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and air space that are available in the United
States and overseas for training. First, OSD‘s training range inventory
does not fully identify available training resources, specific
capacities and capabilities, and existing training constraints caused
by encroachment or other factors to serve as the baseline for the
comprehensive training range plan. Second, OSD and the services‘
inventories are not integrated, readily available, or accessible by
potential users so that commanders can schedule the best available
resources to provide the required training. Third, OSD‘s training range
report does not include a comprehensive plan with quantifiable goals or
milestones for tracking planned actions to measure progress, or
projected funding requirements needed to implement the plan. Instead,
the report provides the current status of the four services‘ various
sustainable range efforts in the United States, which if successful,
overtime should provide a more complete picture of the magnitude and
impact of constraints on training.
OSD‘s training range report does not fully address other requirements
mandated by section 366. For example, the report does not:
* Fully assess current and future training range requirements.
* Fully evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet current and
future training range requirements in the United States and overseas.
* Identify recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to
address training constraints, even though the Department of Defense
(DOD) submitted legislative changes for congressional consideration on
April 6, 2004.
* Contain plans to improve readiness reporting.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that OSD develop an integrated training range database
that identifies available training resources, capacities and
capabilities, and training constraints caused by encroachment and other
factors; and makes several recommendations to enhance DOD‘s
responsiveness to the legislative requirements. DOD disagreed with
GAO‘s findings and three of its four recommendations. After reviewing
DOD‘s comments, GAO continues to believe its recommendations are still
valid.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-608.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry W. Holman at (202)
512-8412 or holmanb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
OSD's Training Range Inventory Does Not Yet Contain Sufficient
Information to Use as a Baseline for a Comprehensive Plan:
OSD's Training Range Report Does Not Fully Meet Other Requirements
Mandated by Section 366:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Abbreviations:
DODDepartment of Defense:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 4, 2004:
Congressional Committees:
For some time, senior Department of Defense (DOD) and military service
officials have reported that they face increasing difficulties in
carrying out realistic training at military installations due to
training constraints, such as those resulting from
encroachment.[Footnote 1] Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
dated December 2, 2002,[Footnote 2] required that the Secretary of
Defense develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities
available to the Secretaries of Defense and the military services to
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the
United States and overseas for training. 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[Footnote 3]
requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD
resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current
and future training range requirements. Section 366 further required
the Secretary to submit the plan, the results of the assessment and
evaluation, and any recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes to address training constraints in a report to the Congress at
the same time the President submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004
and provide status reports annually between fiscal years 2005 and 2008
on implementation of the plan and any additional actions taken or to be
taken. In addition, 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.
We have previously reported on the need for an integrated and readily
available or accessible comprehensive inventory of the services'
training ranges, capacities, and capabilities so that commanders can
schedule the best available resources to provide the required
training.[Footnote 4] Section 366 also required the Secretary of
Defense to report to the Congress on the plans to improve the Global
Status of Resources and Training 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. (See section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 in app. I.):
Instead of issuing the first report along with the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget submission in 2003, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) submitted to the Congress its Implementation of the
Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan report
on February 27, 2004. In an effort to obtain assistance from the
military services in preparing this report, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in a January 2003 memorandum,
directed each of the military services to develop a single standalone
report that could be consolidated to form OSD's overall
report.[Footnote 5] As such, OSD's report reflects the varying levels
of detail provided by each service.
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 also required that the Secretary of Defense provide us
a copy of the annual training range report and that we must provide
the Congress with our evaluation of these annual reports. This report
discusses the extent to which (1) OSD's training range inventory
contains sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the
comprehensive training range plan required by section 366, and
(2) OSD's training range report meets other requirements mandated by
section 366, such as 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; any recommendations for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints; and plans to
improve the readiness reporting system.
To identify the extent that OSD's training range inventory contains
sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the
comprehensive training range plan required by section 366, we reviewed
the inventory contained in the OSD training range report and the
services' inventory inputs to assess whether the inventory identified
training capabilities (e.g., types of training that can be conducted
and available targets), capacities (e.g., size of range or amount of
training that can be accommodated), and constraints caused by
encroachment for each training range.[Footnote 6] Also, we discussed
the content of the inventories with knowledgeable OSD and service
officials. To determine the extent to which OSD's training range report
met other requirements mandated by section 366, we thoroughly reviewed
the report for 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. In addition, we discussed the
adequacy of OSD's report and the services' inputs with knowledgeable
OSD and service officials and a representative of the contractor that
prepared the report. Details about our scope and methodology appear at
the end of this letter.
We conducted our work from December 2003 through April 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
OSD's training range inventory, which is a compilation of the
individual services' inventories, does not contain sufficient
information to use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive
training range plan. As a result, OSD's report does not include a
comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace
that are available in the United States and overseas for training--as
required by section 366. While OSD's training range inventory lists the
services' training ranges and capabilities as of November 2003 and the
individual service input documents provide more descriptive examples of
constraints on training than we have seen previously, they do not fully
identify existing limitations on training. Also, these inventories are
not integrated, readily available, or accessible by potential users so
that commanders can schedule the best available resources to provide
the required training. An integrated training range database that could
be continuously updated and shared among the services at all command
levels, regardless of service ownership, would make these inventories
more useful to identify available training resources, specific
capacities and capabilities, and training constraints caused by
encroachment. Without an inventory that fully identifies available
training resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and existing
training constraints caused by encroachment, it is difficult to frame a
meaningful plan to address such constraints. As a result, OSD's report
does not contain a comprehensive plan to address training constraints
on military training ranges caused by limitations on the use of
training ranges, as required by section 366. Instead, the report
provides the current status of the services' various sustainable range
efforts, which if successful, overtime should provide a more complete
picture of the magnitude and impact of constraints on training. Even
so, OSD's report does not include quantifiable goals or milestones for
tracking planned actions and measuring progress, or projected funding
requirements. The absence of these elements is significant given the
legislative requirement for OSD to report annually on its progress in
implementing the plan.
OSD's report, which is a consolidation of information provided by the
services, does not fully address several other requirements mandated by
section 366. For example, the report does not:
* Fully assess current and future training range requirements. Instead,
it mainly describes the services' processes to develop, document, and
execute current training and training range requirements.
* Fully evaluate the adequacy of current DOD resources, including
virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training
range requirements. Instead, the report broadly describes the types of
ranges the services need to meet their training requirements in the
United States. It does not indicate whether those types of ranges
exist; are in the needed quantity and location; and the degree to which
encroachment or other factors, such as inadequate maintenance or
modernization, impact the services' ability to train on those ranges,
including whether the ranges have the instrumentation, target sets, or
other infrastructure needed to meet current and future training range
requirements.
* Identify recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to
address training constraints, even though DOD submitted legislative
changes for congressional consideration on April 6, 2004.
* Contain plans to improve the readiness reporting system, called the
Global Status of Resources and Training System. This reporting system
was to capture the impact on readiness caused by training constraints.
To serve as the baseline for the comprehensive training range plan
required by section 366, we are recommending that OSD and the military
services jointly develop an integrated training range database that
identifies available training resources, specific capacities and
capabilities, and training constraints caused by encroachment and other
factors, which could be continuously updated and shared among the
services at all command levels, regardless of service ownership. To
improve future reports, we recommend that OSD provide a more complete
training range report to the Congress to fully address the requirements
specified in the section 366 mandate by (1) developing a comprehensive
plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking
planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding
requirements to more fully address identified training constraints,
(2) assessing current and future training range requirements and
evaluating the adequacy of current resources to meet these
requirements, and (3) developing a readiness reporting system to
reflect the impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to
limitations on the use of training ranges.
DOD disagreed with our findings that OSD's training range report failed
to address the congressional reporting requirements mandated in
section 366 and disagreed with three of our four recommendations. Our
report outlined numerous instances where OSD's report did not address
congressionally mandated reporting requirements. Our recommendations
were intended to help DOD address all requirements specified in
section 366. Without their implementation, DOD will continue to rely on
incomplete information to support funding requests and legislative or
regulatory changes to address encroachment issues. DOD's comments and
our evaluation of them are discussed on pages 18-22.
Background:
Over time, the military services report they have increasingly lost
training range capabilities because of encroachment. According to DOD
officials, the concerns about encroachment reflect the cumulative
result of a slow but steady increase in problems affecting the use of
their training ranges. Historically, specific encroachment problems
have been addressed at individual ranges, most often on an ad hoc
basis. DOD officials have reported increased limits on and problems
with access to and the use of ranges. They believe that the gradual
accumulation of these limitations will increasingly threaten training
readiness in the future. Yet, despite the reported loss of some
capabilities, for the most part, the services do not report the extent
to which encroachment has significantly affected training readiness.
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003:
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 required that the Secretary of Defense develop a
comprehensive plan for 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 that are available in the United States and
overseas for training. Section 366 also required that the Secretary of
Defense develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available
operational training ranges, all training range capacities and
capabilities, and any training constraints at each training range. In
addition, the Secretary must complete an assessment of current and
future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of
current DOD resources to meet current and future training requirements.
Section 366 further required that the Secretary of Defense submit to
the Congress a report containing the plan, the results of the
assessment and evaluation of current and future training requirements,
and any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints at the same time the
President submits the budget for fiscal year 2004 and provide status
reports on implementation annually between fiscal years 2005 and 2008.
While the initial report was due when the President submitted the
fiscal year 2004 budget to the Congress, the department did not meet
this initial reporting requirement.
In an effort to obtain assistance from the military services in
preparing this report, a January 2003 memorandum to the Secretaries of
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness directed that each of the military services
develop a single standalone report that could be consolidated to form
OSD's overall report. Each service was expected to provide an
assessment of current and future training requirements with future
projections to 2024, a report on the implementation of a range
inventory system, an evaluation of the adequacy of current service
resources to meet both current and future training requirements, and a
comprehensive plan to address constraints resulting in adverse training
impacts. The memorandum stated that once the services' inputs were
received, they would be incorporated into a single report to address
the section 366 reporting requirement. As discussed more fully later,
the services' inputs were incorporated to varying degrees in OSD's
final training range report.
DOD and the Services' Sustainable Range Initiatives:
In completing our analysis for this and other engagements related to
training ranges, we found that the department and the military services
individually have a number of initiatives underway to better address
encroachment or other factors and ensure sustainability of military
training ranges for future use. In August 2001, the department issued
its draft Sustainable Range Action Plans,[Footnote 7] which contained
an action plan for each of the eight encroachment issues. Each action
plan provided an overview and analysis of its respective encroachment
issue along with strategies and actions for consideration by DOD
decision makers. The department considered these action plans to be
working documents supporting the overall sustainable range initiative.
In June 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness issued a memorandum to the secretaries of the military
departments providing guidance for sustainable range planning and
programming efforts for fiscal years 2006-2011.[Footnote 8] The
services, recognizing the importance of ranges, have begun to implement
various internal programs aimed at ensuring long-term range sustainment
and the ability to meet both current and future requirements. In
addition, OSD and the services have various systems to assess the
condition of their ranges and are attempting to develop methods to
reflect the readiness impacts caused by encroachment and other factors.
Our recent work and the work of the DOD Inspector General[Footnote 9]
have identified a variety of factors that have adversely affected
training ranges in recent years including a lack of adequate funding,
maintenance, and modernization for training ranges.
The Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Training is responsible for
establishing range priorities and requirements and managing the Range
and Training Land Program, which includes range modernization and
maintenance, and land management through the Integrated Training Area
Management Program. This office is creating and implementing the
Sustainable Range Program to manage its ranges in a more comprehensive
manner; meet the challenges brought on by encroachment; and maximize
the capability, availability, and accessibility of its ranges.
According to an official of the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of
Staff for Training, the Sustainable Range Program will evolve into a
new Army training range regulation that will replace the current Army
Regulation 210-21, Range and Training Land Program, and Army Regulation
350-4, Integrated Training Area Management.[Footnote 10]
On December 1, 2003, the Navy centralized its range management
functions, to include training and testing ranges, target development
and procurement, and test and evaluation facilities, into the Navy
Range Office, Navy Ranges and Fleet Training Branch. The Navy Range
Office integration will streamline processes, provide a single voice
for range policy and management oversight, and provide a single
resource sponsor. Recognizing the importance of Navy training ranges
and to meet congressional reporting requirements, the Navy is
developing a Navy Range Strategic Plan. The Navy plans to have this
completed by June 2004. In addition, the Navy is working with the
Center for Naval Analysis to develop a transferable analytical tool for
systematic and rigorous range assessment. This tool is expected to
integrate existing initiatives, such as the range complex management
plans, the Navy mission essential tasks lists, and an encroachment log,
into a methodology to identify, assess, and prioritize physical range
resource deficiencies--to include those caused by encroachment issues-
-across ranges. An official of the Navy Range Office stated that the
Navy plans to pilot the tool at the Southern California
Complex[Footnote 11] by November 2004.
In October 2001, the Marine Corps established an executive agent for
range and training area management to implement its vision for mission-
capable ranges. The Range and Training Area Management Division is
located within the Training and Education Command. These offices are
charged with developing systems, operational doctrine, and training
requirements for Marine Corps forces. In addition to its own ranges,
the Marine Corps engages in extensive cross-service utilization by
depending on extensive and extended access to non-Marine Corps training
ranges.
The Air Force's Director of Operations and Training, Ranges and
Airspace Division acts as the executive agent for range management for
the Air Force. The associate director for ranges and airspace stated
that Air Force range issues have become much more sensitive due to a
number of recent events, including the Navy's departure from Vieques,
Puerto Rico; controversy with the Mountain Home Range, Idaho; the loss
of naval ranges in Hawaii; and the push to redesign the national air
space. As a result, Air Force leadership has become more aware of range
needs. The Air Force has an integrated approach to range management, to
include range planning, operations, construction, and maintenance. Air
Force Range Planning and Operations Instruction[Footnote 12] is the
primary document governing Air Force planning as it relates to its
ranges. In addition, the Air Force, using RAND, has conducted two
studies addressing its training requirements and training range
capacities, capabilities, and constraints.[Footnote 13] In general, the
studies found that the Air Force's training ranges did not always meet
the services' training requirements. For example, one study found that
the distance between Air Force training ranges and bases exceeded the
established flying limitation for 19 percent of the total air-to-ground
training requirements for fighter jets.
OSD's Prior Legislative Proposals:
In 2002, the department prepared and submitted to the Congress a
package of legislative proposals to modify or clarify existing
environmental legislation to address encroachment issues. The
proposals, known as the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative,
were tailored to protect military readiness activities, not the entire
scope of DOD activities.[Footnote 14] The proposals sought, among other
things, to clarify provisions of the Endangered Species Act; Marine
Mammal Protection Act; Clean Air Act; Solid Waste Disposal Act;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Comprehensive Environmental
Restoration, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
enacted three provisions, including two that allow DOD to cooperate
more effectively with third parties on land transfers for conservation
purposes, and a third that provides a temporary exemption from the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the unintentional taking of migratory
birds during military readiness activities. In March 2003, the
department submitted five provisions to the Congress; the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 enacted two provisions
including a clarification of "harassment" under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and allowing approved Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans to substitute for critical habitat designation under
the Endangered Species Act. DOD submitted proposed legislation to the
Congress on April 6, 2004, in a continuing effort to clarify provisions
of the Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
Prior GAO Reports and Testimonies:
In 2002, we issued two reports on the effects of encroachment on
military training and readiness. In April 2002, we reported that troops
stationed outside of the continental United States face a variety of
training constraints that have increased over the last decade and are
likely to increase further.[Footnote 15] In June 2002, we reported on
the impact of encroachment on military training ranges inside the
United States and had similar findings to our earlier report.[Footnote
16] We reported that many encroachment issues resulted from or were
exacerbated by population growth and urbanization. DOD was particularly
affected because urban growth near 80 percent of its installations
exceeded the national average. In both reports, we stated that impacts
on readiness were not well documented. In our June 2002 report, we
recommended that (1) the services develop and maintain inventories of
their training ranges, capacities, and capabilities, and fully quantify
their training requirements considering complementary approaches to
training; (2) OSD create a DOD database that identifies all ranges
available to the department and what they offer, regardless of service
ownership, so that commanders can schedule the best available resources
to provide required training; (3) OSD finalize a comprehensive plan for
administrative actions that includes goals, timelines, projected costs,
and a clear assignment of responsibilities for managing and
coordinating the department's efforts to address encroachment issues on
military training ranges; and (4) OSD develop a reporting system for
range sustainability issues that will allow for the elevation of
critical training problems and progress in addressing them to the
Senior Readiness Oversight Council for inclusion in Quarterly Readiness
Reports to the Congress as appropriate. In addition, we testified twice
on these issues--in May 2002 and April 2003.[Footnote 17] In September
2003, we also reported that through increased cooperation DOD and other
federal land managers could share the responsibility for managing
endangered species.[Footnote 18]
In March 2004, we issued a guide to help managers assess how agencies
plan, design, implement, and evaluate effective training and
development programs that contribute to improved organizational
performance and enhanced employee skills and competencies.[Footnote 19]
The framework outlined in this guide summarizes attributes of effective
training and development programs and presents related questions
concerning the components of the training and development process. Over
time, assessments of training and development programs using this
framework can further identify and highlight emerging and best
practices, provide opportunities to enhance coordination and increase
efficiency, and help develop more credible information on the level of
investment and the results achieved across the federal government.
OSD's Training Range Inventory Does Not Yet Contain Sufficient
Information to Use as a Baseline for a Comprehensive Plan:
OSD's training range inventory does not yet contain sufficient
information to use as a baseline for developing a comprehensive
training range plan. As a result, OSD's report does not include a
comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace in
the United States and overseas, as required by section 366. Without a
comprehensive plan that identifies quantifiable goals or milestones for
tracking planned actions and measuring progress, or projected funding
requirements, it will be difficult for OSD to comply with the
legislative requirement to report annually on its progress in
implementing the plan.
OSD's Training Range Inventory Does Not Contain Sufficient Information:
OSD's training range inventory, which is a compilation of the
individual services' inventories, does not contain sufficient
information to provide a baseline for developing a comprehensive
training range sustainment plan. Section 366 requires the Secretary of
Defense to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all
available operational training ranges, all training range capacities
and capabilities, and any training constraints at each training range.
Although OSD's inventory lists the services' training ranges as of
November 2003 and identifies capabilities, the inventory does not
identify specific range capacities or existing training constraints
caused by encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of adequate
maintenance or modernization. Nevertheless, to date, this is the best
attempt we have identified by the services to inventory their training
ranges. In doing so, OSD and the services provided more descriptive
examples of constraints than ever before but did not fully identify the
actual impacts on training. Without such information, it is difficult
to develop a meaningful plan to address training constraints caused by
encroachment or other factors.
While OSD's inventory is a consolidated list of ranges and capabilities
as of November 2003, OSD and the services' inventories are not
integrated and accessibility is limited. Therefore, it is not a tool
that commanders could use to identify range availability, regardless of
service ownership, and schedule the best available resources to provide
required training. In addition, OSD has no method to continuously
maintain this inventory without additional requests for data, even
though section 366 requires the Secretary of Defense to maintain and
submit an updated inventory annually to the Congress. In 2001, RAND
concluded that centralized repositories of information on Air Force
ranges and airspace are limited, with little provision for updating the
data. RAND noted that a comprehensive database is a powerful tool for
range and airspace managers that must be continuously maintained and
updated.[Footnote 20] In addition, a knowledgeable official of the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
stated that having a common management system to share current range
information is needed to identify range availability, capabilities,
capacities, and cumulative effects of encroachment on training
readiness. This official also noted that it would take several years to
develop such a system. However, OSD did not address this system in its
report.
OSD's Training Range Report Does Not Include a Comprehensive Plan:
Without an inventory that fully identifies available training
resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and existing training
constraints, it is difficult to frame a comprehensive training range
plan to address constraints. As a result, OSD's report does not include
a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace
that are available in the United States and overseas for training--as
required by section 366. Such a plan was to include proposals to
enhance training range capabilities and address shortfalls, goals, and
milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress,
projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions, and
designation of OSD and service offices responsible for overseeing
implementation of the plan. However, OSD's report does not contain
quantifiable goals or milestones for tracking planned actions and
measuring progress, or projected funding requirements, which are
critical elements of a comprehensive plan. Rather than a comprehensive
plan, OSD and service officials characterized the report as a status
report of the services' efforts to address encroachment that also
includes service proposals to enhance training range capabilities, as
previously discussed in the background, and designates OSD and service
offices responsible for overseeing implementation of a comprehensive
training range plan. According to a knowledgeable official of the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
by providing the Congress a report on the current status of the
individual services' efforts to put management systems in place to
address encroachment issues and ensure range sustainability, OSD
believed it was meeting the mandated requirements.
A professional journal article on sustaining DOD ranges, published by
knowledgeable defense officials in 2000, notes that there should be
some form of a national range comprehensive plan that provides the
current situation, establishes a vision with goals and objectives for
the future, and defines the strategies to achieve them.[Footnote 21]
The article states that only with such a comprehensive plan can
sustainable ranges and synergy be achieved. In addition, the article
notes that while this plan should be done at the department-level,
"DOD's bias will be to have the services do individual plans." In fact,
OSD and service officials told us during our review that OSD should not
be responsible for framing a comprehensive training range plan because
the services are responsible for training issues. Despite that view,
OSD has recently issued a comprehensive strategic plan and associated
implementation plan--which includes all of the above elements--for more
broadly transforming DOD's training.[Footnote 22]
OSD's Training Range Report Does Not Fully Meet Other Requirements
Mandated by Section 366:
OSD's Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range
Comprehensive Plan report, which is a consolidation of information
provided by the services, does not fully meet other requirements
mandated by section 366. Specifically, it does not (1) fully assess
current and future training range requirements; (2) fully evaluate the
adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive
assets, to meet current and future training range requirements;
(3) identify recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to
address training constraints; or (4) contain plans to improve the
readiness reporting system.
OSD's Report Does Not Fully Assess Current and Future Training Range
Requirements:
OSD's report does not fully assess current and future training range
requirements. Instead, the report describes the services' processes to
develop, document, and execute current training and training range
requirements. The services' inputs, as required by OSD's guidance, vary
in their emphasis on individual areas of requested information. Only
the Air Force's submission to OSD's report identifies specific annual
training requirements by type of aircraft, mission category, type of
training activity, and unit. By identifying its training requirements,
the Air Force is in a better position to evaluate the adequacy of
resources to meet current and future training requirements. Without a
complete assessment, OSD and the services cannot determine whether
available training resources are able to meet current and future
requirements.
OSD's Report Does Not Fully Evaluate the Adequacy of Current DOD
Resources to Meet Current and Future Training Range Requirements:
OSD's report does not fully evaluate the adequacy of current DOD
resources to meet current and future training range requirements in the
United States and overseas. The report does not compare training range
requirements to existing resources--a primary method to evaluate the
adequacy of current resources--in the United States and does not
evaluate overseas training resources. Instead, OSD's report states that
generally the services' ranges allow military forces to accomplish most
of the current training missions. However, this conflicts with later
statements in the report noting that encroachment limits the services'
ability to meet current core and joint training requirements.[Footnote
23] For example, OSD's report discusses an evaluation of the Air
Force's ranges in the United States, and identifies shortfalls in the
Air Force's range resources and constraints that affect operations. The
evaluation shows that the distance between Air Force training ranges
and bases exceeded the established flying limitation for 19 percent of
the total air-to-ground training requirements for fighter jets. The
report also notes that the Army has shortages of modernized or
automated ranges and has a significant overage of older ranges that do
not fully meet current training requirements, but the report does not
identify where these shortages occur or explain how this determination
was made. In addition, the report states that 28 of 35 Army range
categories[Footnote 24] have some or major deficiencies that do not
meet Army standards, or impair or significantly impair mission
performance. The report further notes the condition of Marine Corps
ranges and provides a general rating of the ranges by installation but
does not identify specific shortfalls in resources or evaluate the
adequacy of current resources to meet future training range
requirements. OSD's report also notes that simulation plays a role in
military training, but does not address the relative impact or adequacy
of simulated training to meet current and future training range
requirements, or to what extent simulation may help minimize
constraints affecting training ranges.
OSD's Report Does Not Identify Recommendations for Legislative or
Regulatory Changes:
While OSD's report does not include any recommendations for legislative
or regulatory changes to address training constraints, DOD submitted
proposed legislation to the Congress on April 6, 2004, in an effort to
clarify the intent of the Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Without these clarifications, according
to DOD officials, the department would continue to potentially face
lawsuits that could force the services to curtail training activities.
According to DOD, the clarifications are to (1) grant test ranges a 3-
year extension from complying with the Clean Air Act requirement when
new units or weapons systems are moved to a range and (2) exempt
military munitions at training ranges from provisions of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to avoid the classification
of munitions as solid waste, which could required expensive cleanup
activities.
OSD's Report Does Not Include Plans to Improve the Readiness Reporting
System:
OSD's report does not address the department's plans to improve
the readiness reporting system, called the Global Status of Resources
and Training System, as required by the mandate. According to a
knowledgeable OSD official, the Global Status of Readiness and
Training System is not the system to capture encroachment impacts that
are long-term in nature, rather it addresses short-term issues.
Instead, according to an OSD official, the department is working on a
Defense Readiness Reporting System, which is expected to capture range
availability as well as other factors that may constrain training.
However, OSD did not address either system in its report.
Conclusions:
While OSD's Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range
Comprehensive Plan report addresses some of the mandated requirements,
it does not fulfill the requirement for an inventory identifying range
capacities or training constraints caused by encroachment or other
factors, such as a lack of adequate maintenance or modernization; a
comprehensive training range plan to address encroachment on military
training ranges; an adequate assessment of current and future training
range requirements; a sufficient 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; or
plans to improve the readiness reporting system. Instead, the report
provides the current status of the services' various sustainable range
efforts in the United States. Currently, OSD's inventory consists of
individual services' inputs as of November 2003, but it is not a tool
that commanders could use to identify range availability, regardless of
service ownership, and schedule the best available resources to provide
required training. In addition, OSD apparently has no planned method to
continuously maintain this inventory. Without an integrated training
range inventory that could be continuously updated and available at all
command levels, the services may not have knowledge of or access to
the best available training resources. This inventory may also have a
significant impact on the ability of the services to support joint
training. Also, without such an inventory, it will be difficult for OSD
and the services to develop a comprehensive plan to address these
issues to ensure range sustainability to support current and future
training range requirements. As a result, even though various services'
initiatives are underway to better address encroachment or other
factors and ensure sustainability of military training ranges for
future use, OSD's training range report did not include a comprehensive
plan to address training constraints in the United States and overseas-
-as required by section 366. Without a plan that includes quantifiable
goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring
progress, and projected funding requirements, OSD and the services may
not be able to address the ever-growing issues associated with
encroachment and measure the progress in addressing these issues.
Similarly, OSD's training range report did not fully assess current and
future training range requirements or fully evaluate the adequacy of
current resources to meet these requirements. Without these types of
analyses, OSD and the services will not be able to determine shortfalls
in training resources to better allocate training resources and may
continue to maintain ranges that are no longer needed to meet current
training requirements. Finally, the report did not include any
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints or a plan to improve the readiness reporting
system to reflect the impact on readiness caused by training
constraints due to limitations on the use of training ranges. Without
an inventory identifying range capacities or training constraints
caused by encroachment or other factors or a comprehensive training
range plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the
use training ranges, OSD and the services will continue to rely on
incomplete information to support funding requests and legislative or
regulatory changes to address these issues.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To serve as the baseline for the comprehensive training range plan
required by section 366, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and
the secretaries of the military services to jointly develop an
integrated training range database that identifies available training
resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of training ranges, which
could be continuously updated and shared among the services at all
command levels, regardless of service ownership.
To improve future reports, we also recommend that OSD provide a
more complete report to the Congress to fully address the requirements
specified in the section 366 mandate by (1) developing a comprehensive
plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking
planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding
requirements to more fully address identified training constraints,
(2) assessing current and future training range requirements and
evaluating the adequacy of current resources to meet these
requirements, and (3) developing a readiness reporting system to
reflect the impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to
limitations on the use of training ranges.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Readiness disagreed with our finding that OSD's training
range report failed to address the congressional reporting requirements
mandated in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 and disagreed with three of our four
recommendations. As it clearly points out, this report outlines
numerous instances where OSD's report did not address congressionally
mandated reporting requirements. Our recommendations were intended to
help DOD address all requirements specified in section 366. Without
their implementation, DOD will continue to rely on incomplete
information to support funding requests and legislative or regulatory
changes to address encroachment and other factors.
DOD disagreed with our first recommendation--to jointly develop an
integrated training range database that identified available training
resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and training
constraints, which could be continuously updated and shared among all
the services at all command levels regardless of service ownership. As
discussed in our report, OSD's inventory consists of individual
services' inputs as of November 2003 and is not a tool that commanders
could use to identify range availability, regardless of service
ownership, and schedule the best available resources to provide
required training. Further, as noted in our report, the individual
service submissions continue to provide limited information on how
training has been constrained by encroachment or other factors. In
contrast, section 366 clearly requires the Secretary of Defense to
develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available
operational training ranges, all training range capacities and
capabilities, and any training constraints at each training range.
DOD's suggestion that our draft report recommended that DOD should
initiate a "massive new database" effort to allow OSD management of
individual range activities is without merit. Our recommendation merely
specified section 366 legislative requirements that were not found in
OSD's training range report to the Congress.
Also, DOD's disagreement with our first recommendation seems
inconsistent with other comments DOD officials have made as noted in
this and other GAO reports regarding military training range
inventories.[Footnote 25] In commenting on this report, DOD
specifically stated that it agreed that, as a long-term goal, the
services' inventory systems should be linked to support joint use. In
commenting on a prior report, DOD stated that the services were
developing a statement of work in order to contract with a firm capable
of delivering an enterprise level web-enabled system that will allow
cross service, as well as intra-service training use of inventory
data.[Footnote 26] Further, in a 2003 study, the U.S. Special
Operations Command stated that all components needed to create master
range plans that addressed their current and future range issues and
solutions.[Footnote 27] The command also recommended that plans
identify and validate training requirements and facilities available
and define the acceptable limits of workarounds. Without an integrated
training range inventory, we continue to believe that it will be
difficult for OSD and the services to develop a comprehensive plan and
track its progress in addressing training constraints and ensuring
range sustainability.
DOD generally concurred with our second recommendation--to develop a
comprehensive plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for
tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding
requirements to more fully address identified training constraints.
However, the department's comments suggest it plans simply to summarize
ongoing efforts of individual services rather than formulate a
comprehensive strategy for addressing training constraints. Without a
plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking
planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding
requirements, OSD and the services may not be able to address the ever-
growing issues associated with encroachment and other training
constraints and measure the progress in addressing these issues. Also,
a summary of ongoing efforts does not fully address the requirements of
section 366, which calls for a comprehensive plan for 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 that are
available in the United States and overseas for training. Second, it
directly contradicts DOD's concurrence with recommendations made in our
June 2002 report where we specifically recommended that the department
develop a plan with the same elements subsequently required by the
mandate.[Footnote 28] Third, it contradicts a January 2003 report of
the Southwest Region Range Sustainability Conference sponsored by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness and the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment.[Footnote 29]
The conference report recommended a national range sustainability and
infrastructure plan--which could also address section 366 requirements-
-to include range requirements, overall vision, current and future
requirements, and encroachment issues. Without a comprehensive plan
that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned
actions and measuring progress, and projected funding requirements, we
continue to believe that OSD and the services may not be able to
address the ever-growing issues associated with encroachment and other
training constraints, and measure the progress in addressing these
issues.
DOD disagreed with our third recommendation--to assess current and
future training range requirements and evaluate the adequacy of current
resources to meet these requirements. It stated that it is
inappropriate and impractical to include this level of detail in an
OSD-level report and that the Congress is better served if the
department describes, summarizes, and analyzes range requirements.
Clearly, these statements are contradictory in that section 366
requires that OSD report on its assessment of current and future
training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of
current DOD resources to meet current and future training requirements,
which could be accomplished by providing the aforementioned
description, summary, and analysis of range requirements. While the
department's training range report provided a description of the
methodology used by each service to develop their requirements, it did
not provide any detail regarding such analyses. Without these types of
analyses, we continue to believe that OSD and the services will not be
able to determine shortfalls in training resources to better allocate
training resources and may continue to maintain ranges that are no
longer needed to meet current training requirements. In addition, the
department questions why we did not examine detailed requirements work
being done at each installation. While we agree with DOD that this type
of examination could be useful, it is unclear why OSD's report did not
provide a discussion of the work underway at individual installations.
While we may conduct such an examination in the future, section 366 did
not specifically require us to conduct this examination, nor did it
provide us sufficient time for such an examination.
DOD disagreed with our fourth recommendation--to develop a readiness
reporting system to reflect the impact on readiness caused by training
constraints. DOD further stated that it was inappropriate to modify the
Global Status of Readiness and Training System report to address
encroachment and that it plans to incorporate encroachment impacts on
readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting System. Our draft report
recognized that the department does not believe that the Global Status
of Readiness and Training System is the system to capture encroachment
impacts. Given that OSD's training range reports are required to
provide a status of efforts to address training constraints, it is
unclear why OSD's report did not provide an assessment of progress in
this area. We continue to believe that future reports should provide
the Congress with information on DOD's progress toward improving
readiness reporting--whether it is the Defense Readiness Reporting
System as cited in DOD's comments or another system--to reflect the
impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to limitations
on the use of training ranges, as required by section 366.
We continue to believe our recommendations are valid and without their
implementation, DOD will continue to rely on incomplete information to
support funding requests and legislative or regulatory proposals to
address encroachment and other training constraints, and will not be
able to fully address the congressionally mandated requirements in
section 366.
The Deputy Under Secretary's comments are included in appendix II.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which OSD's training range inventory
contains sufficient information to develop a comprehensive training
range plan, we reviewed OSD's inventory of the services' training
ranges to determine whether the inventory identified training
capacities and capabilities, and constraints caused by encroachment or
other factors for each training range. In addition, we reviewed the
services' inputs to OSD's inventory and OSD's report for a
comprehensive training range plan.[Footnote 30] We also discussed OSD's
inventory and the services' inputs and the need for a comprehensive
training range plan with officials from the Office of the Director of
Readiness and Training, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,
Personnel and Readiness; and a representative of the contractor, who
compiled the report. Also, we reviewed two RAND studies on Air Force
ranges and airspace.
To determine the extent to which OSD's Implementation of the Department
of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan report meets other
requirements mandated by section 366, we reviewed the report to
determine if it contained 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. To obtain further clarification
and information, we reviewed the individual submissions from the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We also discussed OSD's report and
the services' inputs with officials from the Office of the Director of
Readiness and Training, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,
Personnel and Readiness; the Office of the Director, Training
Directorate, Training Simulations Division, Office of the Deputy Chief
of Staff, Department of the Army; the Navy Ranges and Fleet Training
Branch, Fleet Readiness Division, Fleet Readiness and Logistics, Office
of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations; the Range and Training Area
Management Division, Training and Education Command, Headquarters,
Marine Corps; and the Office of the Director of Ranges and Airspace,
Air and Space Operations, Headquarters, Air Force. We also met with a
representative of the contractor who compiled the report. To determine
what guidance the services were given when preparing their submission
to the department's report, we also reviewed the January 28, 2003,
memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to the military services.[Footnote 31] We also reviewed DOD's
Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas directive[Footnote 32] that
establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for the sustainment of
test and training ranges and the department's Strategic Plan for
Transforming DOD Training and Training Transformation Implementation
Plan.[Footnote 33]
We assessed the reliability of the data in OSD's report by
(1) reviewing existing information about military training ranges,
(2) interviewing OSD and service officials knowledgeable about the
report and training ranges, and (3) examining the data elements in the
report by comparing known statistics and information. We determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, as well as the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy,
and the Air Force, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in
this letter, please contact me at (202) 512-8412, or my Assistant
Director, Mark A. Little, at (202) 512-4673. Patricia J. Nichol, Tommy
Baril, Steve Boyles, and Ann DuBois were major contributors to this
report.
Signed by:
Barry W. Holman, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable John W. Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
Subcommittee on Defense:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
Subcommittee on Defense:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003:
SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources
and Training System, and Training Range Inventory.
(a) PLAN REQUIRED--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a
comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the
United States and overseas for training of the Armed Forces.
(2) As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense
shall conduct the following:
(A) An assessment of current and future training range requirements of
the Armed Forces.
(B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of Defense
resources (including virtual and constructive training assets as well
as military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United
States and overseas) to meet those current and future training range
requirements.
(3) The plan shall include the following:
(A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any
shortfalls in current Department of Defense resources identified
pursuant to the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph (2).
(B) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring
progress.
(C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions.
(D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and in each of the military departments that will have lead
responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan.
(4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget
for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress
a report describing the progress made in implementing this subsection,
including--.
(A) the plan developed under paragraph (1).
(B) the results of the assessment and evaluation conducted under
paragraph (2); and.
(C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints identified pursuant
to this section.
(5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report describing the progress made in implementing the
plan and any additional actions taken, or to be taken, to address
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace.
(b) READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT--Not later than June 30, 2003, the
Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority of
the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans of the
Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources and
Training 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 Armed Forces.
(c) TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
develop and maintain a training range inventory for each of the Armed
Forces--.
(A) to identify all available operational training ranges.
(B) to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at
each training range; and.
(C) to identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use
of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory to
Congress at the same time as the President submits the budget for
fiscal year 2004 and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at
the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005
through 2008.
(d) GAO EVALUATION--The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies of
each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller
General. Within 60 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report.
(e) ARMED FORCES DEFINED--In this section, the term 'Armed Forces'
means the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
4000 DEFENSE
PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
MAY 20 2004:
Mr. Barry W. Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office Draft Report GAO-04-608, "MILITARY TRAINING: OSD
Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional
Reporting Requirements," April 19, 2004 (GAO Code 350481).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft. We
disagree with the GAO's findings that our February 2004 report to
Congress fails to satisfy stated requirements. DoD therefore non-
concurs with the GAO's recommendations in this area. The Department's
comments to the GAO draft recommendations are enclosed.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Paul W. Mayberry:
Deputy Under Secretary
Readiness:
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO-04-608/GAO CODE 350481:
"MILITARY TRAINING: DOD REPORT ON TRAINING RANGES DOES NOT FULLY MEET
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and
the Secretaries of the Military Services to jointly develop an
integrated training range database that identifies available training
resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of training ranges, which
could be continuously updated and shared among the Services at all
command levels, regardless of Service ownership. (Page 18/Draft
Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Non-concur. Each Military Service already possesses and
is improving range information systems that address the features
described in this recommendation. Further, the Department agrees that,
as a long-term goal these systems should be linked to support joint
use. It is DoD policy to document encroachment concerns and
environmental considerations and improve information systems related to
range management. The Services and OSD are moving forward in a
deliberate approach that builds on existing systems and carefully
manages the costs and risks inherent in information system integration
and development. As part of our yearly Section 366 reports, the
Department will document progress in this evolutionary effort to link
and improve the Service range information systems.
However, the Department non-concurs with the recommendation that it
should initiate a new massive database effort to allow OSD management
of individual range activities. It must be recognized that each Service
operates ranges to meet specific training requirements. While increased
cross-Service or cross-functional use is a DoD goal, it does not
resolve training constraints brought about by encroachment.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that OSD provide a more complete
report to the Congress to fully address the requirements specified in
the Section 366 mandate by developing a comprehensive plan, which
includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned actions
and measuring progress, and projected funding requirements to more
fully address identified training constraints. (Page 18/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur with comment. Meeting Section 366 requirements can
be accomplished only through a long-term approach. Under OSD
leadership, each of the Military Services has initiated an enhanced
range management and comprehensive:
planning process, as an integral element of expanding range
sustainability programs. In line with this evolution, future reports
will more fully address goals and milestones and projected funding
requirements associated with these comprehensive plans. The Department
is and will continue to execute a comprehensive program to improve
sustainability of its ranges, and disagrees with the implication in
this recommendation that it does not.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that OSD provide a more complete
report to the Congress to fully address the requirements specified in
the Section 366 mandate by assessing current and future training range
requirements and evaluating the adequacy of current resources to meet
these requirements. (Page 18/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Non-concur. The Department has begun a program to better
define range requirements. Because a valid requirements base must be a
bottom-up process, this effort entails detailed work at each
installation. It is unclear why GAO chose to not examine these efforts.
Also, it is both impractical and inappropriate to include this level of
detail in an OSD-level report. DoD believes that the Congress is better
served if the Department describes, summarizes, and analyzes training
requirements in its Section 366 reporting, rather than simply providing
the requirements themselves. DoD therefore non-concurs with the GAO
finding that it is not appropriately addressing this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The GAO recommended that OSD provide a more complete
report to the Congress to fully address the requirements specified in
the Section 366 mandate by developing a readiness reporting system to
reflect the impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to
limitations on the use of training ranges. (Page 18/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Non-concur. The Department has, in its response to GAO's
previous report and at other opportunities, stated that it is
inappropriate to modify the SORTS report to address encroachment. DoD
believes it is best to assess how encroachment impacts affect the
ability of installations and ranges to conduct training and testing.
DoD plans to incorporate encroachment impacts on readiness into the
Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS), which is currently under
development.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] DOD defines "encroachment" as the cumulative result of any and all
outside influences that inhibit normal training and testing. According
to DOD, the eight encroachment factors are: endangered species habitat,
unexploded ordinance and munitions constituents, competition for radio
frequency spectrum, protected marine resources, competition for
airspace, air pollution, noise pollution, and urban growth around
military installations.
[2] P.L. 107-314, Title III, Section 366 (Dec. 2, 2002).
[3] We use the term "training range" to collectively refer to air
ranges, live-fire ranges, ground maneuver ranges, sea ranges, and
operating areas.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a
Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-
614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002).
[5] Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Guidance for Complying with the Provisions of Section 366
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2003).
[6] We did not verify the completeness or accuracy of OSD's inventory
or the services' inventory inputs.
[7] Department of Defense, Sustainable Range Action Plans (Draft)
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001).
[8] The memorandum identified seven areas (Infrastructure, Operations,
Maintenance, Encroachment, Environmental Responsibilities, Outreach,
and New Technologies) that the Under Secretary believes will
significantly advance the department's efforts toward building viable
range sustainment programs.
[9] Department of Defense Inspector General, Acquisition: Major Range
and Test Facility Base, D-2004-035 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2003).
[10] Army regulations, Range and Training Land Program, 210-21
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1997), and Integrated Training Area
Management, 350-4 (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 1998).
[11] The Southern California complex comprises nine instrumented areas
and many associated training, warning, restricted, and operations areas
in three major components: the San Clemente Island Range Complex, Naval
Amphibious Base Coronado training areas, and offshore operating areas
and airspace.
[12] Air Force Instruction, Range Planning and Operations, 13-212
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 7, 2001).
[13] RAND, Relating Ranges and Airspace to Air Combat Command Missions
and Training, MR-1286-AF, and A Decision Support System for Evaluating
Ranges and Airspace, MR-1286/1-AF (Langley Air Force Base, Va.: 2001).
[14] Department of Defense, Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: Limitations
Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002).
[16] GAO-02-614.
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a
Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-
727T (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002); and Military Training: DOD
Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges Still Evolving,
GAO-03-621T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2003).
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: Implementation
Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for Endangered
Species Affecting Training Ranges, GAO-03-976 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
29, 2003).
[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Guide for
Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal
Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
[20] RAND MR-1286-AF.
[21] Jesse O. Borthwick, Senior Environmental Scientist, Eglin Range,
Fla., and Eric A. Beshore, PE, RA, Colonel USAF (Retired), Senior
Program Manager, Science Applications International Corporation,
"Sustaining DOD Ranges: A National Environmental Challenge," Federal
Facilities Environmental Journal, Summer 2000.
[22] Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel
and Readiness, Strategic Plan for Transforming DOD Training
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002); and Department of Defense Training
Transformation Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2003).
[23] This statement also conflicts with numerous congressional
testimonies given by OSD and service officials in the past 3 years that
identify instances where encroachment impacts training.
[24] The Army defines range categories by the type of training that can
be accomplished on them.
[25] GAO-02-525 and GAO-02-614.
[26] GAO-02-614.
[27] U.S. Special Operations Command, Tiger Team Report: Global Special
Operations Forces Range Study (MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.: Jan. 27,
2003).
[28] GAO-02-614.
[29] Department of Defense Region IX Regional Environmental
Coordinator, Southwest Region Range Sustainability Conference Report
(San Diego, Calif.: Jan. 7, 2003).
[30] We did not verify the completeness or accuracy of OSD's inventory
or the services' inventory inputs.
[31] Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, Guidance for Complying with the Provisions of Section
366.
[32] Department of Defense Directive. Sustainment of Ranges and
Operating Areas, 3200.15 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2003).
[33] DOD, Strategic and Implementation Plans for Training
Transformation.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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. General Accounting 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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
