Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements
Gao ID: GAO-06-29R October 25, 2005A fundamental military readiness principle is that the military must train as it intends to fight, and military training ranges provide the primary means to accomplish this principle. To successfully accomplish today's missions, U.S. forces are conducting significantly more complex operations, requiring increased joint training and interoperability between and among the military services, combatant commands, and other Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD organizations. For some time, senior 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. In recent years, we have reported on these training constraints and identified the need for an integrated, readily accessible inventory of training ranges, capacities, and capabilities so that commanders across the services can schedule the best available resources to provide the required training; a comprehensive plan that includes goals, timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of responsibilities to address encroachment on military training ranges; and a more comprehensive approach for addressing deficiencies to ensure that ranges are adequately sustained and modernized in order to accomplish the department's transformation goals and ensure their long-term viability. Title III, 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 the sustainment of military training ranges using existing authorities available to the Secretaries of Defense and the military departments to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United States and overseas for training. Among other items, section 366 also required the Secretary to submit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive training range sustainment plan, the results of an assessment and evaluation of current and future training range requirements, and any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints. Section 366 also directed the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the armed forces, which identifies all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at each training range, and it required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on his plans to improve the system for reporting the impact that training restraints have on readiness. DOD was to submit both the report and the training range inventory to Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. Instead of issuing a report along with the President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission in 2003, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted to Congress its first report--Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan--and its training range inventory on February 27, 2004. OSD submitted its second annual report, along with an updated inventory, to Congress on July 14, 2005. Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of OSD's annual reports. This is our second such report. In this report, we discuss the extent to which OSD's (1) 2005 training range inventory contains sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive sustainment plan mandated by section 366; and (2) 2005 training range report meets other requirements mandated by section 366 that could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training ranges.
Similar to the inventory OSD submitted to Congress last year, the 2005 training range inventory does not contain sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing a comprehensive plan to address training constraints and help ensure range sustainability because it does not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training constraints for ranges of all the services as required by section 366. Instead, it is a consolidated list of ranges provided by the individual services that lacks critical data and is not integrated or easily accessible by potential users. Both this year's and last year's inventories list the services' training ranges and provide general data on the size and type of range. Unlike last year's inventory, OSD's 2005 inventory also identifies specific routes pilots use to transit from a base to a training range and provides information on upper and lower altitudes for shared airspace near military installations for all the services. Still, neither inventory identifies specific capacities and capabilities for individual Army, Navy, or Marine Corps ranges or lists existing training constraints caused by encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of maintenance or modernization. In addition, OSD's 2005 inventory is not integrated or readily accessible to potential users. Therefore, this year's inventory is still not a tool that commanders across the services could use to identify range availability regardless of service ownership to schedule the best available resources to provide required training. In responding to similar findings in our 2004 report, OSD commented that it was a long-term goal to have an integrated management system to support joint use of training ranges. However, OSD does not identify this as one of its goals in this year's report. Instead, OSD's 2005 report identifies different service- and range-level information and inventory systems--some of which have been in place for years. We continue to believe as we did last year that, without a complete, integrated, and continuously updated training range inventory, it is difficult for potential users to identify the best available ranges to meet their required training and for OSD to frame a meaningful plan to address training constraints and help ensure range sustainability. OSD's 2005 training range report--similar to the one issued to Congress last year--fails to meet other requirements mandated by section 366 that could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training ranges. Nevertheless, there is one noteworthy change: OSD's 2005 report includes some elements of a plan intended to address the long-term sustainability of training ranges while last year's report did not. The plan provides general goals, actions, and milestones but does not identify funding requirements for implementing planned actions, although specifically required to by section 366, and does not assign responsibility for implementation of specific actions or provide explicit performance metrics to measure progress--critical elements for a meaningful plan. Like last year's report, OSD's 2005 report does not include an assessment of current and future training range requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range requirements; or recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints--although specifically required to do so by section 366. In addition, OSD's 2005 report does not include its plans to improve the department's readiness reporting system, despite a specific mandate in section 366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003. Although other OSD components have demonstrated that the department is capable of developing reports that contain information and comprehensive strategic plans similar to those specified by section 366, OSD's 2005 report is generally descriptive in nature.
GAO-06-29R, Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-29R
entitled 'Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training
Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements' which was released on October 26, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
October 25, 2005:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training
Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements:
A fundamental military readiness principle is that the military must
train as it intends to fight, and military training ranges provide the
primary means to accomplish this principle. To successfully accomplish
today's missions, U.S. forces are conducting significantly more complex
operations, requiring increased joint training and interoperability
between and among the military services, combatant commands, and other
Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD organizations. For some time,
senior 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] In recent years, we have reported on these
training constraints and identified the need for an integrated, readily
accessible inventory of training ranges, capacities, and capabilities
so that commanders across the services can schedule the best available
resources to provide the required training; a comprehensive plan that
includes goals, timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of
responsibilities to address encroachment on military training ranges;
and a more comprehensive approach for addressing deficiencies to ensure
that ranges are adequately sustained and modernized in order to
accomplish the department's transformation goals and ensure their long-
term viability.
Title III, 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 the sustainment of military training
ranges using existing authorities available to the Secretaries of
Defense and the military departments to address training constraints
caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and
airspace that are available in the United States and overseas for
training.[Footnote 2] (See section 366 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 in encl. I.) Among other
items, section 366 also required the Secretary to submit to Congress a
report containing the comprehensive training range sustainment plan,
the results of an assessment and evaluation of current and future
training range requirements, and any recommendations that the Secretary
may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training
constraints. Section 366 also directed the Secretary of Defense to
develop and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the
armed forces, which identifies all training capacities, capabilities,
and constraints at each training range, and it required the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report on his plans to improve the system for
reporting the impact that training restraints have on readiness. DOD
was to submit both the report and the training range inventory to
Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for fiscal
year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for fiscal years 2005
through 2008. Instead of issuing a report along with the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget submission in 2003, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) submitted to Congress its first report--Implementation
of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan--and its
training range inventory on February 27, 2004. OSD submitted its second
annual report, along with an updated inventory, to Congress on July 14,
2005.[Footnote 3]
Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of
OSD's annual reports. This is our second such report. In our first
report, issued in June 2004,[Footnote 4] we found that OSD's initial
2004 report and inventory did not fully address several of the
reporting requirements mandated by section 366. For example, we
reported that OSD's 2004 report did not include a comprehensive
training range plan with quantifiable goals or milestones to measure
progress, and it did not identify funding requirements. In comments on
a draft of our first report, DOD disagreed with our findings and with
three of our four recommendations. In this second report we discuss the
extent to which OSD's (1) 2005 training range inventory contains
sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the
comprehensive sustainment plan mandated by section 366; and (2) 2005
training range report meets other requirements mandated by section 366
that could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of their training ranges.[Footnote 5]
To address our objectives, we relied on the work used to develop our
June 2005 report on the condition of military training ranges.[Footnote
6] In addition, we reviewed OSD's updated training range inventory for
2005 to assess whether the inventory identified training capabilities
(e.g., types of training that can be conducted and available targets),
capacities (e.g., number of personnel or weapon systems that can be
accommodated), and constraints caused by limitations at each training
range (e.g., restrictions on live-fire training) as required by section
366. Also, we reviewed OSD's 2005 report to determine if it addressed
the elements required by the act--a comprehensive training range
sustainment plan; an assessment of current and future training range
requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources,
including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future
training range requirements; recommendations for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints; and plans to
improve the readiness reporting system--and evaluated the quality of
the information by comparing it to sound management principles for
strategic planning, such as the identification of quantifiable goals,
planned actions, funding requirements, milestones to measure progress,
and organizations responsible for implementing the planned actions.
Because OSD's 2005 report notes that it should be viewed as a
supplement to the department's 2004 report, we evaluated this year's
report within the context of last year's report, considering the degree
to which they both met the requirements mandated by section 366. We
also met with knowledgeable OSD and service officials to discuss the
contents and the adequacy of OSD's 2005 inventory and training range
report.
We conducted our work from July through August 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Similar to the inventory OSD submitted to Congress last year, the 2005
training range inventory does not contain sufficient information to use
as a baseline for developing a comprehensive plan to address training
constraints and help ensure range sustainability because it does not
identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training constraints
for ranges of all the services as required by section 366. Instead, it
is a consolidated list of ranges provided by the individual services
that lacks critical data and is not integrated or easily accessible by
potential users. Both this year's and last year's inventories list the
services' training ranges and provide general data on the size and type
of range. Unlike last year's inventory, OSD's 2005 inventory also
identifies specific routes pilots use to transit from a base to a
training range and provides information on upper and lower altitudes
for shared airspace near military installations for all the services.
Still, neither inventory identifies specific capacities and
capabilities for individual Army, Navy, or Marine Corps ranges or lists
existing training constraints caused by encroachment or other factors,
such as a lack of maintenance or modernization. In addition, OSD's 2005
inventory is not integrated or readily accessible to potential users.
Therefore, this year's inventory is still not a tool that commanders
across the services could use to identify range availability regardless
of service ownership to schedule the best available resources to
provide required training. In responding to similar findings in our
2004 report, OSD commented that it was a long-term goal to have an
integrated management system to support joint use of training ranges.
However, OSD does not identify this as one of its goals in this year's
report. Instead, OSD's 2005 report identifies different service-and
range-level information and inventory systems--some of which have been
in place for years. We continue to believe as we did last year that,
without a complete, integrated, and continuously updated training range
inventory, it is difficult for potential users to identify the best
available ranges to meet their required training and for OSD to frame a
meaningful plan to address training constraints and help ensure range
sustainability.
OSD's 2005 training range report--similar to the one issued to Congress
last year--fails to meet other requirements mandated by section 366
that could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of their training ranges. Nevertheless, there is one
noteworthy change: OSD's 2005 report includes some elements of a plan
intended to address the long-term sustainability of training ranges
while last year's report did not. The plan provides general goals,
actions, and milestones but does not identify funding requirements for
implementing planned actions, although specifically required to by
section 366, and does not assign responsibility for implementation of
specific actions or provide explicit performance metrics to measure
progress--critical elements for a meaningful plan. Like last year's
report, OSD's 2005 report does not include an assessment of current and
future training range requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of
current resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet
current and future training range requirements; or recommendations for
legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints--
although specifically required to do so by section 366. In addition,
OSD's 2005 report does not include its plans to improve the
department's readiness reporting system, despite a specific mandate in
section 366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003. Although other
OSD components have demonstrated that the department is capable of
developing reports that contain information and comprehensive strategic
plans similar to those specified by section 366, OSD's 2005 report is
generally descriptive in nature. Namely, a large portion of the current
report describes efforts underway within the department to use
information technology and individual services' efforts to address
sustainable range issues, while providing background information on
funding sources, encroachment issues, and overseas ranges--information
that congressional decision makers most likely already understand or
may not find very useful in carrying out their oversight
responsibilities.
Because our prior recommendations for improving OSD's annual training
range reporting remain open, valid, and not fully addressed, we are not
making new recommendations in this report. (See encl. II for a list of
our open recommendations from our June 2004 report[Footnote 7] and
other recent reports associated with the sustainment of military
training ranges.) In comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated
that it is fully committed to a comprehensive approach to range
management and that its annual reports to Congress on this matter
reflected the importance the department accords this subject. DOD also
stated that successful comprehensive planning does not equate to
centralized management and that it does not believe a single,
continuously updated and widely accessible inventory database is
currently practical, feasible, or needed. While we recognize that DOD
is committed to improving its range management, we previously
recommended and continue to believe that DOD needs to develop a
training range inventory and a comprehensive report that better fulfill
the reporting requirements mandated by section 366. We have not equated
successful comprehensive planning to centralized management as
suggested by DOD and believe that, without an integrated and
continuously updated range inventory, it is difficult for potential
users to identify the best available ranges and for OSD to frame a
meaningful plan to address training constraints and help ensure
sustainability. We address DOD's comments in greater detail later in
the report. The department also provided a technical clarification,
which we incorporated.
Background:
As recently demonstrated in Iraq and elsewhere, U.S. forces are
conducting significantly more complex operations, requiring increased
joint training and interoperability between and among the military
services, combatant commands, and other DOD and non-DOD organizations.
Training ranges represent important national assets for the development
and sustainment of U.S. military forces and better enable joint force
operations. DOD requires ranges for all levels of training to include
airspace for air-to-air, air-to-ground, drop zone, and electronic
combat training; live-fire ranges for artillery, armor, small arms, and
munitions training; ground maneuver ranges to conduct realistic force-
on-force and live-fire training at various unit levels; and sea ranges
to conduct surface and subsurface training maneuvers. However, the
military services report they have increasingly lost training range
capabilities due to encroachment and other factors, such as a lack of
maintenance and modernization. According to DOD, encroachment has
resulted in a slow but steady increase in problems affecting the use of
their training ranges. They believe that the gradual accumulation of
these limitations will increasingly threaten training readiness.
Decentralized Range Management Framework:
Historically, range management has been decentralized, from OSD to the
services' headquarters to major commands to installations and units. In
practice, this means that OSD and DOD-wide organizations provide
management oversight, develop overarching policies, and facilitate
cross-service and joint activities. The military services develop
training, testing, and range requirements; schedule and conduct
training and testing; develop implementation policy and guidance;
design and implement programs and information systems; and develop
funding plans, programs, and budgets. According to DOD, this division
of effort reflects the department and service responsibilities
enumerated in Title 10 of the United States Code and DOD
directive.[Footnote 8] The directive assigns the most prominent
responsibilities for range sustainment to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation; the military services; and DOD agencies. In addition,
DOD has created an Overarching Integrated Product Team to act as the
DOD coordinating body for developing strategies to preserve the
military's ability to train. The Overarching Integrated Product Team
reports to the Senior Readiness Oversight Council, which reviews range
sustainment policies and issues. A Working Integrated Product Team
(cochaired by the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Readiness, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, and the Office of the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation) meets regularly and works
collaboratively with other DOD organizations on issues related to
sustainable ranges.
Prior GAO Reports Addressing Constraints on Training Ranges:
Several of our reports in recent years have addressed constraints on
the use of military training ranges, particularly those related to
encroachment.[Footnote 9] A common theme in these reports has been the
need for more comprehensive results-oriented planning to include, for
example, clearly establishing goals and milestones for tracking
progress in addressing constraints on training ranges, identifying the
funding needed to accomplish tasks, and assigning responsibility for
managing and coordinating departmental efforts. Brief summaries of
these reports follow:
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 past decade and are likely to increase
further.[Footnote 10] We also reported that impacts on readiness due to
these constraints were not well documented.
In June 2002, we reported on the impact of encroachment on military
training ranges inside the United States with similar findings to those
of the April 2002 report and identified the need for a comprehensive
plan to manage encroachment on military training ranges.[Footnote 11]
In June 2004, we reported that DOD's 2004 training range report to
Congress did not fully identify available training resources, specific
training capacities and capabilities, and existing training
constraints; fully assess current and future training requirements;
fully evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet current and
future training range requirements in the United States and overseas;
or include a comprehensive plan with quantifiable goals or milestones
to measure progress, or projected funding requirements needed to
implement the plan.[Footnote 12] Instead, OSD's report described the
services' processes to develop, document, and execute current training
and training range requirements and the types of ranges the services
need to meet their training requirements in the United States. In
addition, we reported that OSD's training range inventory provided to
Congress did not contain sufficient information to use as a baseline
for developing a comprehensive training range plan required by section
366.
In June 2005, we reported that our visits to eight training ranges
along with DOD's own assessments showed that ranges were in
deteriorated conditions and lacked maintenance and modernization, which
adversely affected training activities and jeopardized the safety of
military personnel.[Footnote 13] For example, we observed ranges with
malfunctioning communication systems, impassable tank trails, overgrown
areas, and outdated training areas and targets. Whenever possible, the
services work around these conditions by modifying the timing, tempo,
or location of training, but officials have expressed concern that
workarounds are becoming increasingly difficult and costly and that
they compromise the realism essential to effective training. We also
noted that DOD's progress in improving training range conditions was
limited and was partially attributable to a lack of a comprehensive
approach to ensure that ranges provide the proper setting for
effectively preparing its forces for warfare. Specifically, a
comprehensive approach should include several key elements, such as the
following: well-defined policies that address all factors impacting
range sustainability; servicewide plans that guide the timely execution
of range sustainability actions; range requirements that are geared to
meet both service and joint needs; adequate management of range
funding; and a commitment to the implementation of this approach.
OSD's 2005 Inventory Does Not Contain Sufficient Information for
Developing a Comprehensive Sustainment Plan:
OSD's 2005 training range inventory contains more information than the
one submitted to Congress in 2004 but it still does not meet the
requirements mandated by section 366 because it does not identify
specific capacities, capabilities, and training constraints for ranges
of all the services--information necessary for developing a
comprehensive plan to address training constraints and help ensure
range sustainability. Instead, similar to last year's inventory, the
2005 inventory lists available operational training ranges and provides
data on the size and type of ranges (e.g., air to ground, land
maneuver, and urbanized terrain). Unlike the inventory from last year,
the 2005 inventory also identifies specific routes pilots use to travel
from an installation to a training range and back, and provides upper
and lower altitudes for shared airspace near installations. However,
neither inventory identifies specific training capacities and
capabilities available at each range of all the services as required by
section 366. For example, while both inventories identify capacities
and capabilities at each Air Force range in terms of the number and
type of aircraft that can be accommodated simultaneously or
sequentially, and in terms of the types of ordnance permitted, targets,
and feedback systems, they do not identify training capacities and
capabilities available at individual Army, Navy, or Marine Corps
ranges. Also, although specifically required to do so by section 366,
neither inventory lists existing training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of each range due to encroachment or other
factors, such as a lack of maintenance or modernization. Still,
individually the services have developed some of the specified
information mandated by section 366. For example, Army and Marine Corps
officials told us that they had identified training capacities and
capabilities of their ranges, and the Army was able to provide us with
a list of identified training constraints subsequent to the issuance of
OSD's 2005 inventory. Also, Air Force officials said a list of
identified training constraints for their ranges was provided to OSD
last year but was not incorporated into either inventory and the Navy
has initiated an effort to identify capabilities and constraints for 17
of its training ranges--four of these studies are completed but are
still in final draft.
A training range inventory that could be continuously updated and
easily accessible to potential users would make these data more useful
to address training constraints caused by encroachment and to identify
the best available resources to fulfill training requirements. Instead,
similar to last year's inventory, OSD's 2005 inventory is a list of the
individual services' inventories merged into one document that is not
integrated or readily accessible by commanders across all the services.
In response to a similar finding in a draft of our 2004 report, OSD
stated that it is a long-term goal to have an integrated management
system to support joint use of training ranges. However, the training
range sustainment plan presented in OSD's 2005 report does not identify
this as one of the department's goals. Instead, the report discusses
various service-and range-level information and inventory systems.
Collectively, these information and inventory systems are important to
provide more complete data concerning training resources, but they are
not integrated in a way that makes training ranges, their capacities
and capabilities, and their limitations readily accessible to all
commanders. For example, in 2001 DOD's Business Initiative Council
recognized that range users, managers, and schedulers need information
about multiple ranges, facilities, and associated resources in terms of
scheduling and availability. Consequently, DOD has developed a common
range scheduling tool that interfaces with 12 Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force ranges and simulation sites, providing near-real time
display of scheduling and resource information. Also, as described in
OSD's 2005 report, the Marine Corps has developed an active,
centralized training range Web site that provides both general and
detailed information about each of its ranges, allows commanders from
any service to schedule their training events remotely, and provides
photos and video footage of some ranges to assist potential users in
scheduling and designing their training events. At the same time, the
Army and Marine Corps have recognized the benefits of working together
while jointly developing several information systems and decision tools
that support cross-service utilization of both Marine Corps and Army
training ranges. While the Navy and Air Force do not have similar Web-
based inventories, they have worked together on the development and
application of an aviation range safety software application, which is
described in OSD's 2005 report. Additionally, the Navy's Southern
California Offshore Range has developed an information management
system that allows its users to complete a number of tasks, such as
tracking the causes of modified or cancelled training and reporting
range deficiencies.
OSD's 2005 Report Still Does Not Meet Other Requirements that Could
Help Guide the Sustainability of Ranges:
Similar to OSD's training range report issued to Congress last year,
the 2005 report does not meet other requirements mandated by section
366 that could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-
term sustainability of their training ranges. One noteworthy change
since last year is that OSD's current report provides some elements of
a plan intended to address the long-term sustainability of training
ranges while last year's report did not. However, the plan presented
does not identify funding requirements for implementing planned actions
although specified by section 366, and does not assign responsibility
for implementation of actions or provide performance metrics to measure
progress, although both are critical elements of a meaningful plan.
Also, neither annual report includes OSD's assessment of current and
future training range requirements; its evaluation of the adequacy of
current resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet
these requirements; its recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes; or its plans to improve the reporting of the readiness impact
that training constraints have on specific units of the services--
although specifically required to do so by section 366. While other OSD
components have demonstrated that the department is capable of
developing reports that contain information and comprehensive strategic
plans similar to those specified by section 366, OSD's 2005 report is
still generally descriptive and fails to fully address congressional
requirements.
OSD's Plan Does Not Identify Funding Requirements, Assign
Responsibilities, or Provide Explicit Performance Metrics:
OSD's current plan provides a general framework for goals, actions, and
milestones, but it does not provide information on the amount and
sources of funding required for implementing the planned actions, or
when these types of funds are needed. However, OSD describes the
efforts of the Sustainable Range Working Integrated Product Team to
develop a more consistent and accurate system to capture and report
funding associated with ranges and to develop investment strategies. It
further describes different types of funding available for ranges
(e.g., procurement, operation and maintenance, and military
construction funds) and the current and proposed funding framework for
ranges, without specifically identifying its funding requirements. In
our June 2005 report, we found that the services lack the capability to
accurately and easily capture overall training range funding
information and were unable to easily and precisely identify their
funding requirements, funding levels, and trends in expenditures for
training ranges on an annual basis. In comments on a draft of that
report, DOD responded that a standing subgroup, under the direction of
the Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team, is developing a
framework that provides increased visibility into year-to-year funding.
During this review, responsible DOD officials noted that additional
time is needed to complete this effort and could not provide any
definitive estimate for completion.
OSD's plan also lacks complete information on which organizations will
be assigned responsibility for implementing which planned action.
Instead, OSD discusses in general terms organizational roles and
responsibilities for the sustainment of test and training ranges and
operating areas. Individually, the military services have undertaken a
number of planning actions to address the sustainability of their
ranges. For example, the Navy and Marine Corps have started to develop
local management plans for their training ranges that, among other
things, provide a strategic vision for range operations and identify
capability shortfalls. In addition, the Army recently started
developing standardized local range plans; the Air Force is creating a
management system, scheduled to be operational in 2007, to develop
plans for its ranges; and several local range offices have started to
develop plans to address the sustainability of their training ranges.
In comments on our June 2005 report, OSD stated that more fully
articulating the roles and responsibilities of primary OSD offices, the
services, and the combatant commands will better address the full range
of management functions required to sustain training ranges. OSD
further noted that it intended to undertake a review of the
department's policies to ensure the roles and responsibilities for
addressing such sustainable range issues are integrated and clearly
articulated. More recently, DOD officials could not provide an
estimated completion date for this endeavor.
In addition, OSD's plan does not provide explicit performance metrics
to measure progress in addressing training constraints and ensuring the
sustainability of ranges. Instead, DOD organizes its general goals,
actions, and milestones under four main categories: modernization and
investment, operations and maintenance, environmental, and
encroachment. For each category, DOD identifies actions to be completed
in fiscal year 2005 and actions to be completed during fiscal years
2006 and beyond. However, the plan lacks explicit metrics to indicate
what level of performance toward the achievement of these goals would
be acceptable or unacceptable. For example, while the plan states that
one of the actions that should be taken to achieve modernized ranges is
to develop, complete, and periodically update training range complex
plans, it does not provide the services any metrics to indicate how
many or percentage of complex plans should be developed or within what
time frame they should be completed (e.g., 10 percent in fiscal year
2005, 40 percent in fiscal year 2006, or 70 percent in fiscal year
2007). Without established, sound metrics DOD will be unable to
accurately measure the progress made in implementing the plan, as
required in section 366.
OSD's Report Does Not Assess Current and Future Requirements:
Similar to last year's report, OSD's 2005 report does not include an
assessment of current and future training range requirements of the
military services. Instead, the 2005 report describes the services'
ranges in the United States and overseas and their processes to
develop, document, and execute current training and training range
requirements. On the other hand, the data to meet the mandated
requirement to assess current training range requirements already exist
in selected instances. For example, we recently reported that the Army
had conducted a detailed capacity analysis during the 2005 base
closures and realignments process that identified the types of training
lands and facilities required to support various units (e.g., light and
heavy maneuver brigades).[Footnote 14] In addition, as we reported in
our June 2005 report, the Navy and Marine Corps had identified specific
requirements for their ranges in 2004 and the Air Force had assessed
its range requirements in 2003. However, none of these studies provided
assessments of their future training range requirements. Without the
specified assessments mandated by section 366, OSD continues to lack
the basis for determining whether current and future resources are
adequate.
OSD's Report Does Not Evaluate the Adequacy of Current Resources to
Meet Current and Future Requirements:
Similar to last year's report, OSD's 2005 report does not include an
evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD 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 current and future training range requirements. Neither report
compares current or future training range requirements to existing
resources--a primary method to evaluate the adequacy of current
resources. While the Army has not evaluated the adequacy of its
resources, the other services have used the results of their range
assessments discussed previously to evaluate the adequacy of their
training ranges. However, the results of these evaluations were not
included in OSD's 2005 report and none of the services have completed
an evaluation of the adequacy of current resources to meet future
training range requirements. In comments on a draft of our report last
year, DOD stated that it was inappropriate and impractical to include
this detail in an OSD-level report and that Congress is better served
if the department describes, summarizes, and analyzes range
requirements. However, these statements are contradictory to section
366, which specifically requires OSD to report its evaluation of the
adequacy of current DOD resources to meet current and future training
range requirements, and do not adequately consider concerns that
training ranges already face environmental and encroachment issues that
constrained their ability to meet unit training requirements.
We recently reported that concerns over the ability of existing Army
training ranges to meet training requirements were exacerbated by
uncertainties over the final number and composition of additional
modular brigades[Footnote 15] that will require training as well as the
potential impact of additional forces returning from bases overseas to
U.S. bases.[Footnote 16] As part of DOD's Integrated Global Presence
and Basing Strategy,[Footnote 17] the Army plans to restation up to
47,000 soldiers from U.S. bases in Germany, South Korea, and other
overseas locations to the United States over the next 10 years. We have
also reported on the challenges DOD faces in implementing its Training
Transformation Program aimed at enhancing joint training among the
services.[Footnote 18] Consequently, we continue to believe that
information regarding the adequacy of current resources to meet current
and future requirements is vital to establishing a baseline for
measuring losses or shortfalls in training capabilities, and it is
likely to grow in importance for congressional decision makers in
carrying out their oversight responsibilities when DOD seeks their
approval for acquiring additional lands to meet current and future
training requirements--as OSD suggested several times in its 2005
training range report.
OSD's Report Does Not Identify Recommendations for Legislative or
Regulatory Changes:
Similar to last year's report, OSD's 2005 report makes no
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
encroachment or other training constraints even though such changes
existed. While OSD's current report ends with a section on
observations, it does not provide any recommendations for legislative
or regulatory action for Congress to consider. Instead, DOD submitted
proposed legislation in a separate document to Congress on April 6,
2004, which was intended to clarify the intent of the Clean Air Act;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980; and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. According to a
senior OSD official, it is difficult to synchronize the process of
obtaining the approval required from both DOD and the Office of
Management and Budget for any legislative or regulatory proposal, while
also issuing an OSD-level report, such as the mandated training range
sustainment report. Still, without including its recommendations in
this year's report, we believe that OSD missed an opportunity provided
by section 366 to present Congress with additional information that may
be useful to carry out its oversight responsibilities and further
address training constraints.
OSD Has Not Reported Its Plans for Improving the Readiness Reporting
System:
OSD has not reported to Congress its plans to improve the department's
readiness reporting system, regardless of a specific mandate in section
366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003. Instead, OSD concluded
last year that it is inappropriate to modify the Global Status of
Resources and Training System (GSORTS) identified by the mandate to
address long-term encroachment impacts and reported that it planned to
incorporate encroachment impacts on readiness into its Defense
Readiness Reporting System, which is currently under development.
However, OSD has not explained how or when it intends to do this or
provided any additional details on how it plans to improve its
readiness reporting in either this or last year's report. More
significantly, as we reported in June 2005, none of the services
regularly assesses either the conditions of their ranges or whether the
ranges are able to meet the specific training requirements of the
service and combatant commanders. While the Army and Marine Corps
annually assess the physical condition of their training ranges, the
services do not assess the capabilities of the ranges or any impacts to
training. The Navy and Air Force do not routinely conduct annual
assessments of their training ranges. While we appreciate that OSD does
not believe GSORTS is the system to capture encroachment impacts, its
failure to explain this and include in the 2005 report its plans to
improve its readiness reporting does not address the concerns raised by
Congress, GAO, and others that its readiness reporting system does not
accurately reflect the impacts due to limitations on the use of
training ranges.
Other DOD Components Have Developed Comprehensive Strategic Plans and
Reports:
Other OSD components have demonstrated that the department is capable
of developing comprehensive strategic plans and reports with data
similar to those mandated by section 366. Still, unlike these strategic
planning efforts and in contradiction to the reporting requirements
specified in section 366, OSD's 2005 training range report continues to
be generally descriptive in nature, with large sections dedicated to
providing background information on funding sources, encroachment
issues, and overseas ranges and describing current efforts to use
information technology and individual services' efforts to address
sustainable range issues. In contrast to OSD's annual training range
report, the Office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict
released a DOD-wide strategic plan on antiterrorism in June 2004 with
five goals, 35 specific performance objectives, and annual milestones
and metrics through 2011 to measure progress.[Footnote 19] The
strategic goals and performance objectives describe how DOD components
are to achieve the desired end state and the annual milestones and
metrics detail the level of performance expected by fiscal year. Within
the first year, the services and several combatant commands had
developed plans to implement the DOD-wide strategic plan. The OSD
office plans to annually review these organizations' progress to ensure
that the actions outlined in the plans are being achieved in the stated
time frames. Other examples are OSD's training transformation strategic
plan and its annual implementation plans that include specific goals,
planned actions, performance metrics, and milestones for transforming
DOD's training.[Footnote 20] As part of its approach to managing
training transformation, OSD has taken action to establish
accountability and authority early in the program, and performance
metrics are being continuously developed and revised in an attempt to
better measure training transformation's impact on joint force
readiness and guide investments in training transformation.
Concluding Observations:
Although we agree with DOD that assuring the sustainment of its
training ranges requires a long-term commitment that will take several
years to execute, we also believe the development of a comprehensive
strategic plan and report can be accomplished in a more timely manner.
Noting that section 366 allots 5 years to produce, update, and improve
the mandated report, we believe that sufficient time has elapsed for
the department to have developed both a training range inventory and a
comprehensive report that fulfill requirements mandated by section 366.
By now, nearly 3 years after the mandate was established, OSD should be
reporting on its progress implementing the training range sustainment
plan. Without the information mandated by section 366, congressional
and DOD decision makers will continue to rely on incomplete data to
address training constraints and to support funding requests. Further,
these types of information will likely grow in importance as Congress
realizes the need to evaluate and approve the department's proposals to
purchase additional training lands and areas in the future as predicted
in OSD's current report. Since OSD and the services have individually
or jointly initiated a number of range inventory and sustainment
activities, any further delay in developing a comprehensive training
range sustainment plan that identifies funding requirements as mandated
by section 366, assigns lead responsibility for implementation of
specific actions, and provides explicit performance metrics to measure
progress puts the department at risk of lacking a strategy that fully
addresses training limitations and ensures the long-term sustainability
of military training ranges. This is especially important in light of
the need to address emerging training requirements due to the
relocation of forces from bases overseas to the United States,
implementation of new joint training initiatives, and creation of
modular brigades in the Army. Because our prior recommendations for
improving OSD's annual training range reporting remain open, valid, and
not fully addressed, we are not making new recommendations in this
report.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Readiness stated that DOD is fully committed to a
comprehensive approach to range management and that its annual reports
to Congress on this matter reflected the importance DOD accords this
subject. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense also stated that
successful comprehensive planning does not equate to centralized
management and that DOD does not believe a single, continuously updated
and widely accessible inventory database that doubles as a Web-based
scheduling tool is currently practical or feasible.
While we recognize that DOD is committed to improving the management of
its ranges, we previously recommended and continue to believe that DOD
needs to develop a training range inventory and a comprehensive report
that better fulfill the reporting requirements mandated by section 366.
Implementation of our prior recommendations on this matter would
provide DOD with a framework to better address training range
sustainability issues and provide for a more comprehensive approach for
ensuring that ranges are adequately sustained and modernized in order
to ensure their long-term viability. As in this report and our prior
reports on sustainability of ranges, we have not equated successful
comprehensive planning to centralized management as suggested by DOD,
but instead we have recognized fully the importance of the military
services' role and the steps they have taken in addressing the
sustainability of their ranges. We also disagree with DOD's contention
that a single, continuously updated and widely accessible inventory
database is not currently practical or feasible, and would not meet the
needs of the services or OSD. As illustrated in this and our prior
reports, all of the services and several individual commands have
recognized the need for information and inventory systems that could be
continuously updated and easily accessible to potential users for
addressing sustainment issues and for identifying the best available
resources to fulfill training requirements. Both the Army and Marine
Corps have implemented inventory systems to meet the requirements of
their commanders. The Air Force and several individual commands are in
the process of developing systems that could meet their needs, and the
Navy's Southern California Offshore range has its own management system
that is used for scheduling training and tracking sustainment issues
and resolutions. Clearly, these individual information and inventory
systems demonstrate that the development of a departmentwide inventory
is practical and feasible. Also, we continue to believe that without
such an inventory it will be difficult for OSD and the services to
develop a meaningful comprehensive plan and to track their progress in
addressing training constraints and ensuring range sustainability.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense's comments are included in
enclosure III. DOD also provided a technical clarification, which we
incorporated.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and members; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretaries
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The report is also available at no
charge on GAO's Web Site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5581 or holmanb@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Tommy Baril,
Steve Boyles, Susan Ditto, and Mark Little were major contributors to
this report.
Signed by:
Barry W. Holman, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable John Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
Subcommittee on Defense:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Chairman:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
Subcommittee on Defense:
House of Representatives:
Enclosure 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]
Enclosure II: GAO Prior Recommendations:
Figure 1 lists our prior recommendations designed to help ensure the
long-term viability of military training ranges and enhance the
Department of Defense's (DOD) responsiveness to the legislative
requirements specified in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Individually, they have not
been fully implemented and we continue to consider them open and
continuing recommendations from our prior reports.
Figure 1: Prior Recommendations Associated with the Sustainment of
Military Training Ranges:
Report: Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not
Reflected in Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
30, 2002).
Recommendation: We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the
chiefs of the military services in conjunction with the Under Secretary
of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, to develop a report that will
accurately capture training shortfalls for senior DOD leadership. This
document should objectively report a unit's ability to achieve its
training requirements and include;
* all instances in which training cannot occur as scheduled due to
constraints imposed by entities outside DOD as well as all instances
when training substitutes are not sufficient to meet training
requirements,
* a discussion of how training constraints affect the ability of units
to meet training requirements and how the inability to meet those
requirements is affecting readiness, and; a description of efforts to
capture training shortfalls in existing as well as developmental
readiness reporting systems;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken.
Recommendation: We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct
that the war fighting commands, in concert with their service component
commands, develop an overarching strategy that will detail the
initiatives the command and each service plan to pursue to improve
training, such as access to additional host government facilities,
participation in bilateral and multilateral exercises, and acquisition
of new technology;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken.
Report: Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2002).
Recommendation: We recommended that the Secretary of Defense;
* require the services to develop and maintain inventories of their
training ranges, capacities, and capabilities, and fully quantify their
training requirements considering complementary approaches to training;
Status: DOD agreed--some limited action taken by the services;
* create a DOD data base 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;
Status: DOD agreed--some limited action taken by the services;
* 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;
Status: DOD agreed--some limited action taken;
and;
* 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 Congress as appropriate;
Status: DOD partially agreed--no action taken.
Report: Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully
Address Congressional Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington,
D.C.: June 4, 2004).
Recommendation: We recommended that OSD provide a more complete report
to Congress to fully address the requirements specified in the section
366 mandate by;
* 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;
Status: DOD agreed--some limited action taken;
* assessing current and future training range requirements and
evaluating the adequacy of current resources to meet these
requirements;
Status: DOD disagreed--no action taken;
and;
* developing a readiness reporting system to reflect the impact on
readiness caused by training constraints due to limitations on the use
of training ranges;
Status: DOD disagreed--no action taken.
Recommendation: We 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;
Status: DOD disagreed--some limited action taken by the services.
Report: Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed
to Improve the Conditions of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534
(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005)[A].
Recommendation: We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to;
* update DOD Directive 3200.15 to broaden the focus of the policy to
clearly address all issues that affect the long-term viability of
military training ranges; and clearly define the maintenance and
modernization roles and responsibilities of all relevant DOD
components, including the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, Joint Forces Command, and Special
Operations Command;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken;
* broaden the charter of the DOD-wide working group, the Sustainable
Range Integrated Product Team, to address all issues that could affect
the long-term viability of military training ranges, and include all
DOD components that are impacted by range limitations;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken;
and;
* update DOD's training transformation plan to address all factors that
could impact the sustainability of military training ranges and not
just external encroachment issues;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken.
Recommendation: We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the
secretaries of the military services to implement a comprehensive
approach to managing their training ranges, to include;
* a servicewide sustainable range policy that implements the updated
DOD Directive 3200.15 and clearly defines the maintenance and
modernization roles and responsibilities of relevant service officials
at all levels;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken;
* a servicewide sustainable range implementation plan that includes
goals, specific actions to be taken, milestones, funding sources, and
an investment strategy for managing their ranges;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken;
* defined training range requirements and a systematic process to
annually assess the conditions of training ranges and their consequent
impact on training, including whether the ranges are able to meet the
specific training requirements of the service and combatant commanders;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken;
* a Web-based range information management system that allows training
range officials at all levels to share information, such as range
conditions and their impact on training, funding sources, requirements
and expenditures, and local range initiatives;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken;
and;
* regularly developed strategies to address the factors contributing to
funding shortages for ranges, including the reassessment of funding
priorities for maintaining and modernizing ranges relative to other
needs;
Status: DOD agreed--no action taken.
Source: DOD and GAO.
[A] While DOD agreed with the recommendations in this report, more time
is needed for the department and military services to implement them.
[End of table]
Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
OCT 14 2005:
Mr. Barry W. Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Holman:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office Draft Report GAO-06-29R, "MILITARY TRAINING: Some
Improvements Have Been Made in DoD's Annual Training Range Reporting
But It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements,"
September 12th, 2005.
The Department of Defense truly appreciates the GAO's past and present
work in assessing the challenges facing our nation's military training
and testing ranges. Over the past few years, DoD has made major strides
in mitigating range encroachment and in assuring future readiness
through long-term range sustainment. As part of this process, DoD has
embraced many of the GAO's recommendations, and is fully committed to a
comprehensive approach to range management that recognizes the critical
role these assets play in our nation's military capabilities. We
believe our recent Reports to Congress on this matter, including the
July 2005 submission that is the subject of this GAO assessment,
reflect the importance DoD accords this subject.
While we concur wholeheartedly with GAO's emphasis on comprehensive
planning, DoD remains strongly committed to a decentralized sustainable
ranges management solution. Successful comprehensive planning does not
equate to centralized management. DoD and the Services are in full
agreement that the Service's Title 10 responsibilities place them in
the forefront of range planning and implementation. OSD is providing
planning support, oversight and policy guidance to ensure all DoD
ranges support service, cross-service and joint needs and goals.
Furthermore, DoD does not believe that a single, continuously updated
and widely accessible inventory database that doubles as a web-based
scheduling tool, as envisioned in the GAO report, is currently
practical or feasible. Nor would such a system meet the needs of the
individual services or of OSD. But we are committed to maximizing
system integration and sharing of range data to better leverage all
range assets for the full benefit of our military's readiness.
OSD and the Services are working together to develop and execute a
comprehensive range sustainment plan that will counter encroachment and
ensure appropriate modernization and maintenance of these invaluable
assets. We have a strong, evolving DoD-wide initiative to achieve range
sustainability that has been documented in our first two reports to
Congress and will be expanded upon in subsequent reports. In line with
this Initiative, each of the Services is making outstanding progress in
integrated range policy, planning and management. Consistent with past
GAO recommendations, DoD will pursue continuous improvement in
identifying and achieving measurable goals and milestones, and in
identifying and documenting future range requirements, encroachment
impacts, and programmatic needs. Such reporting will be easier now that
BRAC and Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy decisions are
largely resolved.
The GAO made no new recommendations in their subject report. DoD stands
by its previously-stated positions on other prior GAO recommendations
on this subject. One technical comment on the report is enclosed. We
look forward to continuing to work with Congress and the GAO to
maintain a ready and sustainable military testing and training
infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Paul W. Mayberry:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness):
Enclosure: As stated:
(350644):
FOOTNOTES
[1] DOD defines "encroachment" as the cumulative result of any and all
outside influences that impede normal training and testing. DOD
initially identified the following eight encroachment factors:
endangered species and critical habitat, unexploded ordinance and
munitions constituents, competition for frequency spectrum, protected
marine resources, competition for airspace, air pollution, noise
pollution, and urban growth around installations. Some emerging issues
involve overseas ranges, water use, resource extraction, and civilian
access.
[2] P.L. 107-314, Title III, Section 366 (Dec. 2, 2002).
[3] Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel
and Readiness, Implementation of the Department of Defense Training
Range Comprehensive Plan (Washington, D.C.: July 2005).
[4] GAO, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not
Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608
(Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004).
[5] In this report, we use the term "training range" to collectively
refer to air ranges, live-fire ranges, ground maneuver ranges, sea
ranges, and operating areas.
[6] GAO, Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed
to Improve the Conditions of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534
(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005).
[7] GAO-04-608.
[8] DOD Directive, Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas (OPAREAs),
3200.15 (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
[9] GAO-05-534 contains a comprehensive list of GAO products associated
with military training ranges.
[10] GAO, Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not
Reflected in Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
30, 2002).
[11] GAO, Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2002).
[12] GAO-04-608.
[13] GAO-05-534.
[14] GAO, Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Section Process and
Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments, GAO-05-785
(Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005).
[15] The Army's current modular force restructuring plan calls for the
creation of 10 modular brigades within the United States by 2006, with
the possibility of an additional 5 modular brigades beyond then.
[16] GAO-05-785.
[17] On September 17, 2004, DOD issued a report entitled Strengthening
U.S. Global Defense Posture, also referred to as the integrated global
presence and basing strategy. This strategy--the culmination of various
DOD studies including the overseas basing and requirements study, the
overseas presence study, and the U.S. global posture study--calls for
restationing of U.S. military forces overseas to bases located in the
United States and is intended to enhance flexibility and achieve
efficiencies.
[18] GAO, Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to
Transform Joint Training, GAO-05-548 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).
[19] Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, Department of Defense
Antiterrorism Strategic Plan, O-2000.12-P (Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2004).
[20] 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,
and June 9, 2004).
