Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan
Gao ID: GAO-09-128R December 15, 2008Recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the world have highlighted the need for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. Department of Defense (DOD) training ranges and operating areas are required to be managed and operated to support their long-term viability and utility to meet the national defense mission. The use of military training ranges enhances training by providing realistic, hands-on experience. Sustainable training range management focuses on the practices that allow the military to manage its ranges in a way that ensures their usefulness well into the future. Because the military faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands, the preservation and sustainable management of its current lands must be priorities. New advances in technology, coupled with a shift in force posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few acres--for small arms training--to over a million acres for large maneuver exercises and weapons testing, and include broad open ocean areas for offshore training and testing. These ranges face ever increasing limitations and restrictions on land, water, and airspace as residential, commercial, and industrial development continues to expand around and encroach upon once remote military training and testing installations. Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of DOD's report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its readiness reporting improvements within 90 days of receiving the report from DOD. We received the report and inventory on September 16, 2008. In 2007, we found that DOD had made improvements to its annual sustainable ranges report, but further improvements could be made. This is our fifth review in response to our mandate in section 366 of the act. It discusses (1) the extent to which DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report and training range inventory address the elements of section 366 and (2) opportunities for DOD to further improve its sustainable ranges report.
DOD continues to make progress in addressing most of the elements of section 366. This year's report describes the progress DOD has made in implementing its range sustainment plan, as required by section 366. Further, DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report has made progress in addressing the elements of section 366 required for DOD's original fiscal year 2004 report, but the report does not fully address three of these elements. The report updates improvements made in addressing four elements of the act required for DOD's fiscal year 2004 report: (1) the evaluation of the adequacy of resources to meet current and future requirements; (2) DOD's goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress; (3) designation of offices within OSD and the military departments that are responsible for overseeing plans to improve its readiness reporting system. To address the adequacy of its current resources to meet current and future requirements, DOD established standardized criteria and identified common factors to assess range capabilities and encroachment, as we recommended in our 2007 report. DOD officials said that they worked closely with service officials to build a common set of capability attributes and encroachment factors and service-specific mission areas to evaluate them against. In addition, for the first time, DOD's sustainable ranges report also includes three elements of section 366 required to be included in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report: (1) an assessment of current and future training range requirements, (2) an evaluation of virtual and constructive8 assets to meet range requirements, and (3) projected funding requirements for implementing planned range sustainability actions. On the other hand, the report did not put forth any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, nor did it explain the omission. Additionally, while DOD did not identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace for each of its ranges, it included an assessment of such constraints on its major training ranges. As in prior years, DOD officials told us that the large volume of data required to identify capacities, capabilities, and constraints on all of its ranges makes doing so impractical. Finally, DOD did not provide proposals to enhance training range capabilities or address any shortfalls in its resources identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation under Section 366(a)(2), although each of the services has assessed their current resources to meet current and future requirements, which has allowed them to determine their shortfalls in resources.
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: Brian J. Lepore Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202) 512-4523GAO-09-128R, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-128R
entitled 'Improvement Continues in DOD‘s Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan' which was released on December 16, 2008.
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.
December 15, 2008:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan:
Recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the
world have highlighted the need for U.S. forces to train as they intend
to fight. Department of Defense (DOD) training ranges and operating
areas are required to be managed and operated to support their long-
term viability and utility to meet the national defense mission. The
use of military training ranges enhances training by providing
realistic, hands-on experience. Sustainable training range management
focuses on the practices that allow the military to manage its ranges
in a way that ensures their usefulness well into the future. Because
the military faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands, the
preservation and sustainable management of its current lands must be
priorities. New advances in technology, coupled with a shift in force
posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its
training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few
acres--for small arms training--to over a million acres for large
maneuver exercises and weapons testing, and include broad open ocean
areas for offshore training and testing. These ranges face ever
increasing limitations and restrictions on land, water, and airspace as
residential, commercial, and industrial development continues to expand
around and encroach upon once remote military training and testing
installations.
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003,[Footnote 1] dated December 2, 2002, required that the
Secretary of Defense report on several items related to its training
ranges. First, it required the Secretary to develop a comprehensive
plan for using existing authorities available to the Secretary and the
military services to address training constraints caused by limitations
on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace--both in the
United States and overseas. Section 366 of the act required the
Secretary of Defense, in preparing the plan, to conduct an assessment
of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of
the adequacy of current DOD resources--including virtual and
constructive assets as well as military lands, marine areas, and
airspace available in the United States and overseas--to meet current
and future training range requirements. The plan was to include (1)
proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any
shortfalls in DOD resources identified pursuant to the assessment and
evaluation discussed above, (2) goals and milestones for tracking
planned actions and measuring progress, (3) projected funding
requirements for implementing planned actions, and (4) designation of
an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and in each
of the military departments with lead responsibility for overseeing the
implementation of the plan. Section 366 further required the Secretary
to submit the plan, the results of the assessment and evaluation, and
any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or
regulatory changes to address training constraints in a report to
Congress at the same time that the President submitted the budget for
fiscal year 2004. In addition, section 366 required the Secretary to
submit a report to Congress annually for fiscal years 2005 through
2013[Footnote 2] describing the progress made in implementing the 2004
plan and any additional actions taken or to be taken to address
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military land,
marine areas, or airspace. Section 366 also required the Secretary to
report to Congress, not later than June 30, 2003, on its plans to
improve DOD's readiness reporting system to reflect the readiness
impact on specific units of the military services due to training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine
areas, and airspace. Finally, section 366 required the Secretary to (1)
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 on the
use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training
range in fiscal year 2004 and (2) provide an updated inventory to
Congress each year for fiscal years 2005 through 2013.[Footnote 3] The
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued DOD's
fifth annual sustainable ranges report and inventory to Congress on
September 18, 2008.[Footnote 4] Enclosure I contains the text of
section 366 of the act.
Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of
DOD's report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its
readiness reporting improvements within 90 days of receiving the report
from DOD. We received the report and inventory on September 16, 2008.
In 2007, we found that DOD had made improvements to its annual
sustainable ranges report, but further improvements could be
made.[Footnote 5]
This is our fifth review in response to our mandate in section 366 of
the act.[Footnote 6] It discusses (1) the extent to which DOD's 2008
sustainable ranges report and training range inventory address the
elements of section 366 and (2) opportunities for DOD to further
improve its sustainable ranges report.
Because DOD has addressed most of the elements of section 366 that were
to be addressed in its fiscal year 2004 report, as well as the
recommendations we included in our 2007 assessment, we focused our
review on summarizing the changes made to DOD's sustainable ranges
report in addressing these elements and recommendations and on
identifying opportunities for improving DOD's report to make it more
useful to Congress and other interested parties. To determine the
extent to which DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report and training range
inventory address the elements of section 366 that were required to be
in DOD's original fiscal year 2004 plan, we reviewed the report and
inventory and met with DOD and service officials to discuss them. We
discussed challenges DOD faced in meeting the congressionally mandated
requirements in fiscal year 2004--and continues to face--and changes in
the report and inventory since 2007. We also compared the report and
training range inventory to the criteria in section 366 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to determine the extent
to which this year's report addresses the elements of section 366 that
were required to be in DOD's original fiscal year 2004 plan. To
identify opportunities for DOD to improve its comprehensive plan within
the sustainable ranges report, we compared the 2008 report with
elements of the comprehensive plan required by section 366. We also
compared DOD's 2008 report and training range inventory to prior DOD
and GAO reports. In addition, we reviewed this year's report to
determine if DOD addressed the recommendations we included in our 2007
report. To determine the progress that the services have made in their
initiatives to sustain their training ranges, we met with service
officials about their inputs to DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report
and inventory, key initiatives they have undertaken to address range
sustainment, challenges in addressing range sustainment and
encroachment issues, and progress or changes since we last reported.
The objective of this engagement was to determine the extent to which
DOD's sustainable ranges report addressed the elements of section 366,
not to comprehensively evaluate the data presented in the report. We
conducted this performance audit from August 2008 through December 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
DOD continues to make progress in addressing most of the elements of
section 366. This year's report describes the progress DOD has made in
implementing its range sustainment plan, as required by section 366.
Further, DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report has made progress in
addressing the elements of section 366 required for DOD's original
fiscal year 2004 report, but the report does not fully address three of
these elements. The report updates improvements made in addressing four
elements of the act required for DOD's fiscal year 2004 report: (1) the
evaluation of the adequacy of resources to meet current and future
requirements; (2) DOD's goals and milestones for tracking planned
actions and measuring progress; (3) designation of offices within OSD
and the military departments that are responsible for overseeing the
implementation of DOD's sustainable ranges comprehensive plan; and (4)
DOD's plans to improve its readiness reporting system. To address the
adequacy of its current resources to meet current and future
requirements, DOD established standardized criteria and identified
common factors to assess range capabilities and encroachment, as we
recommended in our 2007 report.[Footnote 7] DOD officials said that
they worked closely with service officials to build a common set of
capability attributes and encroachment factors and service-specific
mission areas to evaluate them against. In addition, for the first
time, DOD's sustainable ranges report also includes three elements of
section 366 required to be included in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report:
(1) an assessment of current and future training range requirements,
(2) an evaluation of virtual and constructive[Footnote 8] assets to
meet range requirements, and (3) projected funding requirements for
implementing planned range sustainability actions. On the other hand,
the report did not put forth any recommendations that the Secretary may
have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training
constraints, nor did it explain the omission. Additionally, while DOD
did not identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use
of military lands, marine areas, and airspace for each of its ranges,
it included an assessment of such constraints on its major training
ranges. As in prior years, DOD officials told us that the large volume
of data required to identify capacities, capabilities, and constraints
on all of its ranges makes doing so impractical. Finally, DOD did not
provide proposals to enhance training range capabilities or address any
shortfalls in its resources identified pursuant to the assessment and
evaluation under Section 366(a)(2), although each of the services has
assessed their current resources to meet current and future
requirements, which has allowed them to determine their shortfalls in
resources.
Although DOD has made progress in addressing elements of section 366,
opportunities exist to provide additional information in support of its
sustainable ranges report. For example, although each of the services
identified the training ranges that would be assessed and conducted an
assessment of these ranges, DOD's 2008 report does not provide a
rationale for excluding some of its ranges. Including this information
would have clarified the process used to determine which ranges would
be assessed. In addition, DOD included standardized criteria and common
factors for assessing the adequacy of current DOD resources to meet
current and future requirements, but the Marine Corps deviated from the
approach used by the other services to define its mission areas. The
Marine Corps assessed how its range capabilities and encroachment
factors impact a unit's ability to complete training, rather than
assessing how specific mission training tasks are affected, although
benefits may exist from identifying impacts at the unit level. This
approach makes it difficult to know which specific Marine Corps
training tasks are impacted and thus also difficult to determine where
resources should be allocated to improve the Marine Corps range
sustainment program. Furthermore, although DOD established goals and
milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress for four
critical range sustainment areas, one of these goals has not been
updated. Since 2006, DOD has continued to duplicate the stated goal for
operations and maintenance as the modernization and investment goal in
its sustainable ranges reports. Additionally, for the past 2 years, the
Air Force deviated from the approach used by the other services and did
not update its actions to support DOD's modernization and investment
goal. Without the annual updates, Congress has less visibility of the
progress made toward achieving this goal. Finally, although this is the
first year that DOD's sustainable ranges report has included projected
funding requirements for implementing planned actions related to its
range sustainability efforts, DOD's report does not identify the
specific funding elements that each service included to determine its
projected funding requirements. DOD expects to refine the collection
and presentation of this information in future reports. In the
meantime, without including the detailed funding elements for each
service in the report, DOD limits congressional visibility over the
services' actual range sustainment costs. We are making recommendations
designed to improve the content of the sustainable ranges report. In
commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with three of our
recommendations and did not concur with one recommendation. We discuss
DOD's comments later in this report. DOD also provided technical
comments on a draft of this report, which we have incorporated where
appropriate.
DOD Continues to Make Progress in Addressing Most Section 366 Elements:
DOD has made progress in addressing most of the elements included in
section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003. DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report and inventory is
responsive to the requirement that DOD describe the progress made in
implementing its sustainable ranges plan and any additional action
taken, or to be taken, to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace.
The report also includes improvements to its standardized criteria and
common factors for assessing the adequacy of current DOD resources to
meet current and future requirements, as we recommended in our report
last year; updates to the designated lead offices within DOD and the
services that are responsible for implementing DOD's range sustainment
plan; and an update on the status of its readiness reporting system. In
addition, this year's report includes four elements of section 366 that
were required to be included in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report, but have
not been captured in prior years' reports. However, this year's report
does not include any recommendations the Secretary may have for
legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, nor
did DOD assess the training constraints on all of its training ranges.
Additionally, DOD's report did not provide proposals to enhance
training range capabilities or address any shortfalls in its resources
identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation under Section
366(a)(2).
DOD's Sustainable Ranges Report Describes the Progress Made in
Implementing Its Range Sustainment Plan:
Rather than revisiting the details of many of the sustainable range
initiatives discussed in previous reports, DOD's 2008 report provides
an update on the continued progress being made in implementing the
range sustainment plan, and any additional actions it has taken or
plans to take to address training constraints caused by limitations on
the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace, as required by
section 366(a)(5). According to DOD, its 2008 report differs in
structure and format from previous reports in that it represents an
update to DOD's previous four reports, builds on previous DOD
submissions on its range sustainment activities, and serves as a
baseline for future reports. In this report DOD reestablishes the
baseline for future reports by (1) analyzing program element data, such
as the comprehensive range inventory; (2) assessing progress made in
implementing goals and actions; (3) applying new standardized methods
for assessing range capabilities and encroachment impacts; (4)
addressing funding requirements associated with implementing range
sustainability initiatives; and (5) identifying new program directions,
priorities, and management initiatives. Furthermore, DOD's report
states that the objective of this new format is to provide Congress
with a concise and consistent report that highlights the continued
evolution of the sustainable ranges initiative and allows progress
against section 366 reporting requirements to be easily determined.
DOD Has Continued to Make Improvements in Addressing Four Other
Elements of Section 366:
Over the last few years DOD has continued to make improvements in
addressing and updating its responses to four other elements of section
366 required in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report. These elements include:
(1) DOD's evaluation of the adequacy of resources to meet current and
future requirements, (2) updates to DOD's goals and milestones for
tracking planned actions measuring progress, (3) an updated list of the
designated offices within OSD and the military departments that have
lead responsibility for overseeing the implementation of DOD's
sustainable ranges comprehensive plan, and (4) DOD's plans to improve
its defense readiness reporting system to reflect the readiness impact
that training range constraints have on its operational forces.
Adequacy of Current Resources to Meet Current and Future Requirements:
Like last year's report, DOD's 2008 report includes an evaluation of
the adequacy of each service's current resources to meet current and
future training range requirements, including military lands, marine
areas, and airspace available in the United States and overseas. In our
2007 report,[Footnote 9] we recommended that DOD establish standardized
criteria and identify the common factors it used in assessing the
adequacy of current DOD resources to meet current and future
requirements. DOD concurred and incorporated our recommendation in its
evaluation by assessing a given range's ability to support assigned
missions areas using 13 common capability attributes and 12 common
encroachment factors. According to DOD officials, they worked closely
with service officials to build a common set of capability attributes
and encroachment factors and service-specific mission areas to evaluate
them against. DOD's evaluation includes an assessment of range
capabilities and the encroachment factors--such as noise restrictions
or endangered species restrictions--that constrain training ranges.
These assessments are presented in table format and rated with red,
yellow, and green scores to convey the severity of the impacts caused
by shortfalls in required capabilities to meet current and future
requirements. For example, the Army assessed land shortages at Fort
Campbell, Kentucky; Fort Carson/Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado;
Fort Drum, New York; Fort Hood, Texas; and Fort Riley, Kansas as
severely affecting its overall mission, while it considered shortfalls
in available targets to have only a minimal impact. Establishing these
criteria provides DOD with a consistent approach for reporting the
impact that range sustainment has on DOD units across all services.
Each military service used a doctrinal approach to identify its mission
areas as standard criteria for assessing range capabilities and the
impact of various encroachment factors.
Goals and Milestones for Tracking Planned Actions and Measuring
Progress:
In 2005, DOD established goals and milestones for tracking planned
actions and measuring progress in four critical range sustainment
areas--modernization and investment, operations and maintenance,
environment, and encroachment. For each goal, actions and milestones
have been identified for fulfillment during fiscal years 2005 through
2011. The stated goals for each of these critical sustainment areas are
as follows:
* Modernization and Investment: Sustain range operations in accordance
with OSD and service training transformation strategies by resourcing
advanced instrumentation and other infrastructure.
* Operations and Maintenance: Provide resources for standardized land
management structure and operations that mitigate encroachment and
provide for range sustainment. Maximize and sustain the availability of
military range infrastructure and land assets.
* Environment: Focus the environmental management systems to fully
support sustained required access to ranges.
* Encroachment: Maximize the accessibility of DOD ranges by minimizing
restrictions brought about by encroachment factors. Implement
sustainment outreach efforts that will improve public understanding of
DOD requirements for training and testing, and support coalition-
building and partnering on range sustainment issues important to DOD
readiness.
According to DOD, this common framework of goals and milestones has
enabled DOD and the services to make meaningful comparisons and
measurements of past performance and progress toward both near-and long-
term objectives. DOD's 2008 report provided updates, as necessary, to
actions taken by the services in response to the four goals and
milestones.
Designation of Lead Offices Responsible for Overseeing Implementation
of Range Sustainability Plan:
This year's report provides an update to the informational table
presented in DOD's 2004 report that identifies the offices within OSD
and the military departments that have lead responsibility for
overseeing the implementation of DOD's comprehensive range
sustainability plan. DOD's 2008 report not only provides the new
organizational names for some of the responsible offices, but for the
Navy, it also identifies offices that were not previously included in
DOD's 2004 report. Table 1 identifies the responsible offices within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services.
Table 1: Responsible Training Range Offices within OSD and the Military
Services:
Organization: Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD);
Office with designated responsibility: Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) OUSD(P&R);
Director, Military Training, and Sustainable Ranges;
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness).
Organization: Air Force;
Office with designated responsibility: Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, Plans, and Requirements;
Director of Current Operations and Training Ranges and Airspace
Division, HQ USAF (Headquarters United States Air Force)/A30- AR.
Organization: Army;
Office with designated responsibility: Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-3/5/7; Training Directorate;
Training Support Systems Division (DAMO-TRS).
Organization: Navy;
Office with designated responsibility: Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, Materiel Readiness, and Logistics (N4);
Fleet Readiness Division (N43); Range Modernization and Investment
(N433) and Range Operations and Maintenance (N433);
Environmental Readiness Division (N45) Operational and Environmental
Readiness Planning Branch (N456);
Commander, Naval Installations Command (CNIC)/Ashore Readiness Division
(N46).
Organization: Marine Corps;
Office with designated responsibility: Commanding General, Training,
and Education Command; Range and Training Area Management Division;
Range Modernization & Investment; Range Operations & Maintenance;
Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics;
Facilities and Services Division; Environmental; Encroachment.
Source: DOD's 2008 Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges (September
2008).
[End of table]
Readiness Reporting Improvements:
Although DOD has not finalized its plans to incorporate a range
readiness component into its new Defense Readiness Reporting System, it
has made progress in establishing the framework for this initiative.
DOD stated in its 2008 sustainable ranges report that it plans to
establish a component within the Defense Readiness Reporting System
that will report "range as a resource" for supporting a military
mission. In its report, DOD stated that efforts are under way to design
the model to be used for reporting range readiness through its
readiness reporting system. DOD officials also told us that the
department will conduct a pilot test over the next several months to
validate its concept for managing the data necessary to support this
system. DOD stated in its report that this pilot test will form the
basis of the functional requirements to build the initial range
readiness pages into the new readiness reporting system. According to
DOD officials, funding for the pilot has been approved and the pilot is
expected to implement the assessment framework outlined in DOD's 2008
report. Additionally, DOD officials stated that this pilot test will
accomplish the first phase of a two-phased implementation plan for
reporting range readiness in Defense Readiness Reporting System
implementation. The objective of the second phase will be to link
readiness assessments from units and their associated mission-essential
tasks and assessments from an installation's functional requirements to
the range assessment framework. In response to a direction from the
House Armed Services Committee Report on the 2009 National Defense
Authorization Act, DOD is planning to present the results of the pilot
test in a report to the committee in March 2009.[Footnote 10] The
report will include information on how encroachment affects the
training and readiness levels of tactical units.
DOD's 2008 Sustainable Ranges Report Addresses Three Elements of
Section 366 That Were Not Included In Previous Reports:
DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report includes three elements that were
not included in prior reports: (1) an assessment of the current and
future training requirements of the armed forces; (2) a description of
virtual and constructive training assets used to provide realistic
training events that help to meet DOD training requirements and (3)
projected funding requirements associated with implementing planned
actions.
Assessment of Current and Future Training Range Requirements:
Section 366 required DOD to provide an assessment of current and future
requirements in its fiscal year 2004 report. To address this element of
Section 366, DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report emphasized describing
the processes used by each of the services to derive its current and
future training range requirements. With respect to current training
requirements, DOD's report states that each of the services maintains a
comprehensive set of processes specific to its mission and command
structure and that these processes are used to develop, document, and
execute training objectives and requirements. Additionally, the report
states that DOD groups its future requirements into two categories:
near term and long term. According to DOD, near-term requirements can
be assessed with some degree of accuracy, because the services can
reasonably anticipate the near-term strategic environment, operating
concepts, and technological capabilities. However, assessing long-term
requirements is significantly more challenging, because there is
greater uncertainty surrounding these factors.
DOD's 2008 report states that each of the services has developed a
framework for determining its current and future training requirements.
Although the frameworks all have similarities, each service's framework
is unique, and each includes an assessment of the national security and
military strategies of the United States, guidance for the development
and employment of forces, the Universal Joint Task List and Combatant
Commander assigned Mission Essential Tasks, and lessons learned from
previous training evaluations, among other things. The strategies for
assessing service training requirements can also be found in a variety
of DOD publications, doctrinal reports, and guidance documents.
Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training Strategy:
Unlike prior reports, this year's report also includes an evaluation of
virtual and constructive training assets to meet current and future
training range requirements. The overview of DOD's live, virtual, and
constructive training strategy included in this year's report outlines
the role this training strategy plays in providing what DOD believes is
realistic, comprehensive, and cost-effective training. DOD stated that
this type of training cannot replace live training, but it can
supplement and enhance live training to sustain proficiency. DOD stated
in its 2008 report that live, virtual, and constructive training and
other related departmental science and technology initiatives will
greatly increase the capabilities and interoperability of the virtual
training environment. According to DOD, when its live, virtual, and
constructive training network is fully operational, it will provide
commanders with immediate access to a global communications,
experimentation, testing, and education network that will enable units
to train effectively at an affordable cost from geographically
dispersed locations. Additionally, DOD stated that in November 2007 it
successfully conducted an integrated live, virtual, and constructive
training proof-of-concept demonstration. The demonstration used
existing technologies to network an F-15E aircraft (live) with an F-15E
simulator (virtual), while integrating computer-generated threats
(constructive) into both environments. The live aircraft and the manned
F-15E simulator, operating as a wingman, targeted and destroyed the
simulated threats that appeared on their respective radar displays. The
progress gained from this proof of concept will help DOD move forward
on designing and building a more robust training component.
Projected Funding Requirements:
Section 366 required DOD's fiscal year 2004 report to include projected
funding requirements for implementing planned actions related to its
range sustainability effort. We have consistently reported that DOD
failed to provide such funding requirements in prior reports. However,
this year marks the first time DOD has included funding information in
its sustainable ranges report. In an attempt to develop a common
framework across the services for consistently and accurately reporting
range sustainment funding, a sustainable ranges funding subgroup was
formed in 2004 to examine funding strategies and categories used by the
services for their training range sustainability efforts. In this
year's report, DOD included four main categories, established by the
funding subgroup, as a common starting point from which to report
training range sustainment funding data: (1) modernization and
investment, (2) operations and maintenance, (3) environment, and (4)
encroachment. DOD stated in its report that these categories serve as
an initial framework being explored by DOD and the services to track,
report, and project the need for future fiscal resources to support
range sustainment. Table 2 displays the estimated range sustainment
funding for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for each service that was
included in DOD's 2008 report.
Table 2: Service Training Range Sustainment Funding (dollars in
millions)A:
Service: Air Force: Modernization & Investment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $60.4;
Fiscal year: 2009: $62.0.
Service: Air Force: Operations and Maintenance;
Fiscal year: 2008: $197.6;
Fiscal year: 2009: $205.7.
Service: Air Force: Environmental;
Fiscal year: 2008: $31.8;
Fiscal year: 2009: $23.9.
Service: Air Force: Encroachment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $6.67[B];
Fiscal year: 2009: N/A.
Service: Air Force Total;
Fiscal year: 2008: $296.4;
Fiscal year: 2009: $301.6.
Service: Army: Modernization & Investment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $321.5;
Fiscal year: 2009: $339.3.
Service: Army: Operations and Maintenance;
Fiscal year: 2008: $217.8;
Fiscal year: 2009: $293.5.
Service: Army: Environmental;
Fiscal year: 2008: $78.0;
Fiscal year: 2009: $84.5.
Service: Army: Encroachment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $129.2;
Fiscal year: 2009: $137.3.
Service: Army Total;
Fiscal year: 2008: $807.0;
Fiscal year: 2009: $914.5.
Service: Marine Corps: Modernization & Investment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $25.5;
Fiscal year: 2009: $53.2.
Service: Marine Corps: Operations and Maintenance;
Fiscal year: 2008: $33.7[C];
Fiscal year: 2009: $42.6[C].
Service: Marine Corps: Environmental;
Fiscal year: 2008: $5.7;
Fiscal year: 2009: $5.7.
Service: Marine Corps: Encroachment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $5.0;
Fiscal year: 2009: $5.0.
Service: Marine Corps Total;
Fiscal year: 2008: $69.9;
Fiscal year: 2009: $106.4.
Service: Navy: Modernization & Investment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $85.0;
Fiscal year: 2009: $93.0.
Service: Navy: Operations and Maintenance;
Fiscal year: 2008: $174.2;
Fiscal year: 2009: $177.9.
Service: Navy: Environmental;
Fiscal year: 2008: $12.3;
Fiscal year: 2009: $10.0.
Service: Navy: Encroachment;
Fiscal year: 2008: $8.0;
Fiscal year: 2009: $11.0.
Service: Navy Total;
Fiscal year: 2008: $279.5;
Fiscal year: 2009: $291.7.
Service: All Services: Service Total;
Fiscal year: 2008: $1,452.8;
Fiscal year: 2009: $1,614.2.
Source: DOD's 2008 Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges (September
2008).
Totals may not add due to rounding.
[A] Range clearance funds are part of a program objective memorandum
2010 initiative.
[B] Estimated value.
[C] Funds for real property maintenance and funds provided via base
operating support are not included as these programs are centrally
managed and breakouts to range-specific expenditures were not
available.
[End of table]
This first attempt to summarize range sustainment funding data is an
important step toward determining the adequacy of existing range
sustainment resources.
DOD's Sustainable Ranges Report Still Does Not Fully Address Three
Elements of Section 366 That Were Required To Be Included in DOD's
Original Fiscal Year 2004 Report and Inventory:
Although DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report addresses most of the
elements of section 366 that were required for DOD's original fiscal
year 2004 report and inventory, it still does not include any
recommendations the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory
changes to address training constraints, and DOD still has not assessed
the training constraints on all of its training ranges. Additionally,
DOD's report does not provide proposals to enhance training range
capabilities or address any shortfalls in its resources identified
pursuant to the assessment and evaluation under Section 366(a)(2).
Recommendations for Legislative or Regulatory Changes:
In last year's report, DOD provided an explanation of its decision not
to include any new recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes,[Footnote 11] but did not include such an explanation in this
year's report. However, DOD's 2008 report does include a detailed
overview of the legislative and regulatory initiatives that it has
previously submitted to Congress, including approved exemptions from
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, as well as previous recommendations to
obtain exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act that have not been approved.[Footnote 12] DOD's
report also includes a discussion of specific state-and service-level
legislative initiatives designed to alleviate some of the constraints
placed on the military's ability to train. DOD officials told us that
they do not have any plans to amend DOD's existing process for
submitting requests for legislative language.
Training Range Inventories:
Although DOD did not identify all training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace
for all of its ranges, as required in DOD's fiscal year 2004 inventory,
it included an assessment of such constraints on its major training
ranges in its 2008 report. As in prior years, DOD officials reported
that it was impractical to complete an assessment for every training
range in its inventory due to the large volume of data that would be
required to identify capacities, capabilities, and constraints within
its inventory. However, Appendix C of DOD's 2008 report does include a
comprehensive listing of all operational training ranges and the
capacities and capabilities available at each training range. For each
range complex in DOD's training and testing inventory, DOD identifies
the capacity of a range based on range description (land area for
ranges, special-use airspace, sea surface area, and underwater tracking
area) and the various types of capabilities that the range supports--
such as air to air/surface to air, air to ground, land maneuver, land
impact area, land firing range, amphibious area, ocean operating area,
and underwater tracking.
DOD Did Not Provide Proposals to Enhance Training Range Capabilities or
Address Any Shortfalls in Its Resources:
As mentioned earlier, each of the services has assessed the adequacy of
its current resources to meet current and future requirements, which
has allowed them to determine their shortfalls in resources. However,
DOD's 2008 report does not provide proposals to enhance training range
capabilities or address any shortfalls in its resources identified
pursuant to the assessment and evaluation under Section 366(a)(2), as
required for DOD's fiscal year 2004 report. As a part of this
assessment, each service identified its most prominent shortfalls and
encroachment factors across all of its ranges. Some of the range
capability attributes that resulted in shortfalls include land space,
scoring and feedback system, threats, targets, and infrastructure.
Additionally, some of the encroachment factors contributing to training
range constraints included air quality, spectrum, wetlands, adjacent
land use, and threatened and endangered species. According to DOD, the
relationship between encroachment and capability is an emerging concept
that will be further developed in future reports. Furthermore, DOD's
2008 report concludes that the capabilities and encroachment data can
be used by decision makers, planners, and analyst to develop strategies
to (1) mitigate range and training area shortfalls, (2) bring required
capabilities up to standards, and (3) address negative impacts from
encroachment. However, proposed strategies for addressing these issues
were not included in DOD's report.
Opportunities Exist to Further Improve DOD's Range Sustainability Plan:
Opportunities exist for DOD to further improve its comprehensive range
sustainability plan by including additional information in its
responses to three elements of section 366: (1) adequacy of current
resources to meet current and future training requirements, (2) goals
and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and
(3) projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions.
DOD's Assessment of the Adequacy of Its Resources Does Not Include the
Services' Rationales for Excluding Some Ranges in Their Evaluations:
DOD's assessment of the adequacy of its resources does not include the
services' rationales for excluding some ranges from their evaluations.
According to DOD officials, the overall range capability and
encroachment assessments included in DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges
report are fairly accurate, based on available data, and vetted through
multiple offices within DOD and the services in order to decrease the
level of subjectivity. To guide the services through the assessment
process DOD provided a reporting structure and definitions of each
rating category. Each of the services identified the training ranges
that it would assess and conducted assessments of these ranges,
followed by confirmation of the final assessments by the headquarters
of each service. However DOD's 2008 report does not provide an
explanation of why each service excluded certain training ranges from
its range capabilities and encroachment assessment. For example, the
Army assessed only 14 of the more than 10,000 training ranges located
on its 479 installations, while the Air Force excluded 6 of its 41
ranges, the Marine Corps excluded 5 of its 14 ranges, and the Navy
excluded 1 of its 23 ranges. Although the Air Force, Navy, and Marine
Corps excluded only a small percentage of their ranges from their range
capabilities and encroachment assessments, they did not explain the
omissions. According to DOD and Army officials, the 14 ranges included
in the Army's analysis represent Army Tier One installations and these
Tier One installations support home station tasks for 88 percent of the
Army's active component combat brigades. Furthermore, DOD reported to
us that although the services did not provide rationale for excluding
some of their ranges, the included ranges represented a significant
percentage of the service's total range acreage, with the exception of
the Army. For example, while the Army assessed only 30 percent of its
total range acreage, the Marine Corps assessed 97.6 percent, the Air
Force assessed 99.6 percent, and the Navy assessed 100 percent of their
total range acreages. Additionally, DOD and service officials told us
that the assessments included in DOD's 2008 report represented all of
their major training ranges. DOD officials also stated that the
services chose not to include assessments of all ranges because of the
infrequent use and limited scope of some of the ranges. However, these
explanations were not included in DOD's 2008 report. Consequently, DOD
and the services missed an opportunity to provide more clarity to the
process they used to determine which ranges would be assessed.
The Marine Corps Deviated from the Approach Used by the Other Services
to Define Its Mission Areas When Evaluating the Adequacy of Its
Resources:
Although DOD has established standard criteria for reporting the
factors affecting its training ranges, our review of DOD's report found
that the Marine Corps deviated from the approach used by the other
services in defining its mission areas. Instead of assessing how a
range's capability and encroachment factors impact specific mission
training tasks--the approach used by the other services--the Marine
Corps assessed how these factors impact an entire unit's ability to
conduct training. The Marine Corps executes its national security
missions through the Marine Air-Ground Task Force concept. Organized
for specific missions, the task force has a standard structure
consisting of four basic combat elements: command, aviation combat,
ground combat, and logistics command. Instead of identifying these
basic combat elements as the mission areas for assessing its ranges'
capabilities and the impact of encroachment on those mission areas, the
Marine Corps conducted its assessment using individual, unit, and
Marine Air Ground Task Force expeditionary-level training[Footnote
13]as its mission areas. Although there may be benefits from
identifying impacts at the unit level, this approach makes it difficult
to know which specific Marine Corps training tasks are impacted.
Although DOD officials said the Marine Corps' approach is acceptable,
it is inconsistent with the other services' approach, and it may also
make it difficult to determine where resources should be allocated to
improve the Marine Corps range sustainment program.
One of DOD's Goals and Milestones Was Not Updated:
Each year DOD requires the services to provide updates on actions they
have taken to address DOD's four goals and milestones for its critical
range sustainment areas--modernization and investment, operations and
maintenance, environment, and encroachment; one of these goals was not
updated. As mentioned earlier, according to DOD's 2005 report, the goal
for modernization and investment is to sustain range operations in
accordance with OSD and the services-level training transformation
strategies by resourcing advanced instrumentation and other
infrastructure. Since 2006, DOD has continued to duplicate the stated
goal for operations and maintenance (resource for standardized land
management structure and operations that mitigate encroachment and
provide for range sustainment and maximize and sustain the availability
of military range infrastructure and land assets) as the modernization
and investment goal in its sustainable ranges report. Additionally,
with respect to actions taken by the services to address DOD's
modernization and investment goal, we found that the Air Force has not
identified any actions in support of DOD's modernization and investment
goal since it provided a progress report in DOD's 2006 report, whereas
the other services reported on their progress in addressing actions
related to this objective. For example, the Army, Navy, and Marine
Corps reported updates to their efforts to (1) develop and annually
update their range complex plans and (2) identify and document
management processes for determining range requirements. In DOD's 2006
report, the Air Force stated that it was in the process of developing
templates for standardizing its range complex plans across its ranges.
To date, the Air Force has not provided any additional information
regarding the progress it has made in developing its range complex
plans, nor has it reported its progress regarding any other actions DOD
prescribed for addressing this goal. According to Air Force officials,
the Air Force did not provide updated information to DOD for inclusion
in its 2008 report because the Air Force has not taken any additional
actions with respect to this goal. Unless the services provide annual
updates regardless of whether they have taken any additional action on
this DOD initiative, Congress has no visibility over the progress they
have made toward achieving this goal.
Projected Funding Requirements Do Not Provide Details on Funding
Categories:
This year's report is the first to include funding information;
however, the accuracy of DOD's projected funding requirements can be
improved. DOD has acknowledged in previous reports that it faces
several challenges in addressing this requirement, because funding is
managed differently by each service, and costs are spread across
multiple funding categories. In its 2008 report, DOD provided guidance
to the services by providing general descriptions of the various
initiatives that should be included in each of the four range
sustainability funding categories--modernization and investment,
operations and maintenance, environment, and encroachment. However, in
identifying projected funding requirements for each service, DOD's
report does not provide a description of the funding data included in
each of the four main categories. Furthermore, because the report does
not provide this description, Congress has limited visibility over the
specific content of each service's costs for range sustainment.
According to DOD officials, the department expects to further refine
how it collects and presents this information in future reports. DOD
officials have initiated a study aimed at determining all of the
funding elements included in DOD's range sustainment efforts, and they
plan to use the results of this study to provide a more accurate view
of funding for range sustainment in future reports. As DOD continues to
refine its funding requirements in its future reports, the inclusion of
specific details that comprise the cost associated with each funding
category would help provide visibility to DOD and Congress of all
sustainable range costs, including those costs that may be centrally
managed. For example, the costs associated with range operations on an
installation that may be centrally managed, such as real property
maintenance, range operations, or related base operating costs, have
not been included in each service's projected funding requirements. The
inclusion of this information would also provide Congress and others
with the necessary details to understand the funding estimates that
support the cost of managing DOD's range sustainment.
Conclusions:
DOD has continued to improve its annual sustainable ranges report over
the past few years. DOD's 2008 sustainable ranges report continues the
trend and the report and its updated training range inventory address
the mandated requirement to describe the progress made in implementing
DOD's sustainable ranges plan and any additional action taken, or to be
taken, to address training constraints. DOD's annual sustainable ranges
report has also adequately addressed most of the elements of section
366 that were required to be in DOD's original fiscal year 2004 report
and inventory, with the exception of providing recommendations the
Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes, and not
assessing all of its ranges for training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace.
Additionally, DOD's report did not provide proposals to enhance
training range capabilities or address any shortfalls in its resources
identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation under Section
366(a)(2). However, opportunities exist for DOD to continue to improve
its report to make it more useful to Congress and other interested
parties in coming years. For example, DOD could provide more clarity in
its rationale for determining which ranges will be assessed.
Furthermore, as DOD continues to evaluate the adequacy of its
resources, the use of a consistent approach to define the Marine Corps
mission areas for assessing range capability and encroachment would
make it easier to identify which Marine Corps training tasks are
impacted and where resources should be allocated. Additionally, DOD's
sustainable ranges report could be improved by requiring the Air Force
to update actions it has taken to address DOD's modernization and
investment goal. Lastly, as DOD continues to refine its funding
requirements in future reports, having a detailed description of all
funding data included in each category would provide Congress and
others with visibility of all costs, including the necessary details to
understand the funding estimates that support the cost of managing
DOD's range sustainment.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the range requirements and capabilities assessments and
future comprehensive plans within the sustainable ranges reports, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the
Secretaries of the military departments, to include the following four
items in future sustainable ranges reports:
* each service's rationale for excluding training ranges from its
assessment of the adequacy of current resources to meet requirements,
* the Marine Corps' individual combat training elements as the mission
areas in the range capability and encroachment assessment,
* an update on the actions taken by the Air Force to address DOD's
modernization and investment goals for range sustainment, and:
* a detailed description of all funding data included in each funding
category, for each of the military services.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Readiness concurred with three of our
recommendations and indicated that actions will be taken in future
reports to address them. DOD did not concur with our recommendation to
include the Marine Corps' individual combat training elements as the
mission areas in the range capability and encroachment assessment in
future sustainable ranges reports. DOD stated that the Marine Corps'
approach for assessing range capability and encroachment is consistent
with the methodologies the Marine Corps uses to manage and resource its
ranges. In addition, DOD stated that the levels of training displayed
in the range capability and encroachment assessment charts are based on
established training tasks.
Although we recognize and commend DOD for establishing standard
criteria for reporting the factors affecting its training ranges, the
mission areas used by the Marine Corps may not provide Congress with
the information needed to determine the specific training elements
impacted by a range's capability attributes or encroachment factors.
Additionally, the approach used by the Marine Corps is inconsistent
with the other services' approach to identifying their mission areas.
The purpose of the range capability and encroachment assessments charts
in the 2008 sustainable ranges report is to help DOD identify mission
areas inhibited by a range's inability to support specific training
activities and consistency in presentation across all of the services
enhances this understanding. While we recognize that the Marine Corps
chose to display its mission areas based on established training tasks
and this approach is consistent with its doctrine, we believe that
providing additional information identifying the individual training
elements that comprise the levels of training on the Marine Corps
training continuum would provide Congress with more insight into which
specific Marine Corps training elements are impacted by a range's
inability to adequately support their training missions. Given that a
Marine expeditionary unit has a standard structure consisting of four
basic combat elements--command, aviation combat, ground combat, and
logistics command--we believe that presenting the elements or mission-
specific tasks related to the four elements in the Marine Corps range
capability and encroachment assessments would be much more useful. For
example, instead of simply listing the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU)
as a mission area, the Marine Corps could list the specific training
activities that the MEU performs, such as fire support, aviation, or
logistics. Listing these elements as mission areas would provide
Congress and other interested parties with the additional information
necessary to address and potentially fund the specific areas of
training deemed not fully mission capable. Consequently, we continue to
believe that our recommendation is valid. Furthermore, during our
discussions with Marine Corps officials, they stated that they have the
ability to provide this type of information if Congress or others
required such detailed information. Nothing in our recommendation
prevents the Marine Corps from presenting the information both ways.
Consequently, we stand by our recommendation.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense's comments are reprinted in
enclosure II. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have
incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of
the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on our Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4523 or
leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed
in enclosure III.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
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,[Footnote 14] 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.[Footnote 15]
(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.[Footnote
16]
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-4000:
Personnel And Readiness:
December 9, 2008:
Mr. Brian J. Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office Draft Report GAO-09-128R, "Improvement Continues in
DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to
Improve its Ranges Assessments and Comprehensive Plan," November 10,
2008.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft. The DoD
appreciates the GAO's assessment of the encroachment challenges facing
our nation's military ranges and operating areas and the Department's
comprehensive plan to sustain these critical assets. As the GAO
observes, we believe that annual reporting to Congress continues to
improve over time as the Department's sustainable ranges effort
matures.
DoD responses on the specific GAO recommendations are 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:
Samuel D. Kleinman:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense:
Enclosure:
As stated:
GAO-09-128R Draft Report:
"Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but
Opportunities Exist to Improve its Ranges Assessments and Comprehensive
Plan":
Department Of Defense Comments To Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to
include each service's rational for excluding the specific training
ranges not included in its assessment of the adequacy of current
resources to meet requirements in future sustainable ranges reports.
DOD Response: Concur, future reports will incorporate rationale as to
why some ranges may be included in the inventory, yet not have a
capability or encroachment assessment performed.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to
include the Marine Corps' individual combat training elements as the
mission areas in the range capability and encroachment assessment in
future sustainable ranges reports.
DOD Response: Non-concur, the Marine Corps' approach to assessing range
capability and encroachment is consistent with all the source documents
and methodologies by which the Marine Corps manages and resources its
ranges. The capabilities assessments are designed to measure the
ranges' ability to support the levels of training on the Marine Corps
training continuum. Those levels of training are all based on
established training responsibilities embodied in Marine Corps Tasks
(MCTs), which are derived from the Universal Joint Task List and Joint
Tactical Tasks. In future reports, they will provide greater
explanatory comments on both capabilities and encroachment impacts, but
the framework established in their Required Range Capabilities Document
(RCD), range complex management plans, and range management orders all
support the methodology they have employed in this report.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to
include an update on the actions taken by the Air Force to address
DoD's modernization and investment goals for range sustainment in
future sustainable ranges reports.
DOD Response: Concur, updates of actions taken by each Service over the
preceding year towards completion of goals and milestones will be
addressed.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to
include a detailed description of all funding data included in each
funding category, for each of the military services in future
sustainable ranges reports.
DOD Response: Concur, OSD will work with the Services to provide a more
detailed description of what areas are financed within each of the
funding categories.
[End of section]
Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brian Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Harold Reich, Assistant
Director; Jason Jackson; Joanne Landesman; Katherine Lenane; and
Jacqueline McColl made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Training: Compliance with Environmental Laws Affects Some
Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for
Additional Environmental Exemptions. GAO-08-407. Washington, D.C.:
March 7, 2008.
Improvement Continue in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but
Opportunities Exists to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive
Plan. GAO-08-10R. Washington, D.C.: October 11, 2007.
Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but
Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives. GAO-06-
725R. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.
Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban Operations Training
and Facilities Should Be Based on Sound Strategy and Requirements. GAO-
06-193. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2005.
Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range
Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements. GAO-06-29R. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2005.
Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to Transform
Joint Training. GAO-05-548. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005.
Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to
Improve Conditions of Military Training Ranges. GAO-05-534. Washington,
D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address
Congressional Reporting Requirements. GAO-04-608. Washington, D.C.:
June 4, 2004.
Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training
Ranges. GAO-03-976. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003.
Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training
Ranges Still Evolving. GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003.
Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges. GAO-02-614. Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2002.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2002.
Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in
Readiness Reporting. GAO-02-525. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-314 (2002).
[2] Section 366 originally required reports for fiscal years 2005
through 2008. However, this requirement was extended through 2013 by
section 348 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006).
[3] Id.
[4] Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges
(Washington, D.C.: September 2008). This report addresses the progress
DOD has made in implementing its sustainable ranges plan and any
additional action taken, or to be taken, to address training
constraints caused by limitations, and contains an updated training
range inventory as well as the elements of section 366 that were
required to be in DOD's original fiscal year 2004 report and inventory.
[5] GAO, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-10R]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 2007).
[6] GAO was not specifically required by section 366 to review DOD's
training range inventory. However, because DOD submits this inventory
with its sustainable ranges report, we elected to review DOD's training
inventory, as we have done in past years.
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-10R].
[8] DOD describes virtual training as training involving real people
operating simulated systems. Constructive training is training
involving the use of simulated personnel operating simulated equipment
in a computer-game-style training environment.
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-10R].
[10] H.R. Rep. No. 110-652, at 331 (2008).
[11] In it s 2007 report, DOD stated that there was an existing process
by which DOD must submit all requests for legislative language that
includes, among other things, obtaining approval from DOD's Office of
Legislative Affairs and Office of Management and Budget, and that the
deadline for this process is the same as the deadline for the
sustainable ranges report.
[12] GAO, Military Training: Compliance with Environmental Laws Affects
Some Training Activities, but DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case
for Additional Environmental Exemptions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-407] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7,
2008).
[13] Marine Air Ground Task Force expeditionary-level training includes
unit-level and brigade-level training.
[14] This requirement was extended through 2013 by section 348 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
[15] Id.
[16] This requirement was extended to 90 days by section 348 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
