Military Training
DOD's Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Addresses Most of the Congressional Reporting Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update Gao ID: GAO-10-103R October 27, 2009A fundamental principle of military readiness is that the military must train as it intends to fight. Military training ranges provide the primary means to accomplish this goal. The Department of Defense's (DOD) 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. New advances in military technology, coupled with the complexity of recent military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the world, generate the need to continually update and maintain DOD's training ranges. Senior DOD and military service officials have reported for some time that they face increasing difficulties in carrying out realistic training at military installations due to outside influences. DOD has defined a number of factors--including competition for broadcast frequencies or airspace, air pollution, noise pollution, endangered species, critical habitats and other protected resources, unexploded ordinance and munitions, urban growth around installations, and civilian access--that it says encroach upon its training ranges and capabilities. Because the military faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands, the preservation and sustainment of its current lands is a priority. Sustainable training range management focuses on practices that allow the military to manage its ranges in a way that ensures their usefulness well into the future. As required by section 366(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended), DOD was to submit a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the department to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of worldwide military lands, marine areas, and airspace to Congress in fiscal year 2004 with annual progress reports beginning in fiscal year 2005 and extending through 2013. As part of the preparation of this plan, the Secretary of Defense was to conduct an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of DOD's current range resources to meet those requirements. The plan was also to include: proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls in resources identified pursuant to that assessment and evaluation; goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress; projected funding requirements to implement planned actions; and a designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in each of the military departments responsible for overseeing implementation of the plan. Section 366(a)(5) requires that DOD's annual reports describe the department's progress in implementing its comprehensive plan and any actions taken or to be taken to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace. This report discusses (1) DOD's progress to date to address the elements of section 366 and (2) improvements incorporated in DOD's 2009 annual sustainable ranges report as well as DOD's plans for its 2010 report submission. In accordance with the mandate, we are submitting this report to you within 90 days after having received DOD's 2009 sustainable ranges report on August 3, 2009.
Since 2004, DOD has shown progress in addressing the elements included in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, including the development of an inventory of military training ranges. DOD's 2009 sustainable ranges report and inventory are responsive to the element of 366 that requires DOD to 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. DOD has also made progress in addressing elements of section 366 that were required as part of DOD's 2004 reporting requirements. For example, DOD has made strides to measure and report the impact that training constraints may have on readiness by developing approaches to incorporate ranges into DOD's readiness reporting system. As part of its comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on its ranges, DOD has also developed and included in the 2009 report broad goals for this effort and has begun to include annual estimates of the funding required to meet these goals. However, while DOD has formulated some goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress, as it was required to do as part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, it has yet to develop quantifiable goals, which we have previously recommended to better track planned actions and measure progress for implementing planned actions. Without quantifiable goals and time frames associated with achieving milestones, it is difficult to measure and track the extent of progress actually made over time. In addition, while DOD has included some projected funding data, as it was required to do as part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, DOD has not yet included projected funding requirements that will be needed to implement its planned actions, as we also recommended previously, so that decision makers have better information available to make budget decisions. In order to better track its progress to address training constraints caused by limitations on its ranges, we reiterate our prior recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide a more complete plan to Congress that includes (l) quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress and (2) projected funding requirements to more fully address identified training constraints. DOD has made several improvements to its most recent 2009 report and plans "revolutionary changes" for 2010. For example, DOD has included detailed capability and encroachment data provided and used by the military services when making their capability assessments for each training range surveyed. DOD officials told us that they expect these data to provide improved information for more precise planning in the future. DOD also added a special interest section to highlight key issues affecting range capability and some of the actions taken to mitigate negative impacts, which should provide congressional decision makers and other users with a better understanding of the approaches being used to improve the capabilities of DOD's ranges. Moreover, DOD has already begun to develop its 2010 report, which DOD officials told us they expect to issue in early 2010. DOD officials have stated that they intend to introduce "revolutionary changes" in that upcoming report, including revamping their goals and increasing the focus on specific encroachment issues such as mitigating frequency spectrum competition, managing increased military demand for range space, and meeting military airspace challenges.
GAO-10-103R, Military Training: DOD's Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Addresses Most of the Congressional Reporting Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-103R
entitled 'Military Training: DOD's Report on the Sustainability of
Training Ranges Addresses Most of the Congressional Reporting
Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update' which
was released on October 27, 2009.
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 27, 2009:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Military Training: DOD's Report on the Sustainability of
Training Ranges Addresses Most of the Congressional Reporting
Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update:
A fundamental principle of military readiness is that the military must
train as it intends to fight. Military training ranges provide the
primary means to accomplish this goal. The Department of Defense's
(DOD) 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. New advances in military technology, coupled with
the complexity of recent military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other locations around the world, generate the need to continually
update and maintain DOD's training ranges. Senior DOD and military
service officials have reported for some time that they face increasing
difficulties in carrying out realistic training at military
installations due to outside influences. DOD has defined a number of
factors--including competition for broadcast frequencies or airspace,
air pollution, noise pollution, endangered species, critical habitats
and other protected resources, unexploded ordinance and munitions,
urban growth around installations, and civilian access--that it says
encroach upon its training ranges and capabilities.
Because the military faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands,
the preservation and sustainment of its current lands is a priority.
Sustainable training range management focuses on practices that allow
the military to manage its ranges in a way that ensures their
usefulness well into the future. As required by section 366(a) of the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as
amended),[Footnote 1] DOD was to submit a comprehensive plan for using
existing authorities available to the department to address training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of worldwide military
lands, marine areas, and airspace to Congress in fiscal year 2004 with
annual progress reports beginning in fiscal year 2005 and extending
through 2013. As part of the preparation of this plan, the Secretary of
Defense was to conduct an assessment of current and future training
range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of DOD's current
range resources to meet those requirements. The plan was also to
include: proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address
any shortfalls in resources identified pursuant to that assessment and
evaluation; goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and
measuring progress; projected funding requirements to implement planned
actions; and a designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and in each of the military departments responsible for
overseeing implementation of the plan. Section 366(a)(5) requires that
DOD's annual reports describe the department's progress in implementing
its comprehensive plan and any actions taken or to be taken to address
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace. Section 366(b) required DOD to
submit a report to Congress on its plans to improve its readiness
reporting system to reflect the readiness impact of certain training
constraints. Section 366(c) also required DOD to develop and maintain a
training range inventory to be submitted with the President's budget
for fiscal year 2004 and annual updates for 2005 through 2013. Section
366(d) further required that we evaluate the plans submitted pursuant
to subsections 366(a) and (b), and to submit our annual evaluations of
DOD's reports to Congress within 90 days[Footnote 2] of receiving these
reports from DOD. Enclosure I contains the full text of section 366 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as
amended).
This is our sixth review in response to this mandate. Although our
prior reviews have disclosed that DOD had not addressed various
elements of section 366 which it was required to include in its 2004
comprehensive plan, we have also noted that DOD has improved its report
submissions over time and has taken action on various GAO
recommendations. (Enclosure II provides a list of our prior
recommendations and DOD actions in response to those recommendations).
This report discusses (1) DOD's progress to date to address the
elements of section 366 and (2) improvements incorporated in DOD's 2009
annual sustainable ranges report as well as DOD's plans for its 2010
report submission. In accordance with the mandate, we are submitting
this report to you within 90 days after having received DOD's 2009
sustainable ranges report on August 3, 2009.
Scope and Methodology:
To better understand the basis of the annual sustainable ranges
reporting requirement, we attended DOD's second biannual sustainable
ranges conference in Phoenix, Arizona in August 2009 where we met with
military training officials and discussed encroachment issues currently
facing military training ranges and some of the lessons learned in
mitigating resulting range capability shortfalls affecting training and
readiness. To determine the extent to which DOD had addressed the
elements of section 366 that were required to be included in its 2004
comprehensive plan, we summarized our work to date, including prior
findings and recommendations and DOD's progress to address these
elements over time. We also reviewed the extent to which DOD's
sustainable ranges report has addressed the elements of subsection
366(a)(5). Although we were not required by section 366 to review DOD's
training range inventory which is included in the ranges report, we
elected to do so, as we have done in past years, due to the inventory's
importance to the comprehensive training ranges plan. To determine what
improvements DOD has made, as reflected in its 2009 report, and its
plans for the next submission to Congress in 2010, we compared the 2009
report to the 2008 report and discussed key revisions with DOD
officials involved with preparing these reports. We also discussed with
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials their plans and key
initiatives for the 2010 report submission and reviewed the data
request that they sent to the military services in June 2009 requesting
information for the 2010 report. We further discussed with these and
other military service officials key initiatives they are undertaking
or have planned for improving the utility of the report, including
plans for improving DOD's readiness reporting system to reflect the
readiness impact of any training constraints associated with its
training ranges.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through October
2009 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.
Summary:
Since 2004, DOD has shown progress in addressing the elements included
in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003, including the development of an inventory of military
training ranges. DOD's 2009 sustainable ranges report and inventory are
responsive to the element of 366 that requires DOD to 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. DOD has also made progress in addressing elements
of section 366 that were required as part of DOD's 2004 reporting
requirements. For example, DOD has made strides to measure and report
the impact that training constraints may have on readiness by
developing approaches to incorporate ranges into DOD's readiness
reporting system. As part of its comprehensive plan to address training
constraints caused by limitations on its ranges, DOD has also developed
and included in the 2009 report broad goals for this effort and has
begun to include annual estimates of the funding required to meet these
goals. However, while DOD has formulated some goals and milestones for
tracking planned actions and measuring progress, as it was required to
do as part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, it has yet to develop
quantifiable goals, which we have previously recommended to better
track planned actions and measure progress for implementing planned
actions.[Footnote 3] Without quantifiable goals and time frames
associated with achieving milestones, it is difficult to measure and
track the extent of progress actually made over time. In addition,
while DOD has included some projected funding data, as it was required
to do as part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, DOD has not yet included
projected funding requirements that will be needed to implement its
planned actions, as we also recommended previously, so that decision
makers have better information available to make budget decisions. In
order to better track its progress to address training constraints
caused by limitations on its ranges, we reiterate our prior
recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide a more complete plan
to Congress that includes (l) quantifiable goals and milestones for
tracking planned actions and measuring progress and (2) projected
funding requirements to more fully address identified training
constraints.[Footnote 4]
DOD has made several improvements to its most recent 2009 report and
plans "revolutionary changes" for 2010. For example, DOD has included
detailed capability and encroachment data provided and used by the
military services when making their capability assessments for each
training range surveyed. DOD officials told us that they expect these
data to provide improved information for more precise planning in the
future. DOD also added a special interest section to highlight key
issues affecting range capability and some of the actions taken to
mitigate negative impacts, which should provide congressional decision
makers and other users with a better understanding of the approaches
being used to improve the capabilities of DOD's ranges. Moreover, DOD
has already begun to develop its 2010 report, which DOD officials told
us they expect to issue in early 2010. DOD officials have stated that
they intend to introduce "revolutionary changes" in that upcoming
report, including revamping their goals and increasing the focus on
specific encroachment issues such as mitigating frequency spectrum
competition, managing increased military demand for range space, and
meeting military airspace challenges.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our findings
and provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in this
report as appropriate.
DOD Has Addressed Most of the Provisions of Section 366, but Can
Improve Sustainable Range Reporting:
Although DOD has now addressed most of the elements of section 366
requirements, its annual report could be further improved. DOD's 2009
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). As we found in our prior reviews of
DOD's sustainable ranges reports, DOD continues to address most of the
elements of section 366 which it was required to include in its 2004
comprehensive plan,[Footnote 5] as well as to develop a training range
inventory, and make progress towards incorporating ranges into DOD's
readiness reporting system. However, DOD has yet to establish
quantifiable goals and trackable milestones in order to measure DOD's
progress to mitigate training shortfalls caused by training range
limitations, as we recommended in 2004. In addition, while DOD has
included some projected funding data required to implement its planned
actions, as it was required to do as part of its 2004 comprehensive
plan, DOD has not yet included detailed cost estimates as we also
recommended previously.
Range Inventory:
Section 366(c) required DOD to develop and maintain a training range
inventory for each of the armed services. The inventory was expected to
identify (1) all available operational ranges, (2) all training
capacities and capabilities available at each training range, and (3)
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range. According to
DOD officials, although the inventory includes all available
operational ranges, the report does not provide assessments of the
capabilities and constraints for all the ranges in the inventory.
However, in response to our 2008 recommendation, DOD's 2009 report now
includes an explanation for why some assessments have not been
included.[Footnote 6] For example, in the 2009 report, DOD states that,
although the Army does not include an assessment for all of its ranges,
the Army ranges included in the report represent 88 percent of its
active duty training ranges and also where the majority of encroachment
effects are felt. According to DOD, the remaining Army ranges
constitute smaller locations and believes that it would have been
impractical to include an assessment of every Army training range in
the sustainable ranges report due to the large volume of data that
would be required to identify all capacities, capabilities, and
constraints.[Footnote 7]
Readiness Reporting:
Section 366(b) also required DOD to report to Congress, not later than
June 30, 2003, on its plans to improve its readiness reporting 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.[Footnote 8] In 2004, we
recommended that DOD develop a readiness reporting system to reflect
the impact on readiness caused by training constraints. In 2004, DOD
disagreed with our recommendation to develop this system, but said that
the department planned to incorporate the impact of range encroachment
on readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting System
(DRRS).[Footnote 9] Although DOD has not finalized its plans to
incorporate range readiness into DRRS, it has made progress in
establishing the framework for this initiative. In the 2009 sustainable
ranges report, DOD stated that it began Phase I of the development of a
range readiness module for DRRS in October 2008. According to DOD, the
module is intended to efficiently support range readiness reporting and
provide assessment data for future sustainable ranges reports. Phase I
was to develop a prototype using existing range data and was recently
completed in May 2009, according to DOD officials. Using lessons from
the prototype, DOD began Phase II where the range readiness module will
be fully integrated into DRRS. According to DOD officials, Phase II
began receiving funding in July 2009 and is also expected to provide
the capability to examine the extent to which encroachment factors
affect a range's ability to support various operational capabilities.
DOD expects Phase II to be completed in April 2010.
Comprehensive Plan and Annual Progress Reports:
Lastly, section 366(a)(1) of the act required DOD to develop a
comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace
for training of the armed forces in 2004. Section 366(a)(2)-(4) also
specified several elements that were to be included in this
comprehensive plan, as described above. Further, DOD was required to
report annually through fiscal year 2013 indicating progress in
implementing that plan. It has taken DOD time to develop a
comprehensive plan consistent with the basic requirements of section
366. (For details on our prior recommendations in these areas, see
enclosure II.)
Quantifiable Goals and Milestones:
As we have recommended in our prior work, DOD's annual sustainable
ranges report could be improved by including quantifiable and
measurable goals and milestones in order to track progress. In our
assessment of DOD's first report to Congress in 2004, we recommended
that DOD develop quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned
actions and measuring progress.[Footnote 10] DOD concurred, but stated
that accomplishing this would require a long-term approach, and that
they planned for future reports to more fully address goals and
milestones and projected funding requirements. Although DOD has
identified broad goals and some milestones in its 2009 report, it has
not yet fully implemented our 2004 recommendation to establish
quantifiable goals and measurable milestones. Doing so will help DOD
and congressional decision makers better track progress to address
training shortfalls caused by any lack of or limitations on military
range capabilities. As our prior work has shown, without quantifiable
goals and time frames associated with achieving milestones, it is
difficult to measure and track the extent of progress actually made
over time.
Projected Funding Estimates:
We have also reported previously that DOD's annual sustainable ranges
report could be improved by identifying DOD's funding requirements
needed to accomplish its goals. In our assessment of DOD's first report
to Congress in 2004, and as we have consistently stated since that
time, we recommended that DOD project funding requirements in order to
provide the best information to congressional decision makers on budget
trade-offs to address training shortfalls caused by limitations on
range resources. While DOD provided 2 years of funding estimates in its
2008 report, we found that the data were not sufficiently detailed, and
recommended that DOD provide more descriptive information on those
funding categories in the future. In its 2009 report, DOD provided more
details for those funding categories, but only provided 1 year of
funding data. The 2009 report stated that DOD believes that it is
difficult to project funding for range sustainment efforts because
funding sources are spread across and embedded within various
appropriations--such as operations and maintenance, procurement, or
military construction--as well as program elements, which might include
manpower, training, real property, or utilities. In addition, DOD
stated that each of the services has different command structures and
financial processes, which complicate consistent tracking and reporting
of these funding data. Nevertheless, DOD also stated in its 2009 report
that its Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team[Footnote 11] has
examined funding strategies and categorizations used by each of the
services for their training range sustainability efforts and developed
four categories--modernization and investment, operations and
maintenance, environmental, and encroachment--to serve as an initial
framework to track, report, and project future range sustainment fiscal
needs. Although we believe this is a positive step forward, we
reiterate the need for DOD to continue its efforts to identify its
sustainable range funding requirements for future years, in accordance
with our 2004 recommendation.
DOD Has Improved Its Sustainable Ranges Report in 2009 and Additional
Revisions Are Under Way for its 2010 Submission:
DOD has taken actions to improve the usefulness of its 2009 sustainable
ranges report as a management tool to more precisely identify negative
effects to military training capabilities due to range sustainability
issues, such as encroachment. DOD officials expect these details to lay
the foundation for plans to mitigate those negative effects. DOD also
plans to revise its sustainable range goals in 2010 and has already
begun to develop the 2010 report, which is scheduled for an early
February 2010 release.
Detailed Support for Capability and Readiness Assessments:
According to OSD officials, the most significant change in DOD's 2009
sustainable ranges report submission is the addition of an appendix
(Appendix C in the 2009 report) that includes detailed capability and
encroachment information provided by the services for each training
range they surveyed. OSD officials told us that this detailed
information--totaling over 200 pages--forms the basis for the Overall
Capability Score and Overall Encroachment Score given to each service
in DOD's 2009 report. Although these overall scores were developed and
reported in the 2008 sustainable ranges report, 2009 is the first year
that the report provides the supporting information for each service.
For example, range capability information includes specific comments on
a range's landspace, airspace, or seaspace. The services also provided
range-specific comments about additional capability attributes such as
infrastructure, targets, or threats. Encroachment information in this
appendix includes comments such as information about air or water
quality, threatened or endangered species' habitats, adjacent land use,
and munitions or noise restrictions. In addition, readiness status--
indicated as red, yellow, or green--is assigned to each capability and
encroachment item and a brief explanation is provided to help explain
this status. For example, an airspace range capability is given a red
status at one Air Force range because the airspace is too small for
refueling training operations. Our review found that the information
provided in this new appendix has the potential to enhance the utility
of DOD's sustainable ranges report by providing a better understanding
of what the individual range constraints are and aiding in developing
plans and obtaining the resources required to address any training
limitations.
Special Interest Section:
DOD's 2009 sustainable ranges report also includes a new special
interest section for each of the military services, which briefly
highlights critical issues facing the services regarding range
capabilities and encroachment factors. For instance, the Marine Corps
section discusses what it considers to be a critical range capability
issue in the western Pacific region and Hawaii. The Marine Corps
section also describes DOD's expectation that the relocation of units
from Okinawa to Guam and the development of training ranges and
infrastructure on Guam and selected islands in the area could help
alleviate training-related deficits currently being experienced by the
Corps in that region. In another example, the Navy notes maritime
protective and mitigation measures, regulatory requirements, and court-
directed training restrictions for marine mammal protection as critical
encroachment factors. According to DOD's report, the Navy believes that
these factors contribute to reduced training flexibility and
opportunities, segmented training, and ultimately reduced training
realism, particularly with respect to integrated warfare training. The
special interest section also includes other general issues relevant to
the report. For example, the Army used this section of the 2009 report
to discuss the impact of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure actions on
Army training land requirements. By highlighting its most pressing
range sustainability issues, DOD officials expect to be able to begin
to prioritize the department's actions to address range issues in the
most efficient and effective manner.
Addressing GAO's 2008 Recommendations:
DOD's 2009 report also includes a section that specifically addresses
four recommendations that we made in 2008.[Footnote 12] In that report,
we recommended that (1) DOD's report should include an explanation for
why any ranges are excluded from its assessment, (2) the Air Force
should update its actions taken regarding the modernization and
investment goal, (3) DOD should include additional information to
better explain what is included in each of the four funding categories
that DOD uses for training range sustainment, and (4) the Marine Corps
should modify its reports on training range capability to be consistent
with the other services. DOD agreed with the first three
recommendations, and took steps to address them in its 2009 report.
Furthermore, even though DOD did not originally concur with the fourth
recommendation, in providing technical comments on a draft of this
report, DOD stated that the Marine Corps is considering how best to
provide assessments in the future which will include greater detail in
response to an increased emphasis on developing consistent measures for
DOD readiness reports, which was the point of our 2008 recommendation.
Enclosure II provides information on these and all of our
recommendations developed during our five previous reviews on this
subject.
DOD's Plans for the 2010 Report:
OSD officials told us that DOD's 2010 report will include new goals and
is on track for a February 2010 release. OSD issued a memorandum in
June 2009 requesting input from the services for its 2010 report.
According to that memorandum, DOD plans to introduce what officials
refer to as "revolutionary changes" in the department's 2010 report by
revamping its goals. Currently the report focuses on four critical
range sustainment areas--Modernization and Investment, Operations and
Maintenance, Environmental, and Encroachment. According to OSD
officials, these areas will be replaced in the 2010 report for
assessment purposes with the following seven focus areas: (l) mitigate
competing land and seaspace uses; (2) address frequency spectrum
competition; (3) meet military airspace challenges; (4) manage
increasing military demand for range space; (5) address energy
infrastructure impacts; (6) anticipate climate change initiatives; and
(7) prepare for increased environmental emphasis. The four critical
range sustainment areas will continue to be used for describing funding
requirements for the ranges. In its June 2009 memorandum, OSD requested
service input by August 31, 2009. Although OSD has granted some
extensions for some of the services' input, these officials told us
that they still anticipate a February 2010 issuance for the 2010 report
on sustainable ranges.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Readiness) agreed with our report findings. These
comments are reprinted in their entirety in enclosure III. DOD also
provided technical comments which we have included in our report where
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of
the Marine Corps; the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and
interested congressional committees. 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 include James Reifsnyder, Assistant Director; Karen Kemper;
Robert Poetta; Jena Whitley; Susan Ditto; Michael Willems; and Kate
Lenane.
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 Howard P. McKeon:
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 1:
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003, as amended[Footnote 13]
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 2013, 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 2013.
(d) GAO Evaluation------The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies
of each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller
General. Within 90 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:
List of Prior GAO Reviews and Recommendations, and DOD Action to Date:
GAO-09-128R: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan (December 15, 2008).
GAO Recommendation: Include each service's rationale 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;
Original 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;
DOD Actions: Rationale for excluding some Army and Marine Corps range
assessments was added to the 2009 Sustainable Ranges Report.
GAO Recommendation: Include the Marine Corps' individual combat
training elements as the mission areas in the range capability and
encroachment assessment in future sustainable ranges reports;
Original DOD response: Did not 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. 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,
range complex management plans, and range management orders all support
the methodology they have employed in this report;
DOD Actions: No changes have been made to the Marine Corps' mission
areas. However, according to DOD, greater explanatory comments on
impacts to training are provided in the Special Interest section of
Chapter 3 and Appendix C of the 2009 Sustainable Ranges Report for all
services. According to DOD officials, the Marine Corps is considering
how best to provide future assessments to include greater detail in
response to an increased emphasis on developing consistent measures for
DOD readiness reporting.
GAO recommendation: 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;
Original DOD response: Concur. Updates of actions taken by each Service
over the proceeding year towards completion of goals and milestones
will be addressed;
DOD actions: According to DOD and Air Force officials, the Air Force's
updated submission was prepared but not included in the final 2009
Sustainable Ranges Report due to an administrative oversight. DOD
officials told us that this will be rectified in the 2010 report
submission.
GAO recommendation: Include a detailed description of all funding data
included in each funding category, for each of the military services in
future sustainable ranges reports;
Original DOD response: Concur. The Office of the Secretary of Defense
will work with the Services to provide a more detailed description of
what areas are financed within each of the funding categories;
DOD actions: DOD included table 4.7 in the 2009 Sustainable Ranges
Report which provides specific examples for each of the four funding
categories.
GAO-08-10R: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan (October 11, 2007).
GAO recommendation: Develop clear criteria and standard methods for
assessing current and future training range requirements and
capabilities;
Original DOD response: Concur. Will continue to develop and improve the
criteria and methodology associated with our range requirements and
capabilities assessment processes in our subsequent reports;
DOD actions: DOD established standardized criteria and identified
common factors to assess range capabilities and encroachment in the
2008 Sustainable Ranges Report.
GAO recommendation: Include funding information on the services' range
sustainment efforts in funding reports;
Original DOD response: Concur. Programming funding data associated with
range sustainment will be captured and documented in future Sustainable
Ranges Reports to Congress to the extent possible. However, any funding
data presented beyond the current year will be subject to a caveat that
final Service budgets for out years are subject to change;
DOD actions: Although DOD has taken steps to examine funding categories
and strategies across each of the services, it has not yet provided a
consistent assessment of future funding requirements.
GAO-06-725R: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives
(June 20, 2006).
GAO recommendation: Because our previous recommendations remained open,
we did not recommend any new executive actions in this report;
Original DOD response: N/A;
DOD actions: N/A.
GAO-06-29R: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training
Range; Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements (Oct. 25, 2005).
GAO recommendation: Because our prior recommendations for improving the
Office of the Secretary of Defense's annual training range reporting
remained open, valid, and not fully addressed, we did not make new
recommendations in this report;
Original DOD response: N/A;
DOD actions: N/A.
GAO-04-608: Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not
Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements (June 4, 2004).
GAO recommendation: 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;
Original DOD response: Did not concur. Each military service already
processes and is improving range information systems that address the
features described in this recommendation. Further, the Department
agrees that, as a long-term goal these systems should be linked to
support joint use. It is DOD policy to document encroachment concerns
and environmental considerations and improve information systems
related to range management. The services and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense are moving forward in a deliberate approach that
builds on existing systems and carefully manages the costs and risks
inherent in information system integration and development. As part of
our yearly Section 366 reports, the Department will document progress
in this evolutionary effort to link and improve the Service range
information systems; However, the department non-concurs with the
recommendation...It must be recognized that each Service operates
ranges to meet specific training requirements. While increased cross-
Service or cross- functional use is a DOD goal, it does not resolve
training constraints brought about by encroachment;
DOD actions: Although DOD continues to non- concur with this
recommendation to develop a stand alone training range database, DOD is
developing a range module to be included in the Defense Readiness
Reporting System which will provide an integrated database that
identifies available training resources and constraints.
GAO recommendation: Develop a comprehensive plan, which includes
quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and
measuring progress, and projected funding requirements to more fully
address identified training constraints;
Original DOD response: Concur. Meeting section 366 requirements can be
accomplished only through a long-term approach. Under the Office of the
Secretary of Defense leadership, each of the Military Services has
initiated an enhanced range management and comprehensive planning
process, as an integral element of expanding range sustainability
programs. In line with this evolution, future reports will more fully
address goals and milestones and project funding requirements
associated with these comprehensive plans. The department is and will
continue to execute a comprehensive program to improve sustainability
of its ranges, and disagrees with the implication in this
recommendation that it does not;
DOD actions: Chapter 4 of the 2009 Sustainable Ranges Report discusses
DOD's comprehensive training range sustainment plan. Although DOD has
identified broad goals and some milestones in its 2009 report, DOD has
not developed quantifiable goals and measurable milestones so that it
and congressional decision makers can better track progress to address
training shortfalls caused by any lack of or limitations on military
range capabilities. DOD has taken some steps to report funding
requirements but more needs to be done.
GAO recommendation: Assess current and future training range
requirements and evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet
these requirements;
Original DOD response: Did not concur. The Department has begun a
program to better define range requirements. Because a valid
requirements base must be a bottom-up process, this effort entails
detailed work at each installation. It is unclear why GAO chose to not
examine these efforts. Also, it is both impractical and inappropriate
to include this level of detail in an OSD-level report. DOD believes
that the Congress is better served if the Department describes,
summarizes, and analyzes training requirements in its Section 366
report, rather than simply providing the requirements themselves;
DOD actions: Although DOD has taken steps to examine funding categories
and strategies across each of the services, it has not provided a
consistent assessment of future funding requirements.
GAO recommendation: Develop a readiness reporting system to reflect the
impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to limitations
on the use of training ranges;
Original DOD response: Did not concur. The Department has, in its
response to GAO's previous report and at other opportunities, stated
that it is inappropriate to modify the Global Status of Resources
Training System report to address encroachment. DOD believes it is best
to assess how encroachment impacts affect the ability of installations
and ranges to conduct training and testing. DOD plans to incorporate
encroachment impacts on readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting
System (DRRS), which is currently under development;
DOD actions: The Office of the Secretary of Defense completed Phase 1
of the pilot project in May 2009 to develop an operational prototype
range module for DRRS using existing service range data, and develop
methods to incorporate them into DRRS. Phase 2 is funded and work has
begun to incorporate the module. Phase 2 is expected to provide the
capability to examine the extent to which encroachment factors affect a
range's ability to support various operational capabilities, and is
expected to be completed by April 2010.
Sources: GAO and DOD.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure III:
Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
Personnel And Readiness:
October 19, 2009:
Mr. Brian J. Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability office:
441 G. Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office Draft Report GAO-10-103R, "Military Training
DoD's Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Addresses Most of
the Congressional Reporting Requirements and Continues to Improve with
Each Annual Update," dated October 5, 2009 (GAO Code 351372).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft. The DoD
appreciates the GAO's assessment of the Department's comprehensive plan
to address encroachment challenges facing our nation's military ranges
and operating areas and to sustain these critical assets. As the GAO
observes, we believe that over the years significant progress has been
made in addressing the elements of the Congressional requirement. The
Department agrees in general with the report and has no specific
comments.
We appreciate the collegial relationship fostered by the GAO over the
years in addressing this ongoing requirement and 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:
(Readiness):
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Training: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on
Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range
Assessments and Comprehensive Plan. GAO-09-128R. Washington, D.C.:
December 15, 2008.
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 Continues 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). 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). Additionally, section 1063(c)(2) of Pub. L. No. 110-181 (2008)
made a clerical amendment to section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364.
[2] This requirement was extended from 60 days to 90 days by section
348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006).
[3] GAO, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not
Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608
(Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004).
[4] GAO-04-608.
[5] Section 366 (a)(4)(C) required the submission of any
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints. While DOD has never submitted such
recommendations with its sustainable ranges report, DOD explained in
2007 that it had an alternate mechanism in place for transmitting
legislative proposals to Congress that precluded their inclusion in the
sustainable ranges report. See GAO-08-10R.
[6] GAO, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan, GAO-09-128R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2008).
[7] In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, DOD
stated that the Army assesses the capability of its ranges and
constraints of its smallest installations through the range
modernization process in its yearly programmatic reviews. DOD further
stated that the Army chooses not to include those assessments because
of the sheer volume and impracticality of compiling that data and
providing it in the DOD format required for the sustainable ranges
report.
[8] In 2002, DOD Directive 7730.65, Department of Defense Readiness
Reporting System (DRRS), established the Defense Readiness Reporting
System to measure and report on the readiness of military forces and
the supporting infrastructure to meet missions and goals assigned by
the Secretary of Defense.
[9] GAO-04-608.
[10] GAO-04-608.
[11] The mission of the Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team is
to be the DOD coordinating body responsible for oversight, development,
and coordination of a comprehensive DOD response to encroachment
pressures that adversely affect ranges.
[12] GAO-09-128R.
[13] Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 was amended by Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 348 (2006);
and Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1063(c)(2) (2008).
[End of section]
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:
