Military Training
DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Gao ID: GAO-10-977R September 14, 2010Recent 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. 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 to combat emerging threats in ongoing 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 air pollution, noise pollution, endangered species, critical habitats and other protected resources, and urban growth around installations--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 are 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. Enclosure I includes the full text of section 366 as amended. 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: (1) proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls in resources identified pursuant to that assessment and evaluation; (2) goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress; (3) projected funding requirements to implement planned actions; and (4) 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.
DOD reported progress in implementing its comprehensive plan as required by section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended), by providing new goals, actions, and milestones for this plan as described above. DOD also reported actions taken or to be taken to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace. For example, in the 2010 range assessments, all four of the military services reported increased range capability scores. Also, according to the 2010 sustainable ranges report, regional partnerships have enabled DOD to work successfully with multistate, multiagency teams to address substantial sustainability issues. For example, OSD and military service officials stated that renewable energy development has the potential to significantly impact their ability to train and is a growing area of concern. Coordination with these regional partnerships has allowed DOD to identify and address renewable energy development by seeking compatible land uses that are mutually beneficial to all concerned parties. By forming these partnerships, DOD has taken steps to prevent conflicts between military training and proposed renewable energy development. DOD's 2010 sustainable ranges report also includes additional updates to the special interest section for each of the services. The special interest section briefly highlights critical issues facing the services regarding range capabilities and encroachment factors. For example, this year the Air Force provides information about the integration of unmanned aerial systems into existing airspace and its efforts to increase flight safety. We previously reported that by highlighting its most pressing range sustainability issues, DOD officials can begin to prioritize the department's actions to address range issues in the most efficient and effective manner. DOD officials told us the sustainable ranges report will continue to include annual updates to the special interest section regarding general issues relevant to the report.
GAO-10-977R, Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-977R
entitled 'Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on
the Sustainability of Training Ranges' which was released on September
14, 2010.
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.
GAO-10-977R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 14, 2010:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the
Sustainability of Training Ranges:
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. 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 to combat emerging threats in ongoing
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 air
pollution, noise pollution, endangered species, critical habitats and
other protected resources, and urban growth around installations--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 are 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. Enclosure I includes the full text of section 366 as
amended. 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:
* 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
requires 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 submit our annual evaluations of DOD's reports to Congress within
90 days[Footnote 2] of receiving these reports from DOD.
Although in our prior reviews of DOD's sustainable ranges reports we
noted that DOD had not addressed various required elements when it
initially submitted its comprehensive plan, we concluded that DOD had
improved its report submissions over time and had reported on actions
taken on various GAO recommendations. Enclosure II provides a complete
list of our recommendations and DOD's actions in response to them. Our
review of DOD's 2010 sustainable ranges report is our seventh response
to section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended). In this review we discuss actions DOD
reported to address two GAO recommendations made in response to prior
sustainable ranges reports--specifically, that DOD develop
quantifiable goals in the comprehensive plan and include in that plan
projected funding estimates for range sustainment efforts.[Footnote 3]
We focus on these recommendations because DOD did not fully address
them in its previously issued sustainable ranges reports. We also
discuss differences between DOD's 2010 and 2009 sustainable ranges
reports and opportunities to improve future ones. In accordance with
the mandate, we are submitting this report to you within 90 days after
having received DOD's 2010 sustainable ranges report on June 16, 2010.
Scope and Methodology:
To review actions DOD reported to address two GAO recommendations made
in response to prior sustainable ranges reports, we compared the
information contained in DOD's 2010 sustainable ranges report with
these two recommendations. We focused on these recommendations because
DOD had not fully addressed them in its sustainable ranges reports.
Regarding the remaining recommendations that GAO had made in response
to prior sustainable ranges reports, at the time of our review, DOD
had either taken action on these recommendations or was in the midst
of implementing them. To determine the extent to which the 2010
sustainable ranges report differs from the 2009 submission, we
compared the two reports and discussed key revisions with military and
other DOD officials involved with preparing these reports. We also
discussed with Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials
their plans for the 2011 report submission and reviewed their data
request sent to the military services in July 2010 requesting
information for the 2011 report. We further discussed with these and
other military officials the extent to which opportunities exist for
improving future sustainable ranges report submissions. We also
reviewed the extent to which DOD's sustainable ranges report has
addressed the elements of subsection 366(a)(5). The intent of our
review was not to comprehensively evaluate the data presented in the
2010 and 2009 sustainable ranges reports but rather to determine the
extent to which the report indicated that DOD had made progress
implementing prior recommendations and whether the report could be
improved.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through September
2010 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.
DOD Addressed Two GAO Key Recommendations by Providing Measurable Data
and Projected-Funding Estimates:
As in years past, DOD has continued to show progress in addressing our
recommendations related to the elements of section 366 of the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as
amended). In 2009, we reiterated two prior recommendations that when
implemented would provide Congress with specific and measurable range-
sustainment goals and milestones and the funding that would be needed
to address those goals.[Footnote 4] Specifically, we recommended that
DOD develop quantifiable goals in the comprehensive plan in order to
better track planned actions and measure progress for implementing
those actions. We also recommended that DOD include projected funding
estimates of range-sustainment efforts. In the 2010 sustainable ranges
report, DOD addressed these two key recommendations.
DOD Developed Measurable Range-Sustainment Goals and Milestones and
Identified OSD-and Service-Level Offices Responsible for Implementing
Them:
In our review of DOD's 2004 sustainable ranges report, we recommended
that DOD provide quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking
planned actions and measuring progress in future annual reports. DOD
agreed with our recommendation and took steps to address it by
identifying broad goals and some milestones in the 2005 sustainable
ranges report. However, we reiterated this 2004 recommendation in our
2009 review because the broad goals were not measurable. The 2010
sustainable ranges report included a new set of goals that DOD states
are measurable, attainable, and more closely aligned with the
Integrated Product Team's[Footnote 5] seven sustainable-ranges focus
areas. As stated in the 2010 report and confirmed through our
discussions with OSD officials, DOD developed this new set of goals
after determining in 2009 that many of the goals and milestones used
in previous reports had either been overcome by other events or
outlived their relevance. The new goals are to mitigate encroachment
pressures on training activities from competing operation space (land,
air, sea, space, and cyber) uses; mitigate frequency spectrum
competition; meet military airspace challenges; manage increasing
military demand for range space, address impacts from new energy
infrastructure and renewable energy impacts; anticipate climate change
impacts; and environmental stewardship.
In the 2010 sustainable ranges report, DOD reports that using this new
set of goals as a common framework, each military service created its
own set of actions and milestones and provided dates for when each
milestone is to be achieved. For example, in the 2010 report, the Navy
identifies actions and milestones to address one of the new goals
focused on sustaining excellence in environmental stewardship. The
Navy plans to continue executing environmental-management and range-
sustainability programs servicewide in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations. Milestones to measure this action include renewing
expiring annual Marine Mammal Protection Act authorizations;
conducting an evaluation of implementation and effectiveness of
integrated natural resources management plans at the end of each
fiscal year; and complete ongoing environmental planning for at-sea
operational areas and range complexes by the end of fiscal year 2012.
By providing new goals along with service-specific actions and
milestones, DOD has provided measurable data for identifying and
tracking progress in mitigating encroachment in order to effectively
evaluate prior efforts, thus satisfying the intent of our prior
recommendation.
In addition to the new goals, actions, and milestones, DOD identified
in its 2010 report a list of training range offices within OSD and
each of the military services responsible for implementing the planned
actions and milestones. According to military and other DOD officials,
these goals, actions, and milestones will continue to be reviewed and
updated annually to ensure DOD continues to effectively address
training requirements as well as constraints or limitations that may
arise in the future. According to DOD officials, actions will be
tracked to determine how well they were executed and to measure their
level of effectiveness in meeting the goal's objective. By providing
measurable actions and milestones and identifying the responsible
offices for tracking progress toward these actions, DOD and
congressional decision makers can more accurately assess progress made
toward the goal of DOD-wide training range sustainment.
DOD Included Projected Funding Estimates of Range-Sustainment Efforts:
In our 2009 review, we reiterated our 2004 recommendation that DOD
include funding projections of range sustainment efforts in its
report. DOD concurred with our recommendation in 2004 and took some
steps toward obtaining funding estimates from each of the services.
For example, DOD created a Sustainable Ranges Funding Subgroup in 2004
within the Working Integrated Product Team[Footnote 6] to develop a
common framework across the military services for consistently and
accurately tracking and reporting range sustainment funding. This
group developed four main funding categories[Footnote 7] as a common
starting point from which to report training range sustainment data.
In the 2010 sustainable ranges report, DOD provided projected-funding
estimates for each of the military services for the fiscal year 2009--
2015 time frame. This is the first year DOD has reported future
funding estimates of its range sustainment efforts beyond the budget
year. According to OSD officials, although DOD has not previously
included this data in prior reports, the military services have been
collecting data for projected-funding estimates since 2004. OSD
officials also told us they included the data in this year's report
after receiving approval to publish the information from the OSD
Comptroller's Office. Each of the funding categories along with their
definitions and specific examples are provided in the 2010 sustainable
ranges report. According to the report, defining each of the funding
categories helps ensure consistent data reporting across the services.
DOD Added Context in the 2010 Sustainable Ranges Report as Compared
with the 2009 Report to Make Data More Meaningful and Has Efforts
Under Way to Provide Context for the Data Presented in Future Reports:
According to DOD officials, significant differences between DOD's 2010
and 2009 sustainable ranges reports include the addition of measurable
range-sustainment goals and milestones and the projected funding
estimates of range-sustainment efforts. During our review, we noted
other differences. In the 2010 sustainable ranges report, DOD provided
context for the data presented there, and efforts under way to gather
data for the 2011 report point toward continued emphasis on providing
context for reported data. In addition, DOD summarized actions under
way or planned to address training constraints and provided an update
on critical issues facing the services regarding range capabilities
and encroachment factors.
DOD Provided Context for the Data Presented in the 2010 Report, and
Data-Gathering Efforts for the 2011 Report Point toward a Continued
Emphasis on Providing Context for Reported Data:
DOD moved range-specific detail that was previously located in
sustainable ranges report appendixes into the body of the 2010 report.
In last year's report, DOD published range-specific detail in the
report appendixes apart from the overall range encroachment and
capability scores. However, in the 2010 report DOD moved this
narrative into the report body in order to directly link the relevant
chapter and range data with the appropriate supporting narrative. For
example, the Marine Corps warfare training center in Bridgeport,
California, reported a moderate overall encroachment score per this
year's report. Specific examples of factors that contribute to that
encroachment--such as restrictions on the use of land adjacent to the
warfare training center--are explained in a comment section directly
linked to the encroachment score. Our review found that the
information provided in the report body provides the reader with a
more direct link between a range's assessment and the factors that
contribute to a range's overall capability and encroachment score.
The 2010 sustainable ranges report also included a new success-stories
section highlighting significant areas of progress in mitigating
encroachment. For example, as part of the Army Compatible Use Buffer
Program,[Footnote 8] the Army partnered with groups including the
Conservation Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to put nearly 3,000 acres of land into conservation
easements near Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. The report states this buffer
preserves the installation's training mission while also conserving
valuable wildlife habitat and sensitive natural and cultural resources.
According to officials from OSD and the military services, actions and
milestones identified in the 2010 report will be continuously revised
and updated in the 2011 report. DOD officials hosted a workshop in
June 2010 to begin data collection for the 2011 report. DOD expects to
issue its next sustainable ranges report by February 2011. As in years
past, development of the 2011 report will involve initial staff level
inputs, coordination through the Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product
Team, and formal coordination with the services and OSD. Plans for
next year's sustainable ranges report also include providing more
information about the relationship between range data and the
installations reports feeding into the Defense Readiness Reporting
System.[Footnote 9] This information will include encroachment and
capability data regarding individual installations.
According to the data input request OSD sent to the military services
for the 2011 report, OSD expanded the data entry and analysis process.
OSD instructed the services to provide a clearer level of detail and
comments regarding whether the range complex's capabilities or
encroachment pressures have been improving or degrading, as well as
future projections. In other words, OSD requested the services to
provide more detailed historical information on factors that
contribute to a range's overall capability or encroachment score.
Further, OSD requested the services to provide future projections of a
range's overall encroachment and capability scores and more detailed
information on potential changes to the scores in future years.
Potential changes could be due to a variety of circumstances, such as
improved accuracy in the range assessment data or changes in
encroachment pressures. By requesting more details regarding
historical information and future projections of a range's overall
encroachment or capability score, OSD and the military services may
have a better understanding of why a range has a certain score so that
it can better mitigate encroachment and reduce training constraints.
OSD and Army officials agreed that trend analysis of range data
collected over multiple years could also improve future reports by
providing a more comprehensive understanding of a range's capability
or encroachment score, rather than displaying the data as a snapshot
in time. An OSD official also told us the Integrated Product Team is
working to improve direct correlation between encroachment assessments
in the 2011 sustainable ranges report, and the requests being made by
military services for funds through the Readiness and Environmental
Protection Initiative.[Footnote 10] For example, he said that if the
report assesses a certain training range with a low capability or
encroachment score, the Integrated Product Team wants to ensure that
the military service owning the range is requesting appropriate funds
through the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative to
improve those ranges. However, an Army official told us such a
correlation may be difficult because the range assessment process is
currently based on data collected as a snapshot in time. The official
stated this does not provide the cumulative bigger picture or show how
much progress the Army, for instance, has made since the report's
inception. A snapshot in time does not allow for a broader view of
what the Army is doing to mitigate encroachment. For example, if a
particular training range reports severe encroachment year after year,
it may imply the military service is not working to mitigate the
encroachment. However, if the assessment is based on an endangered
species law, the service can do little to reverse this effect,
regardless of the funding that might be available. OSD and Army
officials agree that using range data to perform trend analysis could
help prevent potential misconceptions and provide a more comprehensive
understanding of what the range's capability and encroachment score
means.
DOD Reported Progress, Summarized Actions to Address Training
Constraints, and Provided an Update on Critical Issues Facing the
Services Regarding Range Capabilities and Encroachment Factors:
DOD reported progress in implementing its comprehensive plan as
required by section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended),[Footnote 11] by
providing new goals, actions, and milestones for this plan as
described above. DOD also reported actions taken or to be taken to
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace. For example, in the 2010
range assessments, all four of the military services reported
increased range capability scores. Also, according to the 2010
sustainable ranges report, regional partnerships have enabled DOD to
work successfully with multistate, multiagency teams to address
substantial sustainability issues. For example, OSD and military
service officials stated that renewable energy development has the
potential to significantly impact their ability to train and is a
growing area of concern. Coordination with these regional
partnerships[Footnote 12] has allowed DOD to identify and address
renewable energy development by seeking compatible land uses that are
mutually beneficial to all concerned parties. By forming these
partnerships, DOD has taken steps to prevent conflicts between
military training and proposed renewable energy development.
DOD's 2010 sustainable ranges report also includes additional updates
to the special interest section for each of the services. The special
interest section briefly highlights critical issues facing the
services regarding range capabilities and encroachment factors. For
example, this year the Air Force provides information about the
integration of unmanned aerial systems into existing airspace and its
efforts to increase flight safety. We previously reported that by
highlighting its most pressing range sustainability issues, DOD
officials can begin to prioritize the department's actions to address
range issues in the most efficient and effective manner. DOD officials
told us the sustainable ranges report will continue to include annual
updates to the special interest section regarding general issues
relevant to the report.
Agency Comments:
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
findings. DOD's comments are included in their entirety in enclosure
III. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
into this report as 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; Courtney
Reid; Jena Whitley; Alex Wise; Michael Willems; and Mae Jones.
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 Norman D. Dicks:
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 (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-10-103R: DOD's Report on Sustainability of Training Ranges
Addresses Most of the Congressional Reporting Requirements and
Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update (October 27, 2009).
GAO recommendation: Because our prior recommendation for quantifiable
goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring
progress and our recommendation for projecting funding requirements to
more fully address training constraints remain open, we did not make
new recommendations in this report;
Original DOD response: N/A;
DOD actions: N/A.
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: DOD's included in its 2009 report the rationale for
excluding some Army and Marine Corps range assessments. In 2010, DOD
extended this rationale to all service ranges not assessed in the
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 further changes were made since our last review of the
sustainable ranges report found that the Marine Corps' mission areas
have remained the same. In regard to the 2009 sustainable ranges
report, DOD stated that greater explanatory comments on impacts to
training were provided in the Special Interest section of Chapter 3
and Appendix C for all services. DOD officials had also stated that
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: This year's report includes a list of seven new goals
which align with the seven sustainable ranges Integrated Product Team
(IPT) focus areas. Therefore the update to the modernization and
investment goal is no longer applicable. The Air Force has provided
actions and milestones with measurable end dates for all of the new
goals except for mitigating frequency spectrum competition which is to
be determined. An Air Force official stated that actions and
milestones toward this goal will be included in the 2011 ranges report.
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: No further changes have been made since DOD included a
table with specific examples for each of the four funding categories
in their 2009 sustainable ranges report.
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: No further changes were found since 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: DOD's 2010 report provides training range funding
projections through fiscal year 2015. Additionally, footnotes to the
table provide explanation as to how some funding requirements are
determined.
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: According to DOD officials, the Range Assessment Module
(RAM) has been incorporated into the Defense Readiness Reporting
System. DOD is currently updating RAM to provide the module user with
a strategic look at how ranges are being used and allow unit
commanders the ability to leave feedback regarding range capabilities.
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: The 2010 sustainable ranges report has seven new goals
that are measurable, attainable, and more in line with the Integrated
Product Team's focus areas. The report outlines which offices in each
of the military services are responsible for actions needed to achieve
each milestone. The report also outlines actions and milestones for
each service to meet a particular goal; and provide measurable dates
for when each milestone is to be accomplished. DOD officials stated
that actions will be reviewed and updated as necessary during monthly
Working Integrated Product Team meetings. Additionally, the report
provides training range funding projections through fiscal year 2015.
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: According to DOD and military service officials, a
Sustainable Ranges Funding Subgroup was formed in 2004 and four main
funding categories were defined and agreed upon by each of the
military services. DOD noted in this year's sustainable ranges report
that future funding will necessarily be subject to change and is
presented for planning purposes only.
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 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: According to DOD officials, DRRS is operational and
incorporates the capability and encroachment assessments for training
contained in the sustainable ranges report. Currently the Range
Assessment Module (RAM) shows information at the unit-level. RAM is
continuing to be updated in an effort to provide the end-user with a
more strategic assessment of individual range capabilities.
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:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
September 2, 2010:
Mr. Brian J. Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office Draft Report GAO-10-977R, "Military Training:
DoD Continues to Improve Its Report on the Sustainability of Training
Ranges," dated August 13, 2010 (GAO Code 351479).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft. The DoD
appreciates the opportunity to work with the GAO to continually
improve reporting on the ability of our training ranges to meet the
needs of the warfighter. The Department agrees in general with the
report and has no specific comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Samuel D. Kleinman
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness):
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-103R]. Washington, D.C.: October
27, 2009.
Military Training: 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-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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-29R].
Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2005.
Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to
Transform Joint Training. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-548]. Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2005.
Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to
Improve Conditions of Military Training Ranges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-534]. Washington, D.C.: June 10,
2005.
Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully
Address Congressional Reporting Requirements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-608[. Washington, D.C.: June 4,
2004.
Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training
Ranges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-976[.
Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003.
Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training
Ranges Still Evolving. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-621T[. Washington, D.C.: April 2,
2003.
Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-614[. Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2002.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-727T]. Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2002.
Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in
Readiness Reporting. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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's Report on the Sustainability of
Training Ranges Addresses Most of the Congressional Reporting
Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-103R] (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 27, 2009).
[4] GAO, 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.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-103R]. (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 27, 2009).
[5] The Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team's (IPT) mission 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. This IPT operates
on two levels. The Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) acts as
the coordination forum for the development of range sustainment
strategies. The Working Integrated Product Team (WIPT) works under the
direction of the OIPT and meets regularly to implement the OIPT's
recommendations and direction.
[6] The Working Integrated Product Team also collaborates with other
DOD and military service organizations to address range sustainability
issues.
[7] The funding categories are modernization and investment;
operations and maintenance; environmental; and encroachment.
[8] The Army Compatible Use Buffer program is used by the Army to
enter into cooperative agreements with partners to create buffer zones
around at-risk testing or training ranges while simultaneously
protecting natural resources.
[9] 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.
[10] The Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative provides
oversight for and helps fund military installations' compatible land
use partnerships and projects. Readiness and Environmental Protection
Initiative is an important tool for creating buffer zones around
military installations.
[11] 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.
[12] DOD's regional partnerships include the Western Regional
Partnership and the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and
Sustainability.
[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:
