Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges,
but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and
Comprehensive Plan (11-OCT-07, GAO-08-10R).
In the midst of the global war on terrorism and recent operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is
working to make U.S. forces more agile and expeditionary. This
transformation involves a shift from a Cold War era defense
posture to a military that can surge quickly to trouble spots
around the globe. In order to accomplish this transformation, it
is vital for U.S. forces to train as they intend to fight. New
advances in technology, coupled with this shift in force posture,
mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its
training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few
acres--for small arms training--to over a million acres for large
maneuver exercises and weapons testing, as well as broad open
ocean areas that provide for offshore training and testing. These
ranges face ever increasing limitations and restrictions on land,
water, and airspace as residential, commercial, and industrial
development continues to expand around and encroach upon once
remote military training and testing installations. Section 366
of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003, dated December 2, 2002, required that the Secretary of
Defense report on several items. First, the Secretary of Defense
was required to develop a comprehensive plan for using existing
authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the
military services to address training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and
airspace--both in the United States and overseas. As part of the
preparation of the plan, section 366 required the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an assessment of current and future training
range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current
DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet
current and future training range requirements. Second, section
366 required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress, not
later than June 30, 2003, on the plans to improve DOD's system to
reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and
airspace have on specific units of the military services. Third,
section 366 required the Secretary to develop and maintain an
inventory that identifies all available operational training
ranges, all training range capacities and capabilities, and any
training constraints caused by limitations at each training range
in fiscal year 2004, and provide an updated inventory to Congress
for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. Section 366(d) of the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of DOD's report
regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its readiness
reporting improvements within 90 days of receiving the report
from DOD. This report is our fourth review in response to our
mandate in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This report discusses (1)
the extent to which DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and
training range inventory address the elements of section 366 that
were required to be in DOD's fiscal year 2004 sustainable ranges
report and (2) an opportunity for DOD to improve its
comprehensive plan within the sustainable ranges report to better
address the elements of section 366.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-10R
ACCNO: A77247
TITLE: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments
and Comprehensive Plan
DATE: 10/11/2007
SUBJECT: Military training
Combat readiness
Military forces
Reporting requirements
Defense capabilities
Training utilization
Strategic planning
Program evaluation
Program management
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-10R
* [1]Summary
* [2]Progress Made in Addressing Section 366 Requirements
* [3]Assessment of Current and Future Training Range Requirement
* [4]Training Capabilities and Capacities
* [5]Recommendations for Legislative or Regulatory Changes
* [6]Readiness Reporting Improvements
* [7]Opportunity to Improve DOD's Comprehensive Plan
* [8]Conclusions
* [9]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [10]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [11]Summary of Army Initiatives
* [12]Summary of Navy Initiatives
* [13]Summary of Marine Corps Initiatives
* [14]Summary of Air Force Initiatives
* [15]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* [16]Order by Mail or Phone
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
October 11, 2007
Congressional Committees
Subject: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges,
but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive
Plan
In the midst of the global war on terrorism and recent operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) is working to make U.S.
forces more agile and expeditionary. This transformation involves a shift
from a Cold War era defense posture to a military that can surge quickly
to trouble spots around the globe. In order to accomplish this
transformation, it is vital for U.S. forces to train as they intend to
fight. New advances in technology, coupled with this shift in force
posture, mean that DOD needs to continually update and maintain its
training ranges. Military training ranges vary in size from a few
acres--for small arms training--to over a million acres for large maneuver
exercises and weapons testing, as well as broad open ocean areas that
provide for offshore training and testing. These ranges face ever
increasing limitations and restrictions on land, water, and airspace as
residential, commercial, and industrial development continues to expand
around and encroach upon once remote military training and testing
installations.
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003, ^[17]1 dated December 2, 2002, required that the Secretary of
Defense report on several items. First, the Secretary of Defense was
required to develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities
available to the Secretary of Defense and the military services to address
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands,
marine areas, and airspace--both in the United States and overseas. As
part of the preparation of the plan, section 366 required the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an assessment of current and future training range
requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources,
including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future
training range requirements. Section 366 further required the Secretary to
submit the plan, the results of the assessment and evaluation, and any
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training
constraints in a report to Congress at the same time the President
submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004. Further, the Secretary was
required to submit to Congress a report annually between fiscal years 2005
and 2013^2 describing the progress made in implementing the 2004 plan and
any additional actions t [18]aken or to be taken to address training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military land, marine
areas, or airspace. Second, section 366 required the Secretary of Defense
to report to Congress, not later than June 30, 2003, on the plans to
improve DOD's system to reflect the readiness impact that training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine
areas, and airspace have on specific units of the military services.
Third, section 366 required the Secretary to develop and maintain an
inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all
training range capacities and capabilities, and any training constraints
caused by limitations at each training range in fiscal year 2004, and
provide an updated inventory to Congress for fiscal years 2005 through
2013.^3 The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and [19]Readiness
signed DOD's fourth annual sustainable ranges report and inventory on July
13, 2007.^4 We received the report and inventory on July 20, 2007. (Enc. I
contains the text of sectio [20]n 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.)
^1Pub. L. No. 107-314 (2002).
Section 366(d) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 requires GAO to submit to Congress an evaluation of DOD's
report regarding its training range comprehensive plan and its readiness
reporting improvements within 90 days^5 of [21]receiving the report from
DOD. In 2006, we found that DOD had made improvements to its annual
sustainable ranges report, but it needed additional time to fully
implement key sustainment initiatives.^6 Enclosure II summarizes our prior
reports about military training ranges sustain [22]m ent.
This report is our fourth review in response to our mandate in section 366
of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003.^7 This report discusses
(1) [23]the extent to which DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and
training range inventory address the elements of section 366 that were
required to be in DOD's fiscal year 2004 sustainable ranges report and (2)
an opportunity for DOD to improve its comprehensive plan within the
sustainable ranges report to better address the elements
of section 366. Enclosure III discusses the progress that the services
have made in their individual initiatives to sustain their training
ranges.
^2Section 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).
^3Id.
^4Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges
(Washington, D.C.: July 2007).
^5Section 366 originally required GAO to submit its report to Congress
within 60 days of receiving the original report from DOD, but this was
extended to 90 days by section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006).
^6GAO, 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).
^7GAO was not specifically required by section 366 to review DOD's training
range inventory. However, because DOD submits this inventory with its
sustainable ranges report, we elected to review DOD's training range
inventory, as we have done in past years.
Because DOD has not yet satisfied all of the elements of section 366 that
were to be addressed in fiscal year 2004, we focused our review on the
progress DOD has made in addressing these original elements and not on the
subsequent requirement for DOD to describe its progress made in
implementing its original comprehensive plan. To determine the extent to
which DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and training range inventory
address the elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD's
original fiscal year 2004 plan, we reviewed the report and inventory and
met with DOD and service officials to discuss them. We discussed
challenges DOD faced in meeting the congressionally mandated requirements
in fiscal year 2004 and continues to face and changes in the report and
inventory since 2006. We also compared the report and inventory to the
criteria in section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 to determine the extent to which this year's report
addresses the elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD's
original fiscal year 2004 plan. To identify opportunities for DOD to
improve its comprehensive plan within the sustainable ranges report, we
compared the 2007 report with elements of the comprehensive plan required
by section 366. We also compared DOD's 2007 report and inventory to prior
DOD and GAO reports. To determine the progress that the services have made
in their initiatives to sustain their training ranges, we met with service
officials about their inputs to DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and
inventory, key initiatives they have undertaken to address range
sustainment, challenges in addressing range sustainment and encroachment
issues, and progress or changes since we last reported. Due to the 90-day
requirement for this review, we did not attempt to comprehensively
evaluate the data presented in the report.
We conducted our work from April 2007 through August 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary
Although DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory still do not
fully address all of the elements of section 366 required for DOD's
original fiscal year 2004 report and inventory, DOD has continued to
improve them and the current report and inventory represent an improvement
over those from previous years. First, in an effort to improve the annual
report and inventory, DOD has taken initial steps to provide the results
of an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an
evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources. DOD's 2007 report
presents information that illustrates the services' assessments of their
range capabilities and encroachment issues. These assessments also help
improve the training range inventory by helping to identify all training
capacities and capabilities available at each training range and to
identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range. However, some of
the capability assessments provided in the DOD report are based on
subjective evaluations rather than evaluations against standardized
criteria, and the factors used for the assessments vary from service to
service. DOD officials told us that they need to develop better criteria
and a more standardized methodology for the assessment of range
capabilities and encroachment across the department, but that these
criteria and methods had not yet been fully developed because DOD has just
begun to develop these processes in the past year and intends to improve
on them over time. Until better criteria and a more standardized
methodology are developed, DOD and the services will not be presenting a
consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities and needs, and will
therefore be unable to identify shortfalls or gaps in their capabilities
or make informed decisions about where to invest sustainment dollars
DOD-wide. Second, like previous years' reports, DOD's 2007 report does not
provide new recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to
address training constraints, although DOD's original 2004 report was
required by section 366 to include any recommendations that the Secretary
may have for legislative or regulatory change to address training
constraints identified pursuant to section 366. However, the 2007 report
provides a summary of legislative changes that DOD has recommended through
other means and explains DOD's position as to why this report is not the
appropriate place for making such proposals. Third, although DOD's
readiness reporting system does not yet include training ranges, DOD's
2007 sustainable ranges report describes DOD's plans to improve its
reporting system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints
have on the services. DOD officials told us that workshops had been
scheduled to develop the system and that it should be initially
operational by the end of calendar year 2008.
Even with these improvements in the sustainable range report and
inventory, DOD has the opportunity to improve its comprehensive plan
presented within its sustainable ranges report by including projected
funding requirements for implementing planned actions. Like previous
years' reports, DOD's 2007 report does not provide projected funding
requirements for implementing planned actions. Instead, the report
provides a general explanation of the challenges of projecting funding
requirements. According to DOD, this requirement is difficult to meet for
several reasons, particularly because funding for range sustainment is
spread across multiple funding lines within each service's budget. We
asked the services for information about their range sustainment funding,
and each service was able to provide us with an estimate of its budget for
range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, this
information was not included in the report because it presents only a
partial picture of the money being spent on range sustainment. We believe,
however, that even this partial information is important to include in the
report because without it, Congress will have difficulty making informed
decisions about funding range sustainment activities.
We are making recommendations designed to improve the range requirements
and capabilities assessments and future comprehensive plans. In commenting
on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our recommendations. We discuss
DOD's comments later in this report. DOD also provided technical comments
on a draft of this report, which we incorporated where appropriate.
Progress Made in Addressing Section 366 Requirements
DOD's 2007 sustainable ranges report and inventory are responsive to the
congressionally mandated requirement to describe the progress made in
implementing its sustainable ranges plan and any additional actions taken,
or to be taken, to address training constraints caused by limitations, and
contains an updated training range inventory. In addition, DOD has
continued to improve its annual sustainable ranges report and inventory
and has taken steps toward addressing the congressionally mandated
reporting requirements that were to be addressed in DOD's fiscal year 2004
report, but previously had not been addressed. Specifically, DOD has made
progress in providing the results of an assessment of current and future
training range requirements; identifying training capacities,
capabilities, and constraints at training ranges; making recommendations
for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints; and
detailing plans for improving DOD's readiness reporting system to reflect
the readiness impact of constraints on training.
Assessment of Current and Future Training Range Requirements
In an effort to address the elements of section 366 that required DOD, in
its fiscal year 2004 report, to provide the results of an assessment of
current and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the
adequacy of current DOD resources to meet those requirements, DOD's
current report includes assessments of the services' current range
capabilities and the external pressures that constrain training ranges.
These assessments are presented in table format to convey the severity of
impacts caused by shortfalls in required capabilities. For example, the
Army assessed shortfalls in Fort Irwin's military operations on urban
terrain facilities as severely affecting Fort Irwin's overall mission
while shortfalls in its range scheduling system have only minimal impact
on the mission. In addition, the services have begun individual efforts to
more fully assess training range requirements and identify gaps in
capabilities. For example, the Marine Corps has fully assessed 5 of its 14
range complexes, including providing information on shortfalls and plans
to address these shortfalls. In its Range Complex Management Plan for
Hawaii, it identifies several gaps in capabilities, such as lack of a
training facility for military operations on urban terrain and limited
targets for artillery training, and it lays out plans to address these
gaps. As the overall assessments develop, they will also help DOD's
efforts to propose enhancements to training range capabilities and to
address any shortfalls in current DOD resources.
These assessments are an important first step toward addressing the
congressionally mandated requirement; however, the assessments are based
on best available data, which may not be complete or accurate enough to
reflect current conditions. In addition, they were not conducted using a
common set of issues or standard criteria for measuring the impact of
capability against requirements, and they are partially based on
subjective evaluation. According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) officials, the overall capability and encroachment assessments are
fairly accurate based on available data, and serve as a starting point to
develop methodologies for assessing capabilities and encroachment. DOD's
directive on the sustainment of ranges states that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness is responsible for establishing means
to assess the readiness benefits of range sustainment initiatives and to
monitor the impact that external encroachment has on training ranges.^8
However, when collecting information for the sustainable ranges report,
DOD provid [24]ed guidance to the services only in the form of a reporting
structure, and did not establish clear criteria for how to assess the
ranges. Therefore, the services used an informal process to develop their
assessments and based their assessments on different levels of
documentation. The Navy provided assessments based on preexisting Range
Complex Management Plans that matched the format that DOD prescribed for
the assessments, but because the databases and reports that Army officials
used did not align with the format prescribed by DOD, Army officials had
to quickly figure out how to fit existing information into the format
provided. In addition, according to service officials, there was
relatively little time to conduct these assessments and information needed
to make the assessments was sometimes difficult to obtain or unavailable.
DOD officials said that they need to develop better criteria and a more
standardized methodology for these assessments, but that these criteria
and methods had not yet been fully developed because the department has
just begun to develop these processes in the past year and intends to
improve on them over time. Until better criteria and a more standardized
method are developed, DOD and the services will be unable to present a
consistent and accurate picture of range capabilities or needs, or to make
informed decisions about where to invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide.
Training Capabilities and Capacities
Like prior range inventories, DOD's 2007 inventory does not identify the
specific capacities, capabilities, and constraints of all the ranges,
although it was required by section 366 to do so in DOD's fiscal year 2004
inventory. However, the capability and encroachment assessments, included
for the first time in this year's report, provide some of this information
for selected ranges and represent a first step toward meeting this
requirement. As stated above, each service presented a summary of the
capabilities of selected ranges or range complexes and evaluated the
status of these capabilities. For example, the Navy evaluated its ranges
based on nine capabilities, including airspace, sea space, and
communication systems. These capabilities were evaluated based on the
level of impact that shortfalls in these areas have on each range's
mission and were presented in table format. These tables allow the reader
to quickly see specific capability areas that are affected at selected
ranges. In addition, the services present encroachment assessments,
summarizing the constraints experienced by the individual ranges in
specific encroachment areas. For these assessments, all of the services
used the same 12 encroachment issues to assess their ranges.^9
^8Department of Defense Directive 3200.15, Sustainment of Ranges and
Operating Areas (Jan. 10, 2003).
^9The 12 encroachment issues are endangered species/critical habitat,
unexploded ordnance/munitions, frequency encroachment, maritime
sustainability, airspace restrictions, air quality, airborne noise, urban
growth, cultural resources, water quality, wetlands, and range transients.
OSD officials stated that the inventory deviates very little from last
year's. The 2007 inventory, like the 2006 inventory, lists available
operational training ranges and provides data on the size and type of
ranges (e.g., air to ground, land maneuver, and urbanized terrain). OSD
officials stated that it is impractical to include the large volume of
data needed to identify the specific capacities, capabilities, and
constraints of each range, and as a result these types of detailed data
were omitted. In addition, because in most instances these data exist only
at individual ranges, DOD would have to expend significant time and
resources to retrieve and centralize the information.
We previously recommended that the Secretary of Defense create a DOD
database that identifies all ranges available to the department and what
they offer, regardless of service ownership, so that commanders can
schedule the best available resources to provide required training. DOD
did not concur with this recommendation and reported that significant
challenges exist in creating a common range scheduling tool. Therefore,
DOD is exploring the feasibility of leveraging existing service scheduling
systems to create a net-centric scheduling visibility capability that
permits a cross-service look at available range capacity. For example, the
Marine Corps and the Army both have a Webbased inventory and scheduling
system that is accessible to all users, regardless of service, for
scheduling training exercises. DOD stated again this year that a Web-based
system similar to those developed by the Marine Corps and the Army, which
could be linked to each service's range inventories and schedules, is an
achievable and satisfactory way to arrive at a DOD-wide system. We
continue to believe that this suggestion is a step in the right direction
and could achieve many of the benefits we envisioned in our prior
recommendation for an inventory that could be readily accessible to users
across the department.
Recommendations for Legislative or Regulatory Changes
Like prior reports, DOD's 2007 report does not include new recommendations
for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints,
although section 366 required the inclusion of any recommendations that
the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report. In this year's
report, DOD states that there is an existing process by which DOD must
submit all requests for legislative language that includes, among other
things, obtaining approval from DOD's Office of Legislative Affairs and
the Office of Management and Budget, and that the deadline for this
process is the same as the deadline for the sustainable ranges report.
Therefore, DOD states that it is unable to include final DOD legislative
or regulatory proposals in the sustainable ranges report and believes this
requirement should be omitted from this report. However, DOD does include
a summary of proposals previously submitted to Congress, including
recommendations to modify the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Readiness Reporting Improvements
In describing plans to improve the readiness reporting system to reflect
the readiness impact of training constraints, DOD's 2007 report states
that the Defense Readiness Reporting System is currently being modified to
provide the ability to relate changes in reported unit readiness to
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands,
marine areas, and airspace. Although DOD was required to submit a report
on its plans to improve its readiness reporting system to reflect the
readiness impact that training constraints caused by certain limitations
have on specific units no later than June 30, 2003, this is the first time
that the Defense Readiness Reporting System has been addressed in DOD's
sustainable ranges report. OSD officials told us that the system is
scheduled to be initially operational by the end of calendar year 2008,
although this is not mentioned in the sustainable ranges report. To meet
this deadline, DOD has scheduled a series of workshops during 2007 that
will bring together various DOD range stakeholders with the intent of
establishing clear expectations and coordinating actions to support this
readiness reporting functionality. DOD officials expect that next year's
report will describe the status of DOD's efforts to improve the reporting
system to reflect the readiness impact caused by training constraints.
Opportunity to Improve DOD's Comprehensive Plan
DOD's 2007 comprehensive plan within its sustainable ranges report, as in
previous years' reports, still does not provide projected funding
requirements for implementing planned actions, although this was required
to be included in DOD's fiscal year 2004 report. According to DOD's
report, it is difficult to quantify funding needs for range sustainment
because such funding is managed differently by each service, and the costs
are spread across multiple funding categories (e.g., manpower and
training) and types of funds (e.g., operations and maintenance and
military construction). DOD formed a working group in 2004 that meets
periodically to develop and refine a framework for funding sustainable
range activities. However, this group has been unable to develop a
framework for capturing information from the services about their range
sustainment funding.
We asked the military services for information about their range
sustainment funding and each service was able to provide us with an
estimate of its budget for range sustainment for fiscal year 2008. The
Navy has budgeted about $24 million, the Air Force $200 million, the
Marine Corps $60 million, and the Army $129 million, primarily from
operations and maintenance funds.^10 In addition, DOD has budgeted $30
million for fiscal year 2008 for the Readiness and En [25]vi ronmental
Protection Initiative to provide funding for the military to work with
state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to pursue
cooperative sustainability and conservation efforts around key test and
training ranges. According to OSD officials, this information was not
included in
the 2007 sustainable ranges report because it presents only a partial
picture of the money being spent on range sustainment and may not be
consistent across services. Although we agree that there may be money
spent on range sustainment that is in addition to these amounts, we
believe that DOD should include this information in its reports so that
Congress can begin to see the amount of money that is needed to adequately
sustain the services' training ranges and can therefore make more informed
decisions about funding range sustainment activities.
^10The figures provided by the Marine Corps also include procurement and
research, development, test, and evaluation funds.
Conclusions
DOD has continued to improve its annual sustainable ranges report over the
past few years. Yet, as we have reported since 2004, opportunities still
exist to provide more standardized range requirements and capabilities
assessments and a more complete plan. DOD has taken steps toward
addressing the elements of section 366 that were required to be in DOD's
original fiscal year 2004 report to assess current and future training
range requirements and evaluate the adequacy of current DOD resources;
however, it has not developed clear criteria or standard methods for the
assessments presented in the report. Without clear criteria and standard
methodology, DOD and the services will be unable to present a consistent
and accurate picture of range capabilities or shortfalls or to make
informed decisions about where to focus their sustainment efforts or
invest sustainment dollars DOD-wide. In addition, DOD still has not
presented information on the funding required for range sustainment. DOD
has noted that it faces several challenges in presenting this information,
such as the individual ways that the services manage their own budgets.
However, we were able to identify range sustainment funding from each
service for fiscal year 2008, and we believe that this information, even
if it is not complete, should be included in future annual reports to help
Congress make more informed funding decisions related to the sustainment
of training ranges.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To improve the range requirements and capabilities assessments and future
comprehensive plans within the sustainable ranges reports, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the secretaries of the
military departments, to take the following two actions:
o Develop clear criteria and standard methods for assessing current and
future training range requirements and capabilities.
o Include funding information on the services' range sustainment efforts
in future reports.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Readiness agreed with our recommendations and indicated
that actions were under way to address them. The Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense's comments are reprinted in enclosure IV. DOD also provided
technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of
the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on our Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. [26]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 [27]Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key
contributions to this report are listed in enclosure V.
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 Ted Stevens
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Chairman
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Chairman
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Enclosure I
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003
SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources and
Training System, and Training Range Inventory.
(a)
PLAN REQUIRED--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a
comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military
departments to address training constraints caused by limitations
on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are
available in the United States and overseas for training of the
Armed Forces.
(2)
As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary
of Defense shall conduct the following:
(A)
An assessment of current and future
training range requirements of the Armed
Forces.
(B)
An evaluation of the adequacy of current
Department of Defense resources
(including virtual and constructive
training assets as well as military
lands, marine areas, and airspace
available in the United States and
overseas) to meet those current and
future training range requirements.
(3)
The plan shall include the following:
(A)
Proposals to enhance training range
capabilities and address any shortfalls
in current Department of Defense
resources identified pursuant to the
assessment and evaluation conducted
under paragraph (2).
(B)
Goals and milestones for tracking
planned actions and measuring progress.
(C)
Projected funding requirements for
implementing planned actions.
(D)
Designation of an office in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and in each
of the military departments that will
have lead responsibility for overseeing
implementation of the plan.
(4)
At the same time as the President submits to Congress
the budget for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing
the progress made in implementing this subsection,
including--
(A)
the plan developed under paragraph (1);
(B)
the results of the assessment and
evaluation conducted under paragraph
(2); and
(C)
any recommendations that the Secretary
may have for legislative or regulatory
changes to address training constraints
identified pursuant to this section.
(5)
At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, ^[28]11 the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in
implementing the plan and any additional actions taken, or to be
taken, to address training constraints caused by limitations on
the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace.
(b)
READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT--Not later than June 30, 2003, the
Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority
of the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans
of the Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of
Resources and Training System to reflect the readiness impact that
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific units of the
Armed Forces.
(c)
TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall develop and maintain a training range
inventory for each of the Armed Forces--
(A)
to identify all available operational
training ranges;
(B)
to identify all training capacities and
capabilities available at each training
range; and
(C)
to identify training constraints caused
by limitations on the use of military
lands, marine areas, and airspace at
each training range.
(2)
The Secretary of Defense shall submit an
initial inventory to Congress at the
same time as the President submits the
budget for fiscal year 2004 and shall
submit an updated inventory to Congress
at the same time as the President
submits the budget for fiscal years 2005
through 2008.^5
(d)
GAO EVALUATION--The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies of
each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller
General. Within 60 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report.
^[29]12
(e)
ARMED FORCES DEFINED--In this section, the term `Armed Forces'
means the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
^11This requirement was extended through 2013 by section 348 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
^12This requirement was extended to 90 days by section 348 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
Enclosure II
GAO Prior Work Related to Military Training Ranges Sustainment
The following tables summarize our previous reports related to military
training ranges sustainment. Table 1 lists our previous reports evaluating
the Department of Defense's (DOD) annual sustainable ranges report. Table
2 lists our related reports on military training ranges sustainment.
Overall, for the past several years, we have pointed to the need for DOD
to have a comprehensive plan for managing its training ranges.
Table 1: Summary of GAO's Previous Evaluations of DOD's Sustainable Ranges
Report
GAO report Summary
Military Training: DOD The Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD)
Report on Training Ranges training range inventory does not yet contain
Does Not Fully Address sufficient information to use as a baseline for
Congressional Reporting developing the comprehensive training range plan
Requirements (GAO-04-608, required by section 366. As a result, OSD's
June 4, 2004) training range report does not lay out a
comprehensive plan to address training
constraints caused by limitations on the use of
military lands, marine areas, and airspace that
are available in the United States and overseas
for training. In addition, OSD's training range
report does not fully address other requirements
mandated by section 366. For example, the report
does not fully assess current and future
training range requirements; fully evaluate the
adequacy of current resources to meet current
and future training range requirements in the
United States and overseas; identify
recommendations for legislative or regulatory
changes to address training constraints, even
though DOD submitted legislative changes for
congressional consideration on April 6, 2004; or
contain plans to improve readiness reporting.
Some Improvements Have Been Similar to the inventory OSD submitted to
Made in DOD's Annual Congress in 2004, the 2005 training range
Training Range Reporting inventory does not contain sufficient
but It Still Fails to Fully information to use as a baseline for
Address Congressional developing a comprehensive plan to address
Requirements (GAO-06-29R, training constraints and help ensure range
Oct. 25, 2005) sustainability because it does not identify
specific capacities, capabilities, and
training constraints for ranges of all the
services as required by section 366. Instead,
it is a consolidated list of ranges provided
by the individual services that lacks critical
data and is not integrated or easily
accessible by potential users.
OSD's 2005 training range report--similar to
the one issued to Congress in 2004--fails to
meet other requirements mandated by section
366 that could help guide OSD and the services
in ensuring the long-term sustainability of
their training ranges. Like the 2004 report,
OSD's 2005 report does not include an
assessment of current and future training
range requirements; an evaluation of the
adequacy of current resources, including
virtual and constructive assets, to meet
current and future training range
requirements; or recommendations for
legislative or regulatory changes to address
training constraints--although specifically
required to do so by section 366. In addition,
OSD's 2005 report does not include its plans
to improve the department's readiness
reporting system, despite a specific mandate
in section 366 that it do so no later than
June 30, 2003.
Improvement Continues in While still not fully addressing all elements of
DOD's the congressionally mandated
Reporting on Sustainable reporting requirements, such as providing an
Ranges assessment of training range
but Additional Time Is requirements and recommendations for legislative
Needed to or regulatory changes, OSD
Fully Implement Key has continued to improve its annual sustainable
Initiatives range reporting by better
(GAO-06-725R, June 20, describing the encroachment challenges and their
2006) effects on training, identifying tools for range
management, and focusing on key initiatives needed
to address encroachment.
Although specifically required by section 366, OSD's 2006 inventory does
not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and constraints of all the
ranges. OSD officials said that it is impractical to include such a large
volume of data needed to identify capacities, capabilities, and
constraints where they are known as, in most instances, these data only
exist at individual ranges, and the department would have to expend
significant time and resources to retrieve and centralize the information.
Source: GAO.
Table 2: Summary of Related Reports on Military Training Ranges
Sustainment
GAO report Summary
Military Training: Limitations Exist Our objectives in this report were to
assess (1) the types of training constraints Overseas but Are Not
Reflected in that forces overseas face and whether they are likely to
increase in the future, Readiness Reporting (GAO-02-(2) the impact these
constraints have had on the ability of military units to meet 525, Apr.
30, 2002) their training requirements and on their reported readiness, and
(3) alternatives
that exist to increase training opportunities for these forces. We found
that:
o Combat units stationed outside the continental United States are able
to meet many of their training requirements but face constraints in
such areas as (1) maneuver operations, (2) live ordnance practice, and
(3) night and low altitude flying.
* Training constraints cause adverse effects, including (1)
requiring workarounds that can breed bad habits affecting combat
performance,
* requiring military personnel to be away from home more
often, and
* preventing training from being accomplished.
o To address these concerns, military commands and services are
negotiating with host governments to lessen restrictions on existing
training areas, but such actions are often done at an
individual-service level and sometimes create unforeseen problems for
other services and for existing training capabilities.
Military Training: DOD We examined (1) the impact that encroachment
Lacks a Comprehensive Plan has had, or is likely to have, on the services'
to Manage training range capabilities; (2) the effect
training range losses have
Encroachment on Training on the services' readiness and costs; and (3)
DOD's progress in formulating a
Ranges (GAO-02-614, June comprehensive plan for addressing encroachment
11, issues. We found that over
2002) time, the military services report they have
increasingly lost training range capabilities
because of encroachment. Each of the four
installations and two
major commands we visited reported having lost
some capabilities in terms of
the time training ranges were available or the
types of training that could be conducted.
Despite the loss of some capabilities, service
readiness data do not
indicate the extent to which encroachment has
significantly affected reported
training readiness. Although encroachment
workarounds may affect costs, the services have
not documented the overall impact of
encroachment on training
costs. The services face difficulties in fully
assessing the impact of training
ranges on readiness because they have not fully
defined their training range
requirements and lack information on the
training resources available to support those
requirements. DOD officials recognize the need
for a comprehensive plan
to address encroachment issues but have not yet finalized a plan for doing
so. We recommended that DOD finalize a comprehensive plan for managing
encroachment issues, develop the ability to report critical
encroachment-related training problems, and develop and maintain
inventories of its training infrastructure and quantify its training
requirements. DOD concurred with our recommendations.
Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency
Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges (GAO-03-976,
Sept. 29, 2003)
DOD and other federal land managers have taken some steps to implement
interagency cooperative efforts to manage endangered species on a regional
basis, but the extent to which they are using this approach for military
training ranges is limited. The Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture have issued policies, and DOD has issued directives to promote
cooperative management of natural resources. They have also outlined
specific actions to be taken--such as identifying geographic regions for
species management and forming working groups. However, follow-through on
these actions has been limited, with few of the prescribed actions being
implemented.
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture have identified
a number of factors that can limit cooperative management for endangered
species on military training ranges, such as limited interaction among
agencies and limited resources to employ cooperative programs. Moreover,
federal agencies cannot easily share information--such as best practices
and land management plans--because there is no centralized source of such
information. Given that federal agencies have made little progress in
implementing the various agreements for cooperative management, an
interagency reporting requirement would provide a basis to hold agencies
accountable for sharing endangered species management on training ranges.
Military Training: Better Our visits to eight training ranges, along with
Planning and Funding DOD's own assessments, show that ranges are
Priority Needed to deteriorating and lack modernization, adversely
affecting
Improve Conditions of training activities and jeopardizing the safety
Military of military personnel. Without
Training Ranges adequate ranges, DOD compromises the opportunity
(GAO-05-534, to achieve its
June 10, 2005) transformation goal and assumes the risk that
its forces will be less prepared for missions
and subjected to hazards. DOD's progress in
improving training range
conditions has been limited, and this is
partially caused by a lack of a
comprehensive approach to ensure that ranges
provide the proper setting for effectively
preparing its forces for warfare.
Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to Transform
Joint Training (GAO-05-548, June 21, 2005)
DOD expects its Training Transformation Program, currently in its early
implementation stages, to be fully operational by 2009, when it has
established a robust network of training capabilities that are integrated
throughout the department to provide enhanced joint individual and unit
training focused on combatant commanders' needs and linked to readiness
assessments. Two significant challenges that have emerged early and will
require continued focus are (1) establishing effective partnerships with
program stakeholders via comprehensive communication and coordination to
gain their full participation and buy-in to achieve training
transformation goals and (2) developing joint training requirements--and
the specific training tasks that support the requirements--that meet
combatant command mission needs. Both these challenges, if left
unaddressed, have the potential for eroding support among program
stakeholders, which in turn places the goals of the Training
Transformation Program at risk.
Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban Operations Training
and Facilities Should Be Based on Sound Strategy and Requirements
(GAO-06-193, Dec. 8, 2005)
Since 2002, DOD has made limited progress in developing an overall joint
strategy for urban operations training and related facility and training
requirements. While the services have identified some facility needs,
Joint Forces Command and service representatives have been unable to reach
consensus on the level or types of joint training necessary to prepare
troops for urban operations. As a result, Joint Forces Command has been
unable to
finalize the strategy or the facility and joint training requirements that
will form the baseline for measuring capabilities within each service and
across DOD. Until Joint Forces Command develops an overall strategy for
joint urban operations training and related requirements, neither the
Secretary of Defense nor Congress will have a sound basis for evaluating
service facility and training plans and related funding requests.
Despite DOD's increased emphasis on the importance of training for joint
urban operations before deployment, few opportunities currently exist for
joint urban operations training that places troops from different services
on the ground working under a joint headquarters. Without a strategy,
defined requirements, and a joint scheduling mechanism, DOD cannot be
assured that joint urban operations training will occur or that it will
maximize the joint usage of training facilities. To increase the
opportunities for joint urban operations training, we are recommending
that DOD establish a mechanism for joint scheduling of joint urban
operations training at major training centers.
Source: GAO.
Enclosure III
The Services Continue to Make Progress in Their Initiatives to Address Training
Range Sustainment
The services continue to make various degrees of progress in their
individual sustainable range initiatives since we last reported.
Summary of Army Initiatives
The Army continues initiatives to improve its assessment and management of
training ranges as part of its sustainable range program through the
following key efforts.
o The Army developed the Sustainable Range Program Web Portal, a single
entry point for Sustainable Range Program information, tools, and
capabilities related to Sustainable Range Program activities and
management. This Web portal facilitates information exchange among
unit commanders and trainers.
o The Army is in the process of conducting environmental assessments on
all of its training ranges in the United States as part of its
operational range assessment program. The Army plans to complete these
initial assessments, designed to better manage the ranges to have a
trained and ready force while ensuring the protection of human health
and the environment in the communities surrounding ranges, in fiscal
year 2009.
o Within its sustainable range program regulation issued in 2005, the
Army developed a policy to address clearance of training ranges. Range
clearance is conducted to allow safe access to ranges and preclude
accumulation of munitions and debris.
o To develop an Army-wide range inventory and database, the Army is
using geographic information system data and storing this information
on a central server managed by the Office of the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management.
o To more effectively address encroachment concerns, the Army has
completed its Sustainable Range Program Outreach Policy and
Communications Plan, which it began in 2003. The plan provides policy
guidance and tools to assist installations in effectively
communicating live training requirements and encroachment challenges
with the public.
Summary of Navy Initiatives
Listed below are several of the Navy's initiatives to improve its
assessment and management of training ranges.
o The Navy has completed Range Complex Management Plans on 12 out of 16
range complexes, and intends to complete the remaining plans by the
end of 2007. The purpose of the Range Complex Management Plans is to
assess training range capabilities and encroachment issues and to
assist in the day-to-day management of the training ranges.
o The Navy headquarters range office, in conjunction with the Navy
environmental readiness office, is a developing servicewide range
sustainment policy that assigns specific range sustainment
responsibilities to each level of the range support command structure
and integrates sustainment strategies from the test and training
communities. The policy was originally scheduled to be issued by
September 2006; however, due to funding issues and changes in
organizational responsibility, Navy officials believe this policy will
not be issued until September 2007.
o To assess off-range migration of munitions contaminants, the Navy
conducted range assessments on 11 training range complexes and 2 major
range and test facilities bases.
o In late 2006, the Navy completed initial development of a Navy-wide
encroachment database. The Navy will work to finalize database
development and link it to established repositories of information.
The Navy will use this repository of information to prepare reports
and testimony to Congress and for encroachment program funding
justification.
Summary of Marine Corps Initiatives
The Marine Corps has made progress though the following initiatives to
improve its assessment and management of training ranges.
o The Marine Corps has been working to modernize its ranges to include
more urban terrain and improvised explosive device training.
o The Marine Corps issued its Training Ranges Required Capabilities
Document in June 2006. This document validates the requirements for
its ranges and training areas over the next 10-year period and
identifies shortfalls in range capabilities that will form the basis
for the Marine Corps' investment strategies for range operations,
maintenance, and modernization.
o The Marine Corps has developed several management tools, such as
its training range encroachment information system and range
environmental vulnerability assessment program, to evaluate and
report to decision makers on encroachment and its impacts and to
assist in the development of strategies to engage federal, state,
and local agencies in solving encroachment issues. The
encroachment
o information system was initiated at Camp Pendleton in 2003.
According to Marine Corps officials, current plans are to
implement the system at all of their ranges by the end of 2007.
The prior year's plans were to have the system completely
implemented by the end of fiscal year 2006, but actual system
implementation was more difficult than originally planned.
o To assess off-range migration of munitions contaminants, the Marine
Corps conducted eight visits to Marine Corps training ranges between
fiscal years 2004 and 2006. The Marine Corps is currently conducting
analysis of the data gathered during these site visits. During fiscal
year 2007, the Marine Corps will conduct an additional four site
visits.
o The Marine Corps developed a Training Range Encroachment Information
System Tool to automate range and training capability analyses. This
tool will interface with and provide capabilities assessment data to
the Marine Corps' Range and Training Area Management System and the
Range Complex Management Plans. This tool is entering a
proof-of-concept phase to be completed in 2007.
Summary of Air Force Initiatives
The Air Force has also made strides through the following initiatives to
improve its assessment and management of training ranges.
o The Air Force developed a management tool to standardize its
comprehensive range plans and intends to have comprehensive range
plans for all training ranges by 2008.
o The Air Force completed its Operational Range Assessment Plan in March
2006, which provided guidance for assessing off-range migration of
munitions contaminants. By the end of 2006, eight major air-to-ground
ranges or range complexes had been assessed, with three more scheduled
to begin in 2007.
o The Air Force developed a Natural Infrastructure Assessment Process to
evaluate the availability or lack of availability of the natural
infrastructure needed to support current and future mission
requirements at major installations and ranges. This assessment
includes quantifying mission impacts caused by encroachment and will
assist commanders in identifying and prioritizing initiatives to
address mission inefficiencies and encroachment. The Air Force plans
to assess all of its installations and ranges by the end of 2008.
Enclosure IV
Comments from the Department of Defense
Enclosure V
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Brian Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or [30]leporeb@gao.gov
Acknowledgments
In addition to the person named above, Mark Little, Assistant Director;
Leslie Bharadwaja; Larry Bridges; Joanne Landesman; and Katherine Lenane
made key contributions to this report.
(351030)
References
Visible links
26. http://www.gao.gov/
27. mailto:holmanb@gao.gov
30. mailto:leporeb@gao.gov
*** End of document. ***