Page 1 GAO-12-879R Military Training

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements and Improved Its 

Sustainable Ranges Report

The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on access to military land, airspace, sea space, and 

frequency spectrum to provide its forces a realistic training environment that will ready them to 

face combat or complex missions around the globe. Over the decades, however, several 

factors collectively known as encroachment have increasingly challenged the military’s access 

to these resources.1 Additionally, increased operational tempo and overseas deployments, 

specifically in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have strained the ability of some 

existing range resources and infrastructures to continue supporting training at the levels 

required by DOD and the military services. To respond to these challenges and increase the 

long-term sustainability of its military range resources, DOD has launched a number of efforts 

aimed both at preserving its training ranges and addressing the effects of its training activities 

on the environment and on local communities.

Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as 

amended)2 required DOD to submit a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities 

available to the department to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of 

military lands, marine areas, and airspace in the United States and overseas to Congress at 

the same time as the President submitted his budget for fiscal year 2004. Further, Section 366 

required DOD to submit an annual progress report to Congress along with the President’s 

budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. To address these requirements, DOD has 

submitted an annual sustainable ranges report since 2004. In addition, the act directed us to 

submit annual evaluations of DOD’s reports to Congress within 90 days of receiving these 

reports from DOD.3

 

1

DOD defines range “encroachment” as external influences that threaten or constrain range and operating area 

activities required for force training and testing. Encroachment includes, but is not limited to, endangered species 

and critical habitat, unexploded ordnance and munitions, electronic frequency spectrum, maritime sustainability, 

airspace restrictions, air quality, airborne noise, and urban growth.

Our review of DOD’s 2012 sustainable ranges report is our ninth annual

report in response to the act. In this review, we discuss (1) the extent to which DOD’s 2012 

sustainable ranges report meets the statutory requirements and (2) the extent to which DOD 

has acted on GAO recommendations to improve its report submissions and what 

2

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) 

and section 1075(g)(2) of Pub. L. No. 111-383 (2011) made clerical amendments to section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-

364.

3

Section 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).
Page 2 GAO-12-879R Military Training

opportunities, if any, exist for DOD to improve future reporting. In accordance with the act, we 

are submitting this report to you.

To determine the extent to which DOD's 2012 sustainable ranges report meets the 

requirements specified by section 366, we reviewed DOD’s 2012 report and compared it to the 

reporting requirements contained in the act. We also identified and reviewed specific elements 

of DOD’s comprehensive range sustainment plan that demonstrate how DOD met the 

statutory requirements. Further, we compared the 2011 and 2012 sustainable ranges reports 

to identify any improvements DOD had made and the extent to which the current report 

addressed GAO’s prior recommendations. In addition, we met with Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and military service officials to discuss the 

extent to which the 2012 report met the act’s requirements and addressed key 

recommendations made in prior GAO reports. We also discussed with these officials the 

extent to which opportunities may exist for improving future sustainable ranges reporting. The 

intent of our review was not to comprehensively evaluate the data presented in the 2012 

sustainable ranges report but rather to determine the extent to which the report met the 

mandated requirements and whether DOD’s reporting could be improved.

We conducted this performance audit between April 2012 and September 2012 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

Results in Brief

In our view, DOD’s 2012 sustainable ranges report meets the annual statutory reporting 

requirements that DOD describe its progress in implementing its sustainable ranges plan and 

any additional actions taken or to be taken in addressing training constraints caused by 

limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace. DOD’s 2012 report also 

provides updates to several elements of the plan that the act required DOD to include in its 

original submission in 2004. These elements include (1) proposals to enhance training range 

capabilities and address any shortfalls in resources, (2) goals and milestones for tracking 

planned actions and measuring progress, and (3) projected funding requirements for 

implementing planned actions, among others. Taken together, these elements of DOD’s 2012 

sustainable ranges report describe the department’s progress in implementing its 

comprehensive plan and addressing training constraints at its ranges, thus meeting the annual 

reporting requirements of the act.

DOD has taken action in response to all 13 prior GAO recommendations that focused on 

meeting the requirements of the act and improving the report submissions and has completed 

implementation of all but two of those recommendations. In response to three 

recommendations in our 2011 report, DOD included additional information in its goals, actions, 

and milestones and funding requirements sections in the 2012 sustainable ranges report. In 

our earlier reviews of DOD’s annual sustainable ranges report, we identified a total of 10 

recommendations. DOD has since completed implementation of all but two of the prior 

recommendations, which related to readiness reporting. DOD has been addressing these two 

recommendations by developing and testing a range assessment module for the Defense 

Readiness Reporting System (DRRS), and expects to complete its review by the end of fiscal 

year 2012. Through the changes DOD has implemented in its annual reporting over the past 
Page 3 GAO-12-879R Military Training

several years, many based on GAO recommendations, DOD has continued to improve its 

reporting on its sustainable ranges. We are making no new recommendations in this report.

Background

DOD has been reporting to Congress since fiscal year 2004 on several items related to its 

training ranges in response to section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Section 366(a) required DOD to submit a comprehensive plan to 

Congress at the same time that the President submitted his budget for fiscal year 2004 for 

using existing authorities available to the department to address training constraints caused by 

limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace. The act also required 

annual progress reports at the same time that the President submitted his budget for fiscal 

years 2005 through 2013. As part of the preparation of this plan, the Secretary of Defense was 

to conduct an assessment of current and future training range requirements and an evaluation 

of the adequacy of DOD’s current range resources to meet those requirements. Additionally, 

the 2004 plan was 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 for implementing planned actions, and (4) designation of an office in the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense and in each of the military departments with lead responsibility for 

overseeing implementation of the plan.

Further, Section 366(a)(5) required 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. Moreover, 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. Also, section 366(c) required DOD to develop and maintain a training 

range inventory to be submitted at the same time as the President’s budget for fiscal year 

2004 and annual updates for 2005 through 2013. Finally, Section 366(d), as amended, 

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 of receiving these 

reports from DOD.

In addition to the sustainable ranges report, DOD provides Congress the Readiness and 

Environmental Protection Initiative Report, which is required separately under 10 U.S.C. § 

2684a. Under the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative program, DOD works with 

conservation organizations and state and local governments to preserve buffer lands around 

military installations and ranges. The annual report describes, among other things, certain 

projects and other actions undertaken as part of a long-term strategy to ensure sustainability 

of military test and training ranges, military installations, and associated airspace. 

Consequently, the report on the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative program 

complements the sustainable ranges report in addressing some actions taken by DOD to 

mitigate encroachment on military installations and ranges that require, or may reasonably 

require, safety or operational buffer areas. Although both reports respond to statutory reporting 

requirements, they target different aspects of DOD’s efforts to capture mission requirements, 

current asset capability, and current and future risks to these capabilities from encroachment.
Page 4 GAO-12-879R Military Training

DOD Met the Annual Reporting Requirements in Its 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report

The 2012 sustainable ranges report met the annual statutory reporting requirements that DOD 

describe its progress in implementing its sustainable ranges plan and any actions taken or to 

be taken in addressing training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, 

marine areas, and airspace. In its report, DOD provided updates to several elements of the 

plan required by the act to be included in DOD’s original submission in 2004. These elements 

include (1) proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls in 

resources, (2) goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and 

(3) projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions, among others.4

DOD Reported Proposals to Enhance Range Capabilities and Address Resource Shortfalls

In our review of DOD’s 2012 sustainable ranges report, we found that DOD again reported, as 

it did in 2011, on its proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any 

shortfalls in resources. DOD bases those proposals on its assessment of current and future 

training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources to 

meet those requirements. DOD chose to meet the statutory requirements, for example, by 

updating both the individual range assessments as well as the special interest sections 

developed by each service. In its 2012 report, DOD augmented the current and future training 

requirements chapter with a discussion of three emerging challenges to training and the 

resources necessary to address that training, which DOD states will shape the future of DOD 

training and ranges. The three challenges are: limitations on frequency spectrum, the growth 

in unmanned aerial systems operations, and cyber warfare. For example, the report stated that 

the growing prevalence of wireless technology and the demand for additional frequency 

conflicts with DOD’s requirement to train personnel for increasingly complex missions using 

higher-performance weapons. DOD cited increasing competition for frequency spectrum that 

will require the department to employ technological innovation and improved scheduling to 

more efficiently use the spectrum allocated to it. Also, each service provided an overview of its 

training range and operating area requirements, identified current and future range 

requirements, and briefly discussed the mission areas—or types of training events—that 

commanders use to accomplish their missions and training objectives. For example, the Air 

Force introduced a new plan for an Airspace Advisory Committee that will solicit input from 

aviation stakeholders, including industry and the military services, regarding future airspace 

initiatives the Air Force is conducting or considering.

Another chapter of the 2012 sustainable ranges report focuses on the adequacy of existing 

range resources to meet training requirements. This chapter includes DOD’s annual 

assessment process for evaluating the adequacy of each service’s resources to meet current 

and future training range requirements, including military lands, marine areas, and airspace 

available in the United States and overseas.5

 

4

Section 366 (a)(4)(C) required the submission of any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to 

address training constraints in the 2004 comprehensive plan. While DOD has never submitted such 

recommendations with its sustainable ranges report, the department explained in its 2007 report that it had an 

alternate mechanism in place for transmitting legislative proposals to Congress. See GAO, Improvement Continues 

in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and 

Comprehensive Plan, GAO-08-10R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 2007).

In the 2012 report, DOD continued to assess its 

5

In the 2012 report, each service identified the number of ranges in its inventory as well as its rationale for excluding 

certain ranges from its capability and encroachment assessments. For example, the Army did not include many 

small individual training ranges that are managed through local Army National Guard state agreements and 

policies.
Page 5 GAO-12-879R Military Training

ranges against a common set of 13 capability attributes and 12 encroachment factors that 

constrain training ranges to evaluate their ability to support assigned training missions.6 Each 

military service included its observations of these capability attributes and encroachment 

factors that are assessed against its own service-specific mission areas while providing a 

consistent approach across DOD. The military services assign a rating to each capability and 

encroachment item—indicated as red, yellow, or green—to convey the severity of the impacts 

of the constraints on the ranges’ ability to support their assigned mission training 

requirements.7 In our 2011 report, we reported that DOD has continued to make 

improvements each year to its range assessments, including how the information is presented 

in its report, and we found that DOD also provided this information in its 2012 sustainable 

ranges report.8 For example, the section on historical information, results, and future 

projections provided a qualitative assessment of each range by presenting overall rating 

scores from prior years as well as comments on whether the capabilities or encroachment 

pressures have been improving or degrading over the years and the outlook for the future.

Further, following the assessment details for each range, the military services provided 

observations that included explanations of how any capability and encroachment shortfalls 

rated severe or moderate risk were affecting training at a specific range. The services also 

described any planned or ongoing actions to remedy the shortfalls. For example, the Army 

identified training areas at Fort Carson and the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado, that 

have not been surveyed for cultural resources, which limits the service’s ability to conduct 

large scale maneuver exercises until those lands have been surveyed. The Army assessed 

the encroachment factor as red, meaning a severe risk, and commented that the installation is 

completing surveys and working with the state of Colorado on the historic preservation 

consultation process. Finally, each military service provided additional information and 

perspectives on any areas of special interest that impact or may impact its training capabilities 

and encroachment situation. In the 2012 sustainable ranges report, for example, the Marine 

Corps discussed some of its major encroachment concerns at Camp Pendleton, California, to 

illustrate the many different challenges that can threaten the service’s capabilities at its range 

complexes. Key challenges identified by the Marine Corps included endangered species and 

habitat preservation, wetlands, cultural resources at known archeological sites, and urban 

development by the surrounding communities as they proposed initiatives for new water, 

energy, and transportation infrastructure. We have previously reported that highlighting the 

services’ most pressing range sustainability issues helps DOD officials prioritize the 

department’s actions to address range issues in the most efficient and effective manner.9

 

6

Examples of capability attributes include landspace, airspace, and seaspace; encroachment factors include 

threatened and endangered species, noise restrictions, and cultural resources.

7

For the capability attributes, the military services assess the ability of a range to support required training tasks for 

a given mission area. Red means the range is not mission capable; yellow indicates partially mission capable; and 

green is fully mission capable. For the encroachment factors, the military services assess the impact from each of 

these factors on the capabilities of their ranges and range complexes to support assigned training missions. Red 

means the encroachment factor has a severe effect or high risk to the range’s ability to support its assigned mission 

training; yellow indicates a moderate impact or medium risk; and green is minimal impact or low risk.

8

GAO, Military Training: DOD’s Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Meets Annual Reporting 

Requirements but Could Be Improved, GAO-12-13R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19, 2011).

9

GAO, Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges, GAO-10-

977R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2010) and DOD’s Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Addresses 

Most of the Congressional Reporting Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update, GAO-10-

103R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2009).
Page 6 GAO-12-879R Military Training

DOD Used Goals and Milestones to Report Progress in Implementing Its Comprehensive Plan

In its 2012 sustainable ranges report, DOD chose to continue using the goals, actions, and 

milestones section of the sustainable ranges report to help address the statutory requirement 

to describe its progress in implementing the comprehensive plan. DOD has developed goals 

that it determined were measurable, attainable, and more in line with the seven focus areas 

established by the Sustainable Ranges Overarching Integrated Product Team to guide the 

department’s sustainability activities.10 These seven goals are to: mitigate encroachment 

pressures on training activities from competing operating 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 sustain 

excellence in environmental stewardship.11 Each military service has developed its own 

milestones and actions to be taken to achieve those milestones, using these goals as a 

common framework. In the 2012 sustainable ranges report, each service provided updates to 

their milestones and actions, which we explain later in this report. DOD further stated that 

these goals and milestones will be reviewed and updated annually to ensure that DOD 

continues to effectively address potential future training requirements and constraints. As we 

have previously reported, by including goals along with service-specific actions and 

milestones, DOD has provided measurable data for identifying and tracking progress in 

mitigating encroachment. This measurable data will enable DOD and congressional decision 

makers to more accurately assess the department’s progress toward the goal of DOD-wide 

training range sustainment.12

DOD’s Projected Funding Requirements Help Track Progress in Implementing Planned 

Actions

In the 2012 sustainable ranges report, DOD also chose to help meet the statutory requirement 

to track its progress in implementing the comprehensive plan by identifying the funding 

requirements needed to accomplish its identified goals. DOD has established four funding 

categories to be used by the services when projecting their range sustainment efforts: 

modernization and investment, operation and maintenance, environmental, and 

encroachment.13

 

10The Sustainable Ranges Overarching Integrated Product Team operates on two levels. The team coordinates and 

helps develop range sustainment strategies. The Working Integrated Product Team is the staff-level working body 

that supports the Overarching Integrated Product Team by coordinating and communicating ongoing sustainment 

activities.

The funding requirements section also included definitions and specific 

examples for each category as well as an estimate of the services’ range sustainability funding 

levels for the current fiscal year and the 4 subsequent fiscal years. The modernization and 

investment category, for example, is described as funding for research, development, 

acquisition, and capital investments in ranges and range infrastructure. Examples of funding 

11In the 2006 sustainable ranges report, DOD first identified the broad goals and milestones it had established for 

tracking planned actions and measuring progress in four critical range sustainment areas—modernization and 

investment, operations and maintenance, environmental, and encroachment—to guide range sustainability activities 

through fiscal year 2011. However, in fiscal year 2009, the department determined that many of the goals and 

milestones had been overcome by other events or outlived their relevance, and it identified the seven new goals in 

the 2010 sustainable ranges report.

12GAO-10-977R. 

13These categories were aligned with DOD’s four original critical range sustainment areas as described above. 

They did not change when DOD increased the number of focus areas from four to seven in 2010.
Page 7 GAO-12-879R Military Training

for this category included construction of new multipurpose training ranges at Army 

installations and upgrades to small arms ranges. According to DOD, defining each of the 

funding categories helps ensure consistent data reporting across the services.

Additionally, the 2012 report, as with prior reports, addressed the challenges of reporting on 

the funding requirements associated with implementing its range sustainability initiatives. 

Specifically, DOD has stated that the military services differ in the processes and programs 

they use to manage their range programs, based upon their command structures, missions, 

and financial processes. Further, DOD described the difficulty of projecting funding for range 

sustainment efforts because funding sources are spread across and embedded within various 

appropriations—such as operation and maintenance, military personnel, procurement, or 

military construction. Also, the funding is spread between several program elements, which 

can include manpower, training, real property, or utilities. Even though DOD laid out the 

challenges it faces in reporting on range sustainability funding in a consolidated manner at the 

department level, it acknowledged that the four funding categories provide a framework for the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services to track, report, and project the 

need for future range sustainability funding. In its 2012 report, the department also stated that 

the ability to compare the status of resources against the results of range capabilities and 

encroachment assessments helped the department address its progress on resolving range 

sustainability issues, as required by the act. As we have consistently reported in our reviews of 

DOD’s sustainable ranges reports, projecting funding requirements of range sustainment 

efforts helps provide the best information to congressional decision makers on budget tradeoffs to address training shortfalls caused by limitations on range resources.14

DOD Has Addressed GAO’s Past Recommendations and Improved Its Annual Report on 

Sustainable Ranges

DOD has implemented 11 of GAO’s 13 recommendations since 2004 for expanding and 

improving its reporting on sustainable ranges, and DOD officials stated that they are still in the 

process of implementing the last two recommendations. In our prior reviews of DOD’s 

sustainable ranges reports, we noted that DOD had not addressed certain required elements 

when it initially submitted its comprehensive plan in 2004. Over time, however, we have 

concluded that DOD has increasingly improved its report submissions. We continue to believe 

that DOD’s ongoing refinements are valuable for both the visibility of DOD’s progress toward 

its goals and to assist decision makers in determining the department’s future fiscal needs for 

sustaining its training ranges.

DOD Has Completed Implementation of Most of GAO’s Recommendations from Prior Reports

DOD implemented the 3 recommendations in our 2011 report and has completed 

implementation of 8 of the 10 recommendations in our reports from 2004 through 2010. The 

department is still in the process of implementing the remaining two recommendations.

Status of GAO’s 2011 Recommendations

In our 2011 review, we made three new recommendations to DOD that its 2012 sustainable 

ranges report include additional information in the goals, actions, and milestones and the 

funding requirements sections, and DOD has implemented all three of the recommendations in 

 

14GAO-10-103R.
Page 8 GAO-12-879R Military Training

its report.15 The intent of our recommendations was to improve the visibility of DOD’s progress 

in achieving its stated sustainability goals and milestones and to assist congressional decision

makers in determining future range sustainment fiscal needs. Figure 1 summarizes our 2011 

recommendations and the status of DOD’s implementation of those recommendations.

Figure 1: List of GAO 2011 Recommendations and the Status of DOD’s Implementation of Those 

Recommendations

During our 2011 review, DOD concurred with our first recommendation, which was to include 

in its 2012 sustainable ranges report a brief narrative that describes the progress made since 

the prior year’s report for each action and milestone in the goals, actions, and milestones 

section. In our 2011 report, we had found that there was insufficient information to effectively 

track and measure the overall progress of each action and the related milestones that each 

military service had developed to help achieve DOD’s common goals. The report included 

information only about the respective milestone’s description and the estimated completion 

date. Specifically, in our comparison of the 2010 and 2011 reports, we found that DOD officials 

revised some milestone completion dates, deleted some actions and milestones in the 2011 

report that were in the 2010 report, and included some new actions and milestones. In our 

review of DOD’s 2012 sustainable ranges report, we found that DOD had expanded the tables 

that show the current status of the milestones for each of the seven common goals. Each table 

now includes two additional columns, one that identifies the status of each milestone and 

another to provide additional service comments on progress made on many of the milestones 

since the 2011 report. For example, in the 2012 report, the Marine Corps established three 

new actions accompanied by multiple milestones to address the common DOD goal to 

address impacts from new energy infrastructure and renewable energy impacts. The status 

and comments columns identified these items as new actions and milestones. Similarly, in the 

2011 report, the Navy had established a milestone to define and codify organizational roles 

and responsibilities to streamline Navy assessments of renewable energy proposals by the 

end of fiscal year 2011. This milestone also supported DOD’s renewable energy goal. In the 

2012 sustainable ranges report, the Navy indicated that the status of this milestone was 

complete and specified the year of completion in its additional service comments. Because 

these actions and milestones were identified as new or completed, we were better able to 

identify the changes in the goals, actions, and milestones section between the 2011 and 2012 

reports. Thus, we found that the additional two columns provide more specific information that 

helps inform the readers when a new action or milestone is added to the report—and when an 

action or milestone has been completed, revised, updated, or deleted—and enables DOD to 

better explain the progress that each service has made in meeting its planned actions and 

milestones.

 

15GAO-12-13R.
Page 9 GAO-12-879R Military Training

Further, we recommended in our 2011 report that DOD provide an explanation for why the 

Army’s funding projections for the encroachment category excluded the funds required to 

execute buffer projects under the Compatible Use Buffer program.16 DOD partially concurred 

with our recommendation and later implemented the recommendation in its 2012 sustainable 

ranges report. In our review of the 2011 sustainable ranges report, we found that neither the 

Army nor the Air Force provided any funding projections for the encroachment category. While 

the Air Force provided its reason for being unable to provide projected funds for this category, 

the Army did not include an explanation for why funds used in support of the Army Compatible 

Use Buffer program are not captured in the 2011 report. In its written comments to our 2011 

report, DOD stated that the Army’s Compatible Use Buffer initiative is not a program of record 

with its own dedicated funding stream; however, the Army noted that it was working to 

estimate the funding associated with Army Compatible Use Buffer administration and support 

and include that information in DOD’s 2012 report. Subsequently, in our current review, we 

found that the Army was able to provide projected funding for the encroachment category of 

$6.4 million per year for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The Army reported this funding 

projection as an increase from the 2011 report and attributed the funding projections in part to 

being able to estimate manpower funding associated with centralized Army Compatible Use 

Buffer program administration and management. Additionally, the Army programmed funds for 

this program into its budget process rather than relying on end-of-year funding from other 

programs, as it had done previously. However, according to Army officials, the Army is 

uncertain about the availability of the funds projected for spending in future years because of 

risk factors such as changes in force structure and potential budget reductions.

Our 2011 report also recommended that DOD provide an explanation in its 2012 report for 

significant fluctuations in funding projections, including fluctuations reported between fiscal 

years that are included in the current report as well as those that would otherwise be apparent 

only by comparing the prior report to the current one. DOD partially concurred with the 

recommendation and implemented it in its 2012 sustainable ranges report. In its written 

response to our 2011 report, DOD stated that the intent of the financial reporting section of its 

report is to provide broad insight into future program requirements and not to serve as a 

financial statement for accounting purposes. However, the department noted that it would 

attempt to discuss significant fluctuations in the proposed funding profiles in its 2012 report. In 

our current review, we found that DOD had expanded the funding requirements section to 

include a summary of significant funding fluctuations observed across the reporting years and 

between the 2011 and 2012 sustainable ranges reports. In the 2012 sustainable ranges report, 

each military service presented a summary of the extent of changes in all four funding 

categories—even those that remained relatively stable across the reporting years and since 

the previous DOD report—and provided more detailed explanations of any significant changes 

in funding. For example, the Air Force discussed the large fluctuations in its reported funding 

projections for both the modernization and investment and the operation and maintenance 

categories when compared to the previous report. As part of its summary, the Air Force 

provided revised funding projections for these two funding categories, addressing the error 

that we identified in our 2011 review.17

 

16The 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.

By including this additional funding information, DOD

17In our 2011 review, we compared DOD’s 2010 and 2011 reports and found a 56 percent decrease in the Air 

Force’s projections for fiscal year 2012 funding in the modernization and investment category and a 51 percent 

decrease in the operation and maintenance category. Following discussions with Air Force officials concerning the 

reasons for these decreases, the Air Force provided us revised funding amounts. According to Air Force officials, 

the service had inadvertently omitted funds for one of its program elements. See GAO-12-13R.
Page 10 GAO-12-879R Military Training

has provided readers of the report with more clarity on the changes in funding projections 

between the current and previous years’ reports, thereby improving the usefulness of the 

report.

Status of GAO’s Recommendations from 2004 through 2010

From 2004 through 2010, we completed seven reviews of DOD’s annual sustainable ranges 

reports, identified areas for potential improvement, and made a total of 10 recommendations 

aimed at improving DOD’s report submissions. DOD has completed implementation of 8 of the 

10 recommendations. DOD officials stated that they are continuing to work on implementing 2 

remaining recommendations from our 2004 report, which relate to readiness reporting. DOD 

has been addressing the two recommendations by developing and testing a range 

assessment module for DRRS, and expects to complete its review by the end of fiscal year 

2012. Figure 2 summarizes our recommendations from 2004 through 2010, and the status of 

DOD’s implementation of those recommendations.

Figure 2: GAO Recommendations from 2004-2010 Reviews and the Status of DOD’s Implementation of 

Those Recommendations

a

DOD has taken action to address GAO’s recommendation but implementation is still in progress.

In 2004, we reviewed DOD’s first sustainable ranges report and made four recommendations 

to assist the department in developing its comprehensive training range plan and to address 
Page 11 GAO-12-879R Military Training

other congressional reporting requirements. DOD has implemented two of those 

recommendations, and officials stated that they are in the process of implementing the 

remaining two.

• One remaining GAO recommendation whose implementation is still in progress is for 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to develop an integrated training range database 

that would serve as the baseline for the mandated comprehensive training range plan. 

We had stated that this database should identify available training resources, specific 

capacities and capabilities, and training constraints caused by encroachment and other 

factors, which could be continuously updated and shared among the services at all 

command levels, regardless of service ownership. Although DOD did not concur with 

our recommendation to develop a stand-alone training range database, DOD is 

developing a range module to be included in DRRS. The module will provide an 

integrated database that identifies available training resources and constraints, which 

would meet the intent of our recommendation.18

• The second remaining recommendation is for DOD to develop a readiness reporting 

system to reflect the impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to 

limitations on the use of training ranges. Section 366(b) required DOD to report to 

Congress its plans to improve its readiness reporting system—the Global Status of 

Resources and Training System—to reflect the extent that limitations on the use of 

training ranges impacted readiness. DOD did not agree with our recommendation and 

stated that it was inappropriate to modify this system to address encroachment. 

However, DOD stated that the department planned to incorporate the impact of range 

encroachment on readiness into DRRS, which was under development at that time. 

Providing Congress with information on DOD’s progress toward improving readiness 

reporting—whether through DRRS or another system—to reflect the impact of rangerelated training constraints on readiness would meet the intent of our 

recommendation.19

Both of these recommendations are tied to the development of DRRS, and, in our review of 

the 2012 sustainable ranges report, we found that DOD continues to make progress in 

improving this system by incorporating training range assessment data. As we reported in 

2011, DOD is using a phased approach to enhance DRRS by establishing a range 

assessment module to address range resource and readiness issues.

• The first phase of development used the methodology for manually collecting and 

reporting range assessment data for the annual sustainable ranges reports as a 

baseline for developing the online capability of a range assessment module. This 

phase was completed in May 2009.

• The second phase for developing the range assessment module in DRRS was to link 

the range assessments with the operational readiness reporting processes of DOD and 

the military services. This phase was expected to ultimately provide the capability for 

 

18In 2002, DOD Directive 7730.65, Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) (June 3, 2002),

established the DRRS 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. 

19GAO, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional Reporting 

Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004).
Page 12 GAO-12-879R Military Training

users of a range to examine the extent to which encroachment factors affect that 

range’s ability to support various operational capabilities. According to DOD, this phase 

was completed in June 2010; however, DOD reported that funding shortfalls required 

the department to defer additional testing and development of the range assessment 

module to a third phase.

• The third phase, which was funded in fiscal year 2011, will fully incorporate the range 

assessment module into DRRS. In its 2012 sustainable ranges report, DOD stated that 

the target date for completing the phase III system functionality was June 2012. 

According to DOD officials, the technical capability of the range assessment module is 

fully functional; however, DOD and the military services are still reviewing the 

functionality of the module to ensure that it is interoperable within the various data 

systems and to identify any business process changes that might be needed. The 

officials told us that this review of the range assessment module is expected to be 

completed by the end of fiscal year 2012.

In its 2012 report, DOD stated that, once fully implemented, the range assessment module 

could serve as an important decision support tool for both the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the military services. In addition, this module will provide end-users with a more 

strategic assessment of individual range capabilities by identifying available training resources 

and constraints.

DOD Has Continued to Improve Its Report on Sustainable Ranges

In our prior reviews, we have concluded that DOD has increasingly improved its sustainable 

ranges report submissions over time, and, as discussed above, the department has continued 

to improve its reporting with its 2012 report. We found in our initial reviews that DOD had not 

addressed certain required elements of its comprehensive plan in its initial report in 2004. 

Further, we noted that it took DOD some time to develop a plan consistent with the basic 

requirements of section 366. As DOD has reported annually on its progress in implementing its 

comprehensive plan, it has continued to improve its sustainable ranges reports and has 

reported on the actions it has taken in response to various GAO recommendations. Specific 

examples include the special interest sections for each service; the goals, actions, and 

milestones section; the funding requirements section; and the individual range assessments. 

• One key improvement in DOD’s annual reporting is each service’s development of a 

special interest section that briefly highlights critical issues facing the services 

regarding range capabilities and encroachment factors. We have 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.

• We have also noted the improvements DOD has made in how it measures its progress 

in implementing its comprehensive plan and tracks its planned actions to address 

training constraints caused by limitations on the use of its ranges. For example, over 

time the department shifted from four common goals and milestones to seven shared 

goals for which the services have developed their own actions and milestones that are 

tailored to their missions. We have reported that these new goals and milestones are 

more quantifiable and are now associated with identified time frames. Although the 

status of these milestones represents a point in time and some changes may have 

occurred as DOD’s report worked its way through the review process, these 
Page 13 GAO-12-879R Military Training

improvements continue to provide a clearer picture of the progress DOD has been 

making toward achieving these common range sustainment goals.

• Another key improvement we have acknowledged is DOD’s reporting on its projected 

funding requirements. We have reported that, given the challenges DOD has identified 

in projecting funding across various appropriations and program elements, the 

department has improved its reporting by shifting from annual funding projections to 

longer-range estimates for the four funding categories. DOD’s annual reports now 

provide descriptive information on these funding categories, project future range 

sustainment fiscal needs, and identify significant changes to the funding categories for 

each service. As we have reported, by projecting its funding requirements for range 

sustainment, DOD can provide the best information to congressional decision makers 

on budget trade-offs to address training shortfalls caused by limitations on range 

resources.

• Finally, we have noted that DOD has improved the information in the military services’ 

range assessments in its annual reports. For example, DOD now includes narratives 

with range-specific detail in the report body. 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. Additionally, each service now provides its reasons for not 

evaluating certain ranges as part of its process for assessing the capabilities and 

constraints of the ranges in its inventory.

Agency Comments

We are not making recommendations in this report. We provided a draft of this report to DOD 

for review and comment. In response, DOD stated that it agreed in general with the report and 

had no specific comments. A copy of DOD’s letter is in enclosure I.

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary 

of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at 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

Brian J. Lepore

. 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 major contributions 

to this report are listed in enclosure II.

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures - 2
Page 14 GAO-12-879R Military Training

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 Howard P. McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Page 15 GAO-12-879R Military Training

Enclosure I

Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 16 GAO-12-879R Military Training

Enclosure II

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

include Harold Reich, Assistant Director; Karyn Angulo; Ashley Houston; Charles Perdue; 

Richard Powelson; Michael Silver; Amie Steele; John Van Schaik; and Michael Willems.
Page 17 GAO-12-879R Military Training

Related GAO Products

Military Training: DOD’s Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Meets Annual 

Reporting Requirements but Could Be Improved. GAO-12-13R. Washington, D.C.: October 

19, 2011.

Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the Sustainability of Training 

Ranges. GAO-10-977R. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2010.

Military Training: DOD’s Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Addresses Most of 

the Congressional Reporting Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual 

Update. GAO-10-103R. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2009.

Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan. GAO-09-128R. Washington, D.C.: 

December 15, 2008.

Military Training: Compliance with Environmental Laws Affects Some Training Activities, but 

DOD Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for Additional Environmental Exemptions. GAO08-407. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2008.

Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan. GAO-08-10R. Washington, D.C.: 

October 11, 2007.

Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges but Additional Time Is 

Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives. GAO-06-725R. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.

Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban Operations Training and Facilities Should 

Be Based on Sound Strategy and Requirements. GAO-06-193. Washington, D.C.: December 

8, 2005.

Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD’s Annual Training Range Reporting but It Still 

Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements. GAO-06-29R. Washington, D.C.: October 

25, 2005.

Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Program to Transform Joint Training. 

GAO-05-548. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005.

Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve Conditions of 

Military Training Ranges. GAO-05-534. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.

Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional 

Reporting Requirements. GAO-04-608. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004.

Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for 

Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges. GAO-03-976. Washington, D.C.: September 

29, 2003.

Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges Still 

Evolving. GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003.
Page 18 GAO-12-879R Military Training

Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training 

Ranges. GAO-02-614. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002.

Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training 

Ranges. GAO-02-727T. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002.

Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness Reporting. 

GAO-02-525. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002.

(351725)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.