United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 27, 2009 

Congressional Committees 

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

the Congressional Reporting Requirements and Continues to Improve with Each Annual Update 

A fundamental principle of military readiness is that the military must train as it intends to fight. Military 

training ranges provide the primary means to accomplish this goal. The Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

training ranges vary in size from a few acres, for small arms training, to over a million acres for large 

maneuver exercises and weapons testing, and include broad open ocean areas for offshore training and 

testing. New advances in military technology, coupled with the complexity of recent military operations 

in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations around the world, generate the need to continually update and 

maintain DOD’s training ranges. Senior DOD and military service officials have reported for some time 

that they face increasing difficulties in carrying out realistic training at military installations due to 

outside influences. DOD has defined a number of factors—including competition for broadcast 

frequencies or airspace, air pollution, noise pollution, endangered species, critical habitats and other 

protected resources, unexploded ordinance and munitions, urban growth around installations, and 

civilian access—that it says encroach upon its training ranges and capabilities. 

Because the military faces obstacles in acquiring new training lands, the preservation and sustainment of 

its current lands is a priority. Sustainable training range management focuses on practices that allow the 

military to manage its ranges in a way that ensures their usefulness well into the future. As required by 

section 366(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended),1

DOD was to submit a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the department to 

address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of worldwide military lands, marine areas, 

and airspace to Congress in fiscal year 2004 with annual progress reports beginning in fiscal year 2005 

and extending through 2013. As part of the preparation of this plan, the Secretary of Defense was to 

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

adequacy of DOD’s current range resources to meet those requirements. The plan was also to include: 

proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls in resources identified 

pursuant to that assessment and evaluation; goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and 

measuring progress; projected funding requirements to implement planned actions; and a designation of 

an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in each of the military departments responsible 

for overseeing implementation of the plan. Section 366(a)(5) requires that DOD’s annual reports 

describe the department’s progress in implementing its comprehensive plan and any actions taken or to 

be taken to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 107-314 (2002). Section 366 originally required reports for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. However, this 

requirement was extended through 2013 by section 348 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006). Additionally, section 1063(c)(2) of Pub. L. No. 110-181 (2008) made a clerical amendment to 

section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364. 

Page 1 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
and airspace. Section 366(b) required DOD to submit a report to Congress on its plans to improve its 

readiness reporting system to reflect the readiness impact of certain training constraints. Section 366(c) 

also required DOD to develop and maintain a training range inventory to be submitted with the 

President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 and annual updates for 2005 through 2013. Section 366(d) further 

required that we evaluate the plans submitted pursuant to subsections 366(a) and (b), and to submit our 

annual evaluations of DOD’s reports to Congress within 90 days2

 of receiving these reports from DOD. 

Enclosure I contains the full text of section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (as amended). 

This is our sixth review in response to this mandate. Although our prior reviews have disclosed that 

DOD had not addressed various elements of section 366 which it was required to include in its 2004 

comprehensive plan, we have also noted that DOD has improved its report submissions over time and 

has taken action on various GAO recommendations. (Enclosure II provides a list of our prior 

recommendations and DOD actions in response to those recommendations). This report discusses (1) 

DOD’s progress to date to address the elements of section 366 and (2) improvements incorporated in 

DOD’s 2009 annual sustainable ranges report as well as DOD’s plans for its 2010 report submission. In 

accordance with the mandate, we are submitting this report to you within 90 days after having received 

DOD’s 2009 sustainable ranges report on August 3, 2009. 

Scope and Methodology 

To better understand the basis of the annual sustainable ranges reporting requirement, we attended 

DOD’s second biannual sustainable ranges conference in Phoenix, Arizona in August 2009 where we met 

with military training officials and discussed encroachment issues currently facing military training 

ranges and some of the lessons learned in mitigating resulting range capability shortfalls affecting 

training and readiness. To determine the extent to which DOD had addressed the elements of section 

366 that were required to be included in its 2004 comprehensive plan, we summarized our work to date, 

including prior findings and recommendations and DOD’s progress to address these elements over time. 

We also reviewed the extent to which DOD’s sustainable ranges report has addressed the elements of 

subsection 366(a)(5). Although we were not required by section 366 to review DOD’s training range 

inventory which is included in the ranges report, we elected to do so, as we have done in past years, due 

to the inventory’s importance to the comprehensive training ranges plan. To determine what 

improvements DOD has made, as reflected in its 2009 report, and its plans for the next submission to 

Congress in 2010, we compared the 2009 report to the 2008 report and discussed key revisions with DOD 

officials involved with preparing these reports. We also discussed with Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) officials their plans and key initiatives for the 2010 report submission and reviewed the 

data request that they sent to the military services in June 2009 requesting information for the 2010 

report. We further discussed with these and other military service officials key initiatives they are 

undertaking or have planned for improving the utility of the report, including plans for improving DOD’s 

readiness reporting system to reflect the readiness impact of any training constraints associated with its 

training ranges. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through October 2009 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 

the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 

2

 This requirement was extended from 60 days to 90 days by section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364 (2006). 

Page 2 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Summary 

Since 2004, DOD has shown progress in addressing the elements included in section 366 of the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, including the development of an 

inventory of military training ranges. DOD’s 2009 sustainable ranges report and inventory are responsive 

to the element of 366 that requires DOD to describe the progress made in implementing its sustainable 

ranges plan and any additional action taken, or to be taken, to address training constraints caused by 

limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace. DOD has also made progress in 

addressing elements of section 366 that were required as part of DOD’s 2004 reporting requirements. For 

example, DOD has made strides to measure and report the impact that training constraints may have on 

readiness by developing approaches to incorporate ranges into DOD’s readiness reporting system. As 

part of its comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on its ranges, DOD 

has also developed and included in the 2009 report broad goals for this effort and has begun to include 

annual estimates of the funding required to meet these goals. However, while DOD has formulated some 

goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress, as it was required to do as 

part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, it has yet to develop quantifiable goals, which we have previously 

recommended to better track planned actions and measure progress for implementing planned actions.3

Without quantifiable goals and time frames associated with achieving milestones, it is difficult to 

measure and track the extent of progress actually made over time. In addition, while DOD has included 

some projected funding data, as it was required to do as part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, DOD has 

not yet included projected funding requirements that will be needed to implement its planned actions, as 

we also recommended previously, so that decision makers have better information available to make 

budget decisions. In order to better track its progress to address training constraints caused by 

limitations on its ranges, we reiterate our prior recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide a more complete plan to Congress 

that includes (l) quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress 

and (2) projected funding requirements to more fully address identified training constraints.4

 

DOD has made several improvements to its most recent 2009 report and plans “revolutionary changes” 

for 2010. For example, DOD has included detailed capability and encroachment data provided and used 

by the military services when making their capability assessments for each training range surveyed. DOD 

officials told us that they expect these data to provide improved information for more precise planning 

in the future. DOD also added a special interest section to highlight key issues affecting range capability 

and some of the actions taken to mitigate negative impacts, which should provide congressional decision 

makers and other users with a better understanding of the approaches being used to improve the 

capabilities of DOD’s ranges. Moreover, DOD has already begun to develop its 2010 report, which DOD 

officials told us they expect to issue in early 2010. DOD officials have stated that they intend to 

introduce “revolutionary changes” in that upcoming report, including revamping their goals and 

increasing the focus on specific encroachment issues such as mitigating frequency spectrum 

competition, managing increased military demand for range space, and meeting military airspace 

challenges. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our findings and provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated in this report as appropriate. 

 

3

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

GAO-04-608 (Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004). 

4 GAO-04-608. 

Page 3 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
DOD Has Addressed Most of the Provisions of Section 366, 

but Can Improve Sustainable Range Reporting 

Although DOD has now addressed most of the elements of section 366 requirements, its annual report 

could be further improved. DOD’s 2009 report provides an update on the continued progress being made 

in implementing the range sustainment plan and any additional actions it has taken or plans to take to 

address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and 

airspace, as required by section 366(a)(5). As we found in our prior reviews of DOD’s sustainable ranges 

reports, DOD continues to address most of the elements of section 366 which it was required to include 

in its 2004 comprehensive plan,5

 as well as to develop a training range inventory, and make progress 

towards incorporating ranges into DOD’s readiness reporting system. However, DOD has yet to 

establish quantifiable goals and trackable milestones in order to measure DOD’s progress to mitigate 

training shortfalls caused by training range limitations, as we recommended in 2004. In addition, while 

DOD has included some projected funding data required to implement its planned actions, as it was 

required to do as part of its 2004 comprehensive plan, DOD has not yet included detailed cost estimates 

as we also recommended previously. 

Range Inventory 

Section 366(c) required DOD to develop and maintain a training range inventory for each of the armed 

services. The inventory was expected to identify (1) all available operational ranges, (2) all training 

capacities and capabilities available at each training range, and (3) training constraints caused by 

limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each training range. According to 

DOD officials, although the inventory includes all available operational ranges, the report does not 

provide assessments of the capabilities and constraints for all the ranges in the inventory. However, in 

response to our 2008 recommendation, DOD’s 2009 report now includes an explanation for why some 

assessments have not been included.6

 For example, in the 2009 report, DOD states that, although the 

Army does not include an assessment for all of its ranges, the Army ranges included in the report 

represent 88 percent of its active duty training ranges and also where the majority of encroachment 

effects are felt. According to DOD, the remaining Army ranges constitute smaller locations and believes 

that it would have been impractical to include an assessment of every Army training range in the 

sustainable ranges report due to the large volume of data that would be required to identify all 

capacities, capabilities, and constraints.7

 

Readiness Reporting 

Section 366(b) also required DOD to report to Congress, not later than June 30, 2003, on its plans to 

improve its readiness reporting system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused 

 

5

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

constraints. While DOD has never submitted such recommendations with its sustainable ranges report, DOD explained in 2007 

that it had an alternate mechanism in place for transmitting legislative proposals to Congress that precluded their inclusion in 

the sustainable ranges report. See GAO-08-10R. 

6

 GAO, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range 

Assessments and Comprehensive Plan, GAO-09-128R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2008). 

7 In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the Army assesses the capability of its ranges and 

constraints of its smallest installations through the range modernization process in its yearly programmatic reviews. DOD 

further stated that the Army chooses not to include those assessments because of the sheer volume and impracticality of 

compiling that data and providing it in the DOD format required for the sustainable ranges report.

 

Page 4 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific units of the armed 

forces.8

 In 2004, we recommended that DOD develop a readiness reporting system to reflect the impact 

on readiness caused by training constraints. In 2004, DOD disagreed with our recommendation to 

develop this system, but said that the department planned to incorporate the impact of range

encroachment on readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS).9

 Although DOD has 

not finalized its plans to incorporate range readiness into DRRS, it has made progress in establishing the 

framework for this initiative. In the 2009 sustainable ranges report, DOD stated that it began Phase I of 

the development of a range readiness module for DRRS in October 2008. According to DOD, the module 

is intended to efficiently support range readiness reporting and provide assessment data for future 

sustainable ranges reports. Phase I was to develop a prototype using existing range data and was 

recently completed in May 2009, according to DOD officials. Using lessons from the prototype, DOD 

began Phase II where the range readiness module will be fully integrated into DRRS. According to DOD 

officials, Phase II began receiving funding in July 2009 and is also expected to provide the capability to 

examine the extent to which encroachment factors affect a range’s ability to support various operational 

capabilities. DOD expects Phase II to be completed in April 2010. 

Comprehensive Plan and Annual Progress Reports

Lastly, section 366(a)(1) of the act required DOD to develop a comprehensive plan to address training 

constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace for training of 

the armed forces in 2004. Section 366(a)(2)-(4) also specified several elements that were to be included 

in this comprehensive plan, as described above. Further, DOD was required to report annually through 

fiscal year 2013 indicating progress in implementing that plan. It has taken DOD time to develop a 

comprehensive plan consistent with the basic requirements of section 366. (For details on our prior 

recommendations in these areas, see enclosure II.) 

 

Quantifiable Goals and Milestones 

As we have recommended in our prior work, DOD’s annual sustainable ranges report could be improved 

by including quantifiable and measurable goals and milestones in order to track progress. In our 

assessment of DOD’s first report to Congress in 2004, we recommended that DOD develop quantifiable 

goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress.10 DOD concurred, but stated 

that accomplishing this would require a long-term approach, and that they planned for future reports to 

more fully address goals and milestones and projected funding requirements. Although DOD has 

 

8

 In 2002, DOD Directive 7730.65, Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS), established the Defense 

Readiness Reporting System to measure and report on the readiness of military forces and the supporting infrastructure to meet 

missions and goals assigned by the Secretary of Defense. 

9

 GAO-04-608. 

10 GAO-04-608. 

Page 5 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
identified broad goals and some milestones in its 2009 report, it has not yet fully implemented our 2004 

recommendation to establish quantifiable goals and measurable milestones. Doing so will help DOD and 

congressional decision makers better track progress to address training shortfalls caused by any lack of 

or limitations on military range capabilities. As our prior work has shown, without quantifiable goals 

and time frames associated with achieving milestones, it is difficult to measure and track the extent of 

progress actually made over time. 

Projected Funding Estimates 

We have also reported previously that DOD’s annual sustainable ranges report could be improved by 

identifying DOD’s funding requirements needed to accomplish its goals. In our assessment of DOD’s 

first report to Congress in 2004, and as we have consistently stated since that time, we recommended

that DOD project funding requirements in order to provide the best information to congressional 

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

resources. While DOD provided 2 years of funding estimates in its 2008 report, we found that the data 

were not sufficiently detailed, and recommended that DOD provide more descriptive information on 

those funding categories in the future. In its 2009 report, DOD provided more details for those funding 

categories, but only provided 1 year of funding data. The 2009 report stated that DOD believes that it is 

difficult to project funding for range sustainment efforts because funding sources are spread across and 

embedded within various appropriations—such as operations and maintenance, procurement, or 

military construction—as well as program elements, which might include manpower, training, real 

property, or utilities. In addition, DOD stated that each of the services has different command structures 

and financial processes, which complicate consistent tracking and reporting of these funding data. 

Nevertheless, DOD also stated in its 2009 report that its Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team11

has examined funding strategies and categorizations used by each of the services for their training range 

sustainability efforts and developed four categories—modernization and investment, operations and 

maintenance, environmental, and encroachment—to serve as an initial framework to track, report, and 

project future range sustainment fiscal needs. Although we believe this is a positive step forward, we 

reiterate the need for DOD to continue its efforts to identify its sustainable range funding requirements 

for future years, in accordance with our 2004 recommendation. 

 

DOD Has Improved Its Sustainable Ranges Report in 2009 and 

Additional Revisions Are Under Way for its 2010 Submission 

DOD has taken actions to improve the usefulness of its 2009 sustainable ranges report as a management 

tool to more precisely identify negative effects to military training capabilities due to range sustainability 

issues, such as encroachment. DOD officials expect these details to lay the foundation for plans to 

mitigate those negative effects. DOD also plans to revise its sustainable range goals in 2010 and has 

already begun to develop the 2010 report, which is scheduled for an early February 2010 release. 

Detailed Support for Capability and Readiness Assessments

According to OSD officials, the most significant change in DOD’s 2009 sustainable ranges report 

submission is the addition of an appendix (Appendix C in the 2009 report) that includes detailed 

capability and encroachment information provided by the services for each training range they surveyed. 

OSD officials told us that this detailed information—totaling over 200 pages—forms the basis for the 

Overall Capability Score and Overall Encroachment Score given to each service in DOD’s 2009 report. 

Although these overall scores were developed and reported in the 2008 sustainable ranges report, 2009 is 

 

11 The mission of the Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team is to be the DOD coordinating body responsible for oversight, 

development, and coordination of a comprehensive DOD response to encroachment pressures that adversely affect ranges. 

Page 6 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
the first year that the report provides the supporting information for each service. For example, range 

capability information includes specific comments on a range’s landspace, airspace, or seaspace. The 

services also provided range-specific comments about additional capability attributes such as 

infrastructure, targets, or threats. Encroachment information in this appendix includes comments such 

as information about air or water quality, threatened or endangered species’ habitats, adjacent land use, 

and munitions or noise restrictions. In addition, readiness status—indicated as red, yellow, or green—is 

assigned to each capability and encroachment item and a brief explanation is provided to help explain 

this status. For example, an airspace range capability is given a red status at one Air Force range 

because the airspace is too small for refueling training operations. Our review found that the information 

provided in this new appendix has the potential to enhance the utility of DOD’s sustainable ranges report 

by providing a better understanding of what the individual range constraints are and aiding in developing 

plans and obtaining the resources required to address any training limitations. 

Special Interest Section 

DOD’s 2009 sustainable ranges report also includes a new special interest section for each of the military 

services, which briefly highlights critical issues facing the services regarding range capabilities and 

encroachment factors. For instance, the Marine Corps section discusses what it considers to be a critical 

range capability issue in the western Pacific region and Hawaii. The Marine Corps section also describes 

DOD’s expectation that the relocation of units from Okinawa to Guam and the development of training 

ranges and infrastructure on Guam and selected islands in the area could help alleviate training-related 

deficits currently being experienced by the Corps in that region. In another example, the Navy notes 

maritime protective and mitigation measures, regulatory requirements, and court-directed training 

restrictions for marine mammal protection as critical encroachment factors. According to DOD’s report, 

the Navy believes that these factors contribute to reduced training flexibility and opportunities, 

segmented training, and ultimately reduced training realism, particularly with respect to integrated 

warfare training. The special interest section also includes other general issues relevant to the report. 

For example, the Army used this section of the 2009 report to discuss the impact of 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure actions on Army training land requirements. By highlighting its most pressing 

range sustainability issues, DOD officials expect to be able to begin to prioritize the department’s actions 

to address range issues in the most efficient and effective manner. 

Addressing GAO’s 2008 Recommendations

DOD’s 2009 report also includes a section that specifically addresses four recommendations that we 

made in 2008.12 In that report, we recommended that (1) DOD’s report should include an explanation for 

why any ranges are excluded from its assessment, (2) the Air Force should update its actions taken 

regarding the modernization and investment goal, (3) DOD should include additional information to 

better explain what is included in each of the four funding categories that DOD uses for training range 

sustainment, and (4) the Marine Corps should modify its reports on training range capability to be 

consistent with the other services. DOD agreed with the first three recommendations, and took steps to 

address them in its 2009 report. Furthermore, even though DOD did not originally concur with the fourth 

recommendation, in providing technical comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the Marine 

Corps is considering how best to provide assessments in the future which will include greater detail in 

response to an increased emphasis on developing consistent measures for DOD readiness reports, which 

 

12 GAO-09-128R. 

Page 7 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
was the point of our 2008 recommendation. Enclosure II provides information on these and all of our 

recommendations developed during our five previous reviews on this subject. 

DOD’s Plans for the 2010 Report 

OSD officials told us that DOD’s 2010 report will include new goals and is on track for a February 2010 

release. OSD issued a memorandum in June 2009 requesting input from the services for its 2010 report. 

According to that memorandum, DOD plans to introduce what officials refer to as “revolutionary 

changes” in the department’s 2010 report by revamping its goals. Currently the report focuses on four 

critical range sustainment areas—Modernization and Investment, Operations and Maintenance, 

Environmental, and Encroachment. According to OSD officials, these areas will be replaced in the 2010 

report for assessment purposes with the following seven focus areas: (l) mitigate competing land and 

seaspace uses; (2) address frequency spectrum competition; (3) meet military airspace challenges; (4) 

manage increasing military demand for range space; (5) address energy infrastructure impacts; (6) 

anticipate climate change initiatives; and (7) prepare for increased environmental emphasis. The four 

critical range sustainment areas will continue to be used for describing funding requirements for the 

ranges. In its June 2009 memorandum, OSD requested service input by August 31, 2009. Although OSD 

has granted some extensions for some of the services’ input, these officials told us that they still 

anticipate a February 2010 issuance for the 2010 report on sustainable ranges. 

Agency Comments 

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) 

agreed with our report findings. These comments are reprinted in their entirety in enclosure III. DOD 

also provided technical comments which we have included in our report where appropriate. 

------------------------------ 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, 

and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Director, Office of Management and 

Budget, and interested congressional committees. In addition, this report will be available at no charge 

on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4523 or 

leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report include James 

Reifsnyder, Assistant Director; Karen Kemper; Robert Poetta; Jena Whitley; Susan Ditto; Michael 

Willems; and Kate Lenane. 

Brian J. Lepore, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 8 GAO-10-103R 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 Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Chairman 

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 9 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure 1 

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

amended13 

SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources and Training System, and 

Training Range Inventory. 

(a) PLAN REQUIRED—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a comprehensive plan for using 

existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments 

to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and 

airspace that are available in the United States and overseas for training of the Armed Forces. 

(2) As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct the following: 

(A) An assessment of current and future training range requirements of the Armed Forces. 

(B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of Defense resources (including virtual and 

constructive training assets as well as military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United 

States and overseas) to meet those current and future training range requirements. 

(3) The plan shall include the following: 

(A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls in current Department of 

Defense resources identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph (2). 

(B) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress. 

(C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. 

(D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in each of the military 

departments that will have lead responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan. 

(4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget for fiscal year 

2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in 

implementing this subsection, including— 

(A) the plan developed under paragraph (1); 

(B) the results of the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph (2); and 

(C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address 

training constraints identified pursuant to this section. 

(5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget for each of fiscal years 2005 

through 2013, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in 

 

13 Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 was amended by Pub. L. No. 109-364, 

§ 348 (2006); and Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1063(c)(2) (2008).

Page 10 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
implementing the plan and any additional actions taken, or to be taken, to address training constraints 

caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace. 

(b) READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT----Not later than June 30, 2003, the 

Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority of the Secretary, shall submit to 

Congress a report on the plans of the Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources 

and Training System to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused by limitations on the 

use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace have on specific units of the Armed Forces. 

(c) TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY---- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain a 

training range inventory for each of the Armed Forces— 

(A) to identify all available operational training ranges; 

(B) to identify all training capacities and capabilities available at each training range; and 

(C) to identify training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and 

airspace at each training range. 

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory to Congress at the same time as the 

President submits the budget for fiscal year 2004 and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at 

the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. 

(d) GAO EVALUATION------The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies of each report required by 

subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller General. Within 90 days after receiving a report, the 

Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report. 

(e) ARMED FORCES DEFINED --- In this section, the term “Armed Forces” means the Army, Navy, Air 

Force and Marine Corps. 

Page 11 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure II 

List of Prior GAO Reviews and Recommendations, and DOD Action to Date 

GAO-09-128R: Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist 

to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan (December 15, 2008) 

GAO recommendation Original DOD response DOD actions 

Include each service’s rationale for 

excluding the specific training 

ranges not included in its 

assessment of the adequacy of 

current resources to meet 

requirements in future sustainable 

ranges reports. 

Concur. Future reports will incorporate rationale 

as to why some ranges may be included in the 

inventory, yet not have a capability or 

encroachment assessment performed. 

Rationale for excluding 

some Army and Marine 

Corps range assessments 

was added to the 2009 

Sustainable Ranges 

Report. 

Include the Marine Corps’ 

individual combat training 

elements as the mission areas in 

the range capability and 

encroachment assessment in 

future sustainable ranges reports. 

Did not concur. The Marine Corps’ approach to 

assessing range capability and encroachment is 

consistent with all the source documents and 

methodologies by which the Marine Corps 

manages and resources its ranges. The 

capabilities assessments are designed to 

measure the ranges’ ability to support the levels 

of training on the Marine Corps training 

continuum. Those levels of training are all based 

on established training responsibilities embodied 

in Marine Corps Tasks. In future reports, they 

will provide greater explanatory comments on 

both capabilities and encroachment impacts, but 

the framework established in their Required 

Range Capabilities Document, range complex 

management plans, and range management 

orders all support the methodology they have 

employed in this report. 

No changes have been 

made to the Marine Corps’ 

mission areas. However, 

according to DOD, greater 

explanatory comments on 

impacts to training are 

provided in the Special 

Interest section of Chapter 

3 and Appendix C of the 

2009 Sustainable Ranges 

Report for all services. 

According to DOD 

officials, the Marine Corps 

is considering how best to 

provide future 

assessments to include 

greater detail in response 

to an increased emphasis 

on developing consistent 

measures for DOD 

readiness reporting. 

Page 12 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure II 

GAO recommendation Original DOD response DOD actions 

Update on the actions taken by 

the Air Force to address DOD’s 

modernization and investment 

goals for range sustainment in 

future sustainable ranges reports. 

Concur. Updates of actions taken by each 

Service over the proceeding year towards 

completion of goals and milestones will be 

addressed. 

According to DOD and Air 

Force officials, the Air 

Force’s updated 

submission was prepared 

but not included in the 

final 2009 Sustainable 

Ranges Report due to an 

administrative oversight. 

DOD officials told us that 

this will be rectified in the 

2010 report submission. 

Include a detailed description of all 

funding data included in each 

funding category, for each of the 

military services in future 

sustainable ranges reports. 

Concur. The Office of the Secretary of Defense 

will work with the Services to provide a more 

detailed description of what areas are financed 

within each of the funding categories. 

DOD included table 4.7 in 

the 2009 Sustainable 

Ranges Report which 

provides specific 

examples for each of the 

four funding categories. 

GAO-08-10R: Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but Opportunities Exist 

to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan (October 11, 2007) 

Develop clear criteria and 

standard methods for assessing 

current and future training range 

requirements and capabilities. 

Concur. Will continue to develop and improve 

the criteria and methodology associated with our 

range requirements and capabilities assessment 

processes in our subsequent reports. 

DOD established 

standardized criteria and 

identified common factors 

to assess range 

capabilities and 

encroachment in the 2008 

Sustainable Ranges 

Report. 

Include funding information on the 

services’ range sustainment 

efforts in funding reports. 

Concur. Programming funding data associated 

with range sustainment will be captured and 

documented in future Sustainable Ranges 

Reports to Congress to the extent possible. 

However, any funding data presented beyond 

the current year will be subject to a caveat that 

final Service budgets for out years are subject to 

change. 

Although DOD has taken 

steps to examine funding 

categories and strategies 

across each of the 

services, it has not yet 

provided a consistent 

assessment of future 

funding requirements. 

GAO-06-725R: Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges but Additional Time Is 

Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives (June 20, 2006) 

Because our previous 

recommendations remained open, 

we did not recommend any new 

executive actions in this report. 

N/A N/A 

Page 13 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure II 

GAO-06-29R: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD’s Annual Training Range 

Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements (Oct. 25, 2005) 

GAO recommendation Original DOD response DOD actions 

Because our prior 

recommendations for improving 

the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense’s annual training range 

reporting remained open, valid, 

and not fully addressed, we did 

not make new recommendations 

in this report. 

N/A N/A 

GAO-04-608: MILITARY TRAINING: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional 

Reporting Requirements (June 4, 2004) 

Develop an integrated training 

range database that identifies 

available training resources, 

specific capacities and 

capabilities, and training 

constraints caused by limitations 

on the use of training ranges, 

which could be continuously 

updated and shared among the 

Services at all command levels, 

regardless of Service ownership. 

Did not concur. Each military service already 

processes and is improving range information 

systems that address the features described in 

this recommendation. Further, the Department 

agrees that, as a long-term goal these systems 

should be linked to support joint use. It is DOD 

policy to document encroachment concerns and 

environmental considerations and improve 

information systems related to range 

management. The services and the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense are moving forward in a 

deliberate approach that builds on existing 

systems and carefully manages the costs and 

risks inherent in information system integration 

and development. As part of our yearly Section 

366 reports, the Department will document 

progress in this evolutionary effort to link and 

improve the Service range information systems. 

However, the department non-concurs with the 

recommendation ... It must be recognized that 

each Service operates ranges to meet specific 

training requirements. While increased crossService or cross-functional use is a DOD goal, it 

does not resolve training constraints brought 

about by encroachment. 

Although DOD continues 

to non-concur with this 

recommendation to 

develop a stand alone 

training range database, 

DOD is developing a 

range module to be 

included in the Defense 

Readiness Reporting 

System which will provide 

an integrated database 

that identifies available 

training resources and 

constraints. 

Page 14 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure II 

GAO recommendation Original DOD response DOD actions 

Develop a comprehensive plan, 

which includes quantifiable goals 

and milestones for tracking 

planned actions and measuring 

progress, and projected funding 

requirements to more fully address 

identified training constraints. 

Concur. Meeting section 366 requirements can 

be accomplished only through a long-term 

approach. Under the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense leadership, each of the Military Services 

has initiated an enhanced range management 

and comprehensive planning process, as an 

integral element of expanding range 

sustainability programs. In line with this 

evolution, future reports will more fully address 

goals and milestones and project funding 

requirements associated with these 

comprehensive plans. The department is and will 

continue to execute a comprehensive program to 

improve sustainability of its ranges, and 

disagrees with the implication in this 

recommendation that it does not. 

Chapter 4 of the 2009 

Sustainable Ranges 

Report discusses DOD’s 

comprehensive training 

range sustainment plan. 

Although DOD has 

identified broad goals and 

some milestones in its 

2009 report, DOD has not 

developed quantifiable 

goals and measurable 

milestones so that it and 

congressional decision 

makers can better track 

progress to address 

training shortfalls caused 

by any lack of or 

limitations on military 

range capabilities. DOD 

has taken some steps to 

report funding 

requirements but more 

needs to be done. 

Assess current and future training 

range requirements and evaluate 

the adequacy of current resources 

to meet these requirements. 

Did not concur. The Department has begun a 

program to better define range requirements. 

Because a valid requirements base must be a 

bottom-up process, this effort entails detailed 

work at each installation. It is unclear why GAO 

chose to not examine these efforts. Also, it is 

both impractical and inappropriate to include this 

level of detail in an OSD-level report. DOD 

believes that the Congress is better served if the 

Department describes, summarizes, and 

analyzes training requirements in its Section 366 

report, rather than simply providing the 

requirements themselves. 

Although DOD has taken 

steps to examine funding 

categories and strategies 

across each of the 

services, it has not 

provided a consistent 

assessment of future 

funding requirements. 

Page 15 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure II 

GAO recommendation Original DOD response DOD actions 

Develop a readiness reporting 

system to reflect the impact on 

readiness caused by training 

constraints due to limitations on 

the use of training ranges. 

Did not concur. The Department has, in its 

response to GAO’s previous report and at other 

opportunities, stated that it is inappropriate to 

modify the Global Status of Resources Training 

System report to address encroachment. DOD 

believes it is best to assess how encroachment 

impacts affect the ability of installations and 

ranges to conduct training and testing. DOD 

plans to incorporate encroachment impacts on 

readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting 

System (DRRS), which is currently under 

development. 

The Office of the 

Secretary of Defense 

completed Phase 1 of the 

pilot project in May 2009 

to develop an operational 

prototype range module 

for DRRS using existing 

service range data, and 

develop methods to 

incorporate them into 

DRRS. Phase 2 is funded 

and work has begun to 

incorporate the module. 

Phase 2 is expected to 

provide the capability to 

examine the extent to 

which encroachment 

factors affect a range’s 

ability to support various 

operational capabilities, 

and is expected to be 

completed by April 2010. 

Sources: GAO and DOD. 

Page 16 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Enclosure III 

Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 17 GAO-10-103R Military Training 
Page 18 GAO-10-103R Military Training 

351372)

Related GAO Products 

Military Training: Improvement Continues in DOD’s Reporting on Sustainable Ranges, but 

Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan. GAO-09-128R. 

Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2008. 

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

Has Not Made a Sound Business Case for Additional Environmental Exemptions. GAO-08-407. 

Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2008. 

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

Improve Its Range Assessments and Comprehensive Plan. GAO-08-10R. Washington, D.C.: October 11, 

2007. 

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

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

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

Based on Sound Strategy and Requirements. GAO-06-193. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2005. 

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

Fully Address Congressional Requirements. GAO-06-29R. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2005. 

Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Program to Transform Joint Training. GAO-05-

548. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005. 

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

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

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

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

Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for 

Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges. GAO-03-976. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2003. 

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

GAO-03-621T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003. 

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

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

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

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

Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness Reporting. GAO-02-

525. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002. 

(
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 GAO’s Mission 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 Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

GAO Reports and posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone 	 The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

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. 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Relations Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548