Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements and Continued to Improve Its Sustainable Ranges Report
Published: 2013-07-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As U.S. forces draw down from Afghanistan and home training is expanded, the competition for training ranges may also increase. Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended) required DOD to submit a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United States and overseas for training, and provide annual progress reports on these efforts through 2018. The act also requires GAO to submit annual evaluations of DODs reports to Congress within 90 days of receiving them from DOD. In this report, GAO examined (1) whether DODs 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report met the legislative requirements; and (2) whether DOD acted on GAO previous recommendations to improve its submissions.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. In commenting on this report, DOD stated that it agrees in general with the report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report of the Department of Defense (DOD) met the annual statutory reporting requirements for the department to describe its progress in implementing its sustainable ranges plan and any additional actions taken or planned for addressing training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, or airspace. DOD's 2013 report provides updates to several elements of the plan that the act required it to include in its annual progress reports, including (1) proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls; (2) goals and milestones for tracking progress in the implementation of its sustainment plan; and (3) projected funding requirements for each of the military services to implement their planned actions. DOD reported that there were no significant changes in range capability or encroachment since 2012. It identified emerging challenges to training range sustainability, and reported on actions being taken to mitigate them. It used goals and milestones in its progress updates, and reported its projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. Together these elements describe DOD'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 now implemented all prior GAO recommendations focused on meeting the requirements of the act and improving report submissions. GAO reported in 2012 that DOD had implemented all but 2 of 13 prior recommendations. DOD has subsequently addressed these 2 recommendations by developing and launching the range assessment module within the Defense Readiness Reporting System. Additionally, DOD created a range visibility tool within its range scheduler system to enable a user to query and identify the availability of training ranges across the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy to optimize utilization of training resources. Future improvements include plans to provide a link to the Air Force range scheduling system. Through the changes DOD has implemented in its annual reporting over the past several years, the department has continually improved reporting on the sustainability of its ranges.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As U.S. forces draw down from Afghanistan and home-station training  potentially increases, the competition for ranges, airspace, and maneuver  training land is expected to increase. 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  prepare them to face combat or complex missions around the globe.  Competition for access to live training resources may worsen because of  domain shortfalls and growing encroachment challenges. 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 through the  issuance of policy, establishment of programs, and proactive partnering at  the federal, state, and local levels.
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), and extended through 2018 by section 311 of the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239. 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. submitted an annual sustainable ranges report to address these  requirements. Additionally, the act directed GAO to submit annual  evaluations of DOD’s reports to Congress within 90 days of receiving  these reports from DOD. In response to this act, our review of DOD’s  2013 Sustainable Ranges Report is our 10th annual report. In this review,  we determined (1) whether DOD’s 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report met  the legislative requirements; and (2) whether DOD acted on GAO  recommendations to improve its report submissions, and what  opportunities, if any, exist for DOD to improve future reporting.
To determine whether DOD’s 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report met the  reporting requirements specified in section 366(a) of the Bob Stump  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended),  we reviewed the current report and compared it with those requirements  in the act. We also compared the 2013 and 2012 reports to determine  what changes, if any, DOD had made to its Sustainable Ranges Report.  In addition, we met with Office of the Secretary of Defense and service  officials to determine whether the 2013 report met the mandated  requirements and whether there were changes to the services’  submission for 2013 as compared with the 2012 submission. The intent of  our review was to determine whether DOD’s report met mandated  requirements and whether DOD’s reporting could be improved. To  determine whether DOD acted on GAO recommendations to improve its  report submissions and what opportunities, if any, exist for DOD to  improve future reporting, we identified prior GAO recommendations and  reviewed the status of DOD’s actions to implement those  recommendations in its reporting submissions on sustainable ranges.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through July  2013 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 this  assessment based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD has been reporting to Congress since fiscal year 2004 on several  items related to its training ranges in response to section 366(a) of the  Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The  act as subsequently amended required annual progress reports to be  submitted at the same time as the President submitted the  administration’s annual budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2018. The  requirement that GAO evaluate the plans submitted pursuant to  subsections 366(a) and (b) within 90 days of receiving the report from  DOD has also been extended through fiscal year 2018.
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. Further, we noted that it took  DOD some time to develop a plan consistent with the basic requirements  of section 366. Over time, we found that as DOD reported annually on its  progress in implementing its comprehensive plan, it continued to improve  its Sustainable Ranges Reports, and it has reported on the actions it has  taken in response to prior GAO recommendations. For instance, DOD  has included special interests sections for each service providing  additional information on areas affecting training capabilities: the goals,  actions, and milestones section; the funding requirements section; and  the individual range assessments. A specific example is that, over time,  the department progressed from using four common goals and  milestones to using 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.
As part of the preparation of its annual 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. We found that the 2012  Sustainable Ranges Report met the annual statutory reporting  requirements for DOD to 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, or airspace. In its 2012 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 included (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.
In our review of DOD’s 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report, we found that  DOD had implemented 11 of our 13 recommendations since 2004 for  expanding and improving its reporting on sustainable ranges. At that time,  DOD officials stated that they were still in the process of implementing 2  recommendations. These recommendations were to: (1) 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; and (2) develop a readiness  reporting system to reflect the impact on readiness caused by training  constraints due to limitations on the use of training ranges. For a  complete presentation of prior GAO recommendations and their  implementation status, see appendix II.
section_title: DOD Met the Annual Reporting Requirements in Its 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report
paragraphs: The 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report met the annual statutory reporting  requirements for DOD to 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, or airspace. In its 2013 report, DOD provided  updates to several elements of the plan required by the act. These  elements include (1) proposals to enhance training range capabilities and  address any shortfalls, (2) goals and milestones for tracking progress  implementing DOD’s sustainment plan, and (3) projected funding  requirements for implementing planned actions, among others.
subsections: section_title: DOD Reported Proposals to Enhance Range Capabilities and Address Shortfalls
paragraphs: In our review of DOD’s 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report, we found that  DOD again reported on its proposals to enhance training range  capabilities and address any shortfalls in resources. DOD developed  these proposals by evaluating current and future training range  requirements and the ability of current DOD resources to meet these  requirements. In its 2013 report, DOD validated as current the 2012 range  assessments and provided an update to the special interest sections  developed by each service. For example, as the Marine Corps stated that  the special interest section from the 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report  was still valid for the 2013 report, the Marine Corps revalidated the issues  it identified in the 2012 report and provided updates as needed. The  Marine Corps identified several training shortfalls that it is working to  remedy, such as the capability to fully exercise a large Marine Air-Ground  Task Force in a realistically, doctrinally appropriate training scenario. The  area currently used to provide this training is not large enough to  accommodate a full-scale, live-fire Marine Expeditionary Brigade  exercise. In order to address this shortfall, DOD would like to add 150,000  acres of land to this training area, and it is currently, in conjunction with  the Bureau of Land Management, pursuing legislation from Congress in  support of this objective. In its 2013 report, DOD also reported on four  emerging challenges to training and its training ranges. These four  challenges are: renewable energy, the demand for frequency spectrum,  threatened and endangered species, and the indirect impacts of  increased home-station training. For example, the report stated that as  U.S. forces draw down from Afghanistan, the competition for airspace and  training ranges is expected to increase to levels that have not been  experienced for more than 10 years. During the surge of deployments  over that period, demand for airspace and training ranges in the United  States was commensurately lower since large numbers of forces were  deployed to overseas contingency operations. DOD cited policies,  programs, and proactive partnering at the federal, state, and local levels  as a means to address this challenge.
DOD’s 2013 report also revalidated as current its 2012 annual  assessment of the adequacy of existing range resources to meet training  requirements. Beginning with its 2013 report, DOD began conducting full  range capability and encroachment assessments every 3 years rather  than annually, and to validate those assessments in the years between  evaluations. DOD’s analysis of range capability and encroachment data  over the preceding 10 years had found that there were not significant  changes in the data from year to year, and the military services had  confirmed this finding. For the 2013 report, DOD asked the military  services to validate the range capability and encroachment data from  2012, and to report on any significant changes. All of the military services  reported that their range assessment data had not significantly changed  from the 2012 report. Officials from all of the military services told us that  they did not believe this change negatively affected the Sustainable  Ranges Report, and that they believed this change accurately captured  range capability and encroachment data. The next planned full range  capability and encroachment assessment is to be included in DOD’s 2015  Sustainable Ranges Report.
section_title: DOD Used Goals and Milestones to Update Its Progress in Implementing Its Comprehensive Training Range Sustainment Plan
paragraphs: In its 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report, DOD continued to use goals,  actions, and milestones to help address the statutory requirement to  describe its progress in implementing its comprehensive training range  sustainment plan. DOD has developed seven goals in support of this  plan. These goals are as follows: to mitigate encroachment pressures on  training activities from competing operating space; to mitigate frequency  spectrum competition; to meet military airspace challenges; to manage  increasing military demand for range space; to address impacts from new  energy infrastructure and renewable energy impacts; to anticipate climate  change impacts; and to sustain excellence in environmental stewardship.  Each military service has developed its own milestones and needed  actions for reaching those milestones, using these goals as a common  framework. In the 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report, each service  provided updates to its milestones and actions. For example, the Army is  in the process of implementing the Army Compatible Use Buffer Zone  Program at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to protect the military mission and  offset training restrictions, and it reported that approximately 22,000 acres  have been conserved and more than $14 million in funding has been  spent in support of this milestone. DOD also reported on new milestones  that have been identified in support of department goals. For example,  the Army is planning to relocate an instrumentation system to Fort  Shafter, Hawaii, to enable enhanced home-station training in the Pacific  by the end of fiscal year 2013. DOD stated that these goals and  milestones will be reviewed and updated annually to ensure that DOD  continues to address future training requirements and constraints.
section_title: DOD Reported Its Projected Funding Requirements for Implementing Planned Actions
paragraphs: In the 2013 Sustainable Ranges Report, DOD met the statutory  requirement to track its progress in implementing the comprehensive plan  by identifying the funding requirements needed to accomplish its goals.  DOD has delineated four funding categories to be used by the services to  project their range sustainment efforts: modernization and investment,  operations and maintenance, environmental, and encroachment. This  section of the report also includes definitions and specific examples for  each category, as well as requested funding levels for fiscal years 2013  through 2017. For example, the environmental category is described as  funding dedicated to environmental management of ranges, including  range assessments, response actions, and natural and cultural resource  management planning and implementation. Examples of environmental  funding include conducting range assessments and environmental  mitigation costs associated with range modernization and range  construction. In this section, DOD also provides an explanation of any  fluctuations occurring over the 5-year funding period covered in the  report. For example, the Army’s modernization and investment funding  decreases from $247.0 million in fiscal year 2013 to a projected $49.3  million in fiscal year 2017 as a result of a significant reduction in military  construction funding during this period due to DOD’s reduction in the  force structure.
The elements of DOD’s 2013 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.
section_title: DOD Has Implemented All Prior GAO Recommendations
paragraphs: DOD has implemented all of the 13 recommendations made by GAO  since 2004 for expanding and improving its reporting on sustainable  ranges. In our 2012 review, we reported that DOD had implemented 11  recommendations, but had not fully addressed 2 recommendations  regarding readiness reporting. DOD subsequently addressed these 2  recommendations by developing and launching a range assessment  module within the Defense Readiness Reporting System. Additionally,  DOD created a range visibility tool within its range scheduler system to  enable a user to query and identify the availability of training ranges  across the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. Future improvements include  plans to provide a link to the Air Force range scheduling system to  optimize utilization of training resources.
One of the remaining GAO recommendations that was in the process of  being implemented in 2012 called 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 reported in 2012 that this database should identify available  training resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and training  constraints caused by encroachment and other factors, and that such  database 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, it developed the Defense Readiness Reporting System– Range Assessment Module. The module provides an integrated database  that identifies available training ranges, capabilities, and constraints, and  this meets the intent of our recommendation.
The second remaining recommendation to be implemented called 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 to which limitations  on the use of training ranges affected readiness. DOD did not concur 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 the Defense Readiness Reporting System. DOD  developed another phase of its Range Assessment Module, which  resides within the Defense Readiness Reporting System–Strategic, that  reflects the effect of range-related training constraints on readiness, and  this meets the intent of our recommendation.
The Defense Readiness Reporting System–Range Assessment Module  provides the means to manage and report on the readiness and capability  of military ranges. Phases I and II developed an unclassified system that  captured the range readiness assessment portion of the Sustainable  Ranges Report to Congress in a web-based format compatible with and  capable of being integrated within the Defense Readiness Reporting  System as a stand-alone module. However, DOD appeared to lack the  tools needed to properly define two challenges associated with managing  its ranges. The two main issues were as follows: (1) service  modernization efforts increased the demand for physical space for  individual, unit, and integrated unit training; and (2) encroachment by  external development and endangered species seeking refuge in suitable  habitats within the department’s ranges, coupled with the growing need  for more energy resources, artificially constricted DOD’s ability to train  properly. Therefore, DOD had a need to integrate the assessment portion  of the Sustainable Ranges Report process into a single comprehensive  readiness reporting system, as directed by 10 U.S.C. § 117. DOD  consequently developed phase III of the module in order to obtain this  assessment. This phase allows DOD to establish a link between range  assessments categorized by the services, individual installations, and  range complexes. For example, the module can display range capability  and encroachment data using service-specific mission areas for training  ranges.
In addition to providing the assessment of training ranges, DOD also  developed a mechanism to provide greater visibility of training resources  across the services. DOD created the range visibility tool within its range  scheduler system to enable a user to query and identify the availability of  training ranges across the services to optimize utilization of training  resources. The need for this type of query function arose with the likely  increased competition for home-station training resources created by  decreased deployments and increasing budget constraints. These factors  necessitate more-efficient use of existing training capabilities. The tool  allows users to enter an address, zip code, desired proximity, and range  capability into the system. It will then display a list of ranges within a  specified area, their availability, a map and driving directions, and  scheduling information. This type of feature allows units to maximize  available military training resources before having to outsource  capabilities, resulting in savings.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In its written  comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOD stated that it agrees in  general with the report. DOD also provided technical comments, which  were incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the  Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and Commandant of the  Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In  addition, the 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. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix  IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine whether the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 2013  Sustainable Ranges Report met the reporting requirements specified in  section 366(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2003, as amended, we reviewed the report and compared it  with those requirements. We also compared the 2013 and 2012 reports to  determine what changes, if any, DOD had made to its Sustainable  Ranges Report. In our comparison, we identified changes in the types of  information contained in the two reports, such as DOD’s decision to  conduct range capability and encroachment assessment every 3 years.  We also compared the 2013 and 2012 Sustainable Ranges Reports to  track changes in the data that DOD reported, such as changes in training  range capability or DOD’s progress in implementing its sustainable  ranges initiative from 2012 to 2013. We also reviewed the memorandums  that the Office of the Secretary of Defense sent to the military services to  request data for the Sustainable Ranges Report to determine what  differences, if any, there were in the types of information that were  requested for the report. In addition, we met with Office of the Secretary  of Defense and service officials to determine whether the 2013 report met  the mandated requirements, and whether there were changes to the  services’ submission for 2013. The intent of our review was to determine  whether the Sustainable Ranges Report met mandated requirements and  whether DOD’s reporting could be improved.
To determine whether DOD acted on GAO recommendations to improve  its report submissions and what opportunities, if any, exist for DOD to  improve future reporting, we reviewed the status of prior GAO  recommendations. We identified the actions DOD has taken to meet  these recommendations in its reporting submissions on sustainable  ranges.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through July  2013 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.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Recommendations from 2004-2011 Reviews and the Status of the DOD’s Implementation of Those Recommendations
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Harold Reich (Assistant Director),  James Ashley, Susan Langley, Sabrina Streagle, Lindsay Taylor, Cheryl  Weissman, and Natasha Wilder made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements and Improved  Its Sustainable Ranges Report. GAO-12-879R. Washington, D.C.:  September 12, 2012.
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. GAO-08-407. 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.
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.