Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements
Published: 2004-06-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Section 366 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required the Secretary of Defense to develop a report outlining a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and air space that are available in the United States and overseas for training. The foundation for that plan is an inventory identifying training resources, capacities and capabilities, and limitations. In response to section 366, this report discusses the extent to which (1) the Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) training range inventory is sufficient for developing the comprehensive training range plan and (2) OSD's 2004 training range report meets other requirements mandated by section 366.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OSD's training range inventory does not yet contain sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive training range plan required by section 366. As a result, OSD's training range report does not lay out a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and air space that are available in the United States and overseas for training. First, OSD's training range inventory does not fully identify available training resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and existing training constraints caused by encroachment or other factors to serve as the baseline for the comprehensive training range plan. Second, OSD and the services' inventories are not integrated, readily available, or accessible by potential users so that commanders can schedule the best available resources to provide the required training. Third, OSD's training range report does not include a comprehensive plan with quantifiable goals or milestones for tracking planned actions to measure progress, or projected funding requirements needed to implement the plan. Instead, the report provides the current status of the four services' various sustainable range efforts in the United States, which if successful, overtime should provide a more complete picture of the magnitude and impact of constraints on training. OSD's training range report does not fully address other requirements mandated by section 366. For example, the report does not: (1) fully assess current and future training range requirements; (2) fully evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet current and future training range requirements in the United States and overseas; (3) identify recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints, even though the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted legislative changes for congressional consideration on April 6, 2004; or (4) contain plans to improve readiness reporting.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For some time, senior Department of Defense (DOD) and military service  officials have reported that they face increasing difficulties in carrying out  realistic training at military installations due to training constraints, such  as those resulting from encroachment. Title III, section 366 of the  Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,  dated December 2, 2002, required that the Secretary of Defense develop  a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the  Secretaries of Defense and the military services 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. As part of the preparation of the plan, section 366 required the  Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of current and future  training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy of current  DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current  and future training range requirements. Section 366 further required the  Secretary to submit the plan, the results of the assessment and evaluation,  and any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address  training constraints in a report to the Congress at the same time the  President submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004 and provide status  reports annually between fiscal years 2005 and 2008 on implementation of  the plan and any additional actions taken or to be taken. In addition,  section 366 required the Secretary to develop and maintain an inventory  that identifies all available operational training ranges, all training range  capacities and capabilities, and any training constraints caused by  limitations at each training range. We have previously reported on the  need for an integrated and readily available or accessible comprehensive  inventory of the services’ training ranges, capacities, and capabilities so  that commanders can schedule the best available resources to provide the  required training. Section 366 also required the Secretary of Defense to  report to the Congress on the plans 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 military services.  (See section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2003 in app. I.)
Instead of issuing the first report along with the President’s fiscal  year 2004 budget submission in 2003, the Office of the Secretary of  Defense (OSD) submitted to the Congress its Implementation of the  Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan report  on February 27, 2004. In an effort to obtain assistance from the military  services in preparing this report, the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness, in a January 2003 memorandum, directed each  of the military services to develop a single standalone report that could be  consolidated to form OSD’s overall report. As such, OSD’s report reflects  the varying levels of detail provided by each service.
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2003 also required that the Secretary of Defense provide us  a copy of the annual training range report and that we must provide  the Congress with our evaluation of these annual reports. This report  discusses the extent to which (1) OSD’s training range inventory  contains sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the  comprehensive training range plan required by section 366, and (2) OSD’s  training range report meets other requirements mandated by section 366,  such as an assessment of current and future training range requirements;  an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources, including  virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range  requirements; any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes  to address training constraints; and plans to improve the readiness  reporting system.
To identify the extent that OSD’s training range inventory contains  sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the  comprehensive training range plan required by section 366, we reviewed  the inventory contained in the OSD training range report and the services’  inventory inputs to assess whether the inventory identified training  capabilities (e.g., types of training that can be conducted and available  targets), capacities (e.g., size of range or amount of training that can be  accommodated), and constraints caused by encroachment for each  training range. Also, we discussed the content of the inventories with  knowledgeable OSD and service officials. To determine the extent to  which OSD’s training range report met other requirements mandated by  section 366, we thoroughly reviewed the report for an assessment of  current and future training range requirements; an evaluation of the  adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive  assets, to meet current and future training range requirements;  recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training  constraints; and plans to improve the readiness reporting system. In  addition, we discussed the adequacy of OSD’s report and the services’  inputs with knowledgeable OSD and service officials and a representative  of the contractor that prepared the report. Details about our scope and  methodology appear at the end of this letter.
We conducted our work from December 2003 through April 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Over time, the military services report they have increasingly lost training  range capabilities because of encroachment. According to DOD officials,  the concerns about encroachment reflect the cumulative result of a slow  but steady increase in problems affecting the use of their training ranges.  Historically, specific encroachment problems have been addressed at  individual ranges, most often on an ad hoc basis. DOD officials have  reported increased limits on and problems with access to and the use of  ranges. They believe that the gradual accumulation of these limitations  will increasingly threaten training readiness in the future. Yet, despite the  reported loss of some capabilities, for the most part, the services do not  report the extent to which encroachment has significantly affected  training readiness.
subsections: section_title: Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
paragraphs: Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2003 required that the Secretary of Defense develop a  comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the  Secretaries of Defense and 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. Section 366 also required that the Secretary of Defense develop  and maintain an inventory that identifies all available operational training  ranges, all training range capacities and capabilities, and any training  constraints at each training range. In addition, the Secretary must  complete an assessment of current and future training range requirements  and an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources to meet  current and future training requirements. Section 366 further required that  the Secretary of Defense submit to the Congress a report containing the  plan, the results of the assessment and evaluation of current and future  training requirements, and any recommendations that the Secretary may  have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints at  the same time the President submits the budget for fiscal year 2004 and  provide status reports on implementation annually between fiscal years  2005 and 2008. While the initial report was due when the President  submitted the fiscal year 2004 budget to the Congress, the department did  not meet this initial reporting requirement.
In an effort to obtain assistance from the military services in preparing this  report, a January 2003 memorandum to the Secretaries of the Army, the  Navy, and the Air Force, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness directed that each of the military services develop a single  standalone report that could be consolidated to form OSD’s overall report.  Each service was expected to provide an assessment of current and future  training requirements with future projections to 2024, a report on the  implementation of a range inventory system, an evaluation of the adequacy  of current service resources to meet both current and future training  requirements, and a comprehensive plan to address constraints resulting  in adverse training impacts. The memorandum stated that once the  services’ inputs were received, they would be incorporated into a single  report to address the section 366 reporting requirement. As discussed  more fully later, the services’ inputs were incorporated to varying degrees  in OSD’s final training range report.
section_title: DOD and the Services’ Sustainable Range Initiatives
paragraphs: In completing our analysis for this and other engagements related to  training ranges, we found that the department and the military services  individually have a number of initiatives underway to better address  encroachment or other factors and ensure sustainability of military  training ranges for future use. In August 2001, the department issued its  draft Sustainable Range Action Plans, which contained an action plan  for each of the eight encroachment issues. Each action plan provided an  overview and analysis of its respective encroachment issue along with  strategies and actions for consideration by DOD decision makers. The  department considered these action plans to be working documents  supporting the overall sustainable range initiative. In June 2003, the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a memorandum  to the secretaries of the military departments providing guidance for  sustainable range planning and programming efforts for fiscal years  2006-2011. The services, recognizing the importance of ranges, have begun  to implement various internal programs aimed at ensuring long-term range  sustainment and the ability to meet both current and future requirements.  In addition, OSD and the services have various systems to assess the  condition of their ranges and are attempting to develop methods to reflect  the readiness impacts caused by encroachment and other factors. Our  recent work and the work of the DOD Inspector General have identified a  variety of factors that have adversely affected training ranges in recent  years including a lack of adequate funding, maintenance, and  modernization for training ranges.
The Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Training is responsible for establishing  range priorities and requirements and managing the Range and Training  Land Program, which includes range modernization and maintenance, and  land management through the Integrated Training Area Management  Program. This office is creating and implementing the Sustainable Range  Program to manage its ranges in a more comprehensive manner; meet the  challenges brought on by encroachment; and maximize the capability,  availability, and accessibility of its ranges. According to an official of the  Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Training, the Sustainable  Range Program will evolve into a new Army training range regulation that  will replace the current Army Regulation 210-21, Range and Training Land  Program, and Army Regulation 350-4, Integrated Training Area  Management.
On December 1, 2003, the Navy centralized its range management  functions, to include training and testing ranges, target development and  procurement, and test and evaluation facilities, into the Navy Range  Office, Navy Ranges and Fleet Training Branch. The Navy Range Office  integration will streamline processes, provide a single voice for range  policy and management oversight, and provide a single resource sponsor.  Recognizing the importance of Navy training ranges and to meet  congressional reporting requirements, the Navy is developing a Navy  Range Strategic Plan. The Navy plans to have this completed by June 2004.  In addition, the Navy is working with the Center for Naval Analysis to  develop a transferable analytical tool for systematic and rigorous range  assessment. This tool is expected to integrate existing initiatives, such as  the range complex management plans, the Navy mission essential tasks  lists, and an encroachment log, into a methodology to identify, assess, and  prioritize physical range resource deficiencies—to include those caused  by encroachment issues—across ranges. An official of the Navy Range  Office stated that the Navy plans to pilot the tool at the Southern  California Complex by November 2004.
In October 2001, the Marine Corps established an executive agent for  range and training area management to implement its vision for mission- capable ranges. The Range and Training Area Management Division is  located within the Training and Education Command. These offices are  charged with developing systems, operational doctrine, and training  requirements for Marine Corps forces. In addition to its own ranges, the  Marine Corps engages in extensive cross-service utilization by depending  on extensive and extended access to non-Marine Corps training ranges.
The Air Force’s Director of Operations and Training, Ranges and Airspace  Division acts as the executive agent for range management for the Air  Force. The associate director for ranges and airspace stated that Air Force  range issues have become much more sensitive due to a number of recent  events, including the Navy’s departure from Vieques, Puerto Rico;  controversy with the Mountain Home Range, Idaho; the loss of naval  ranges in Hawaii; and the push to redesign the national air space. As a  result, Air Force leadership has become more aware of range needs. The  Air Force has an integrated approach to range management, to include  range planning, operations, construction, and maintenance. Air Force  Range Planning and Operations Instruction is the primary document  governing Air Force planning as it relates to its ranges. In addition, the Air  Force, using RAND, has conducted two studies addressing its training  requirements and training range capacities, capabilities, and constraints.  In general, the studies found that the Air Force’s training ranges did not  always meet the services’ training requirements. For example, one  study found that the distance between Air Force training ranges and  bases exceeded the established flying limitation for 19 percent of the  total air-to-ground training requirements for fighter jets.
section_title: OSD’s Prior Legislative Proposals
paragraphs: In 2002, the department prepared and submitted to the Congress a package  of legislative proposals to modify or clarify existing environmental  legislation to address encroachment issues. The proposals, known as  the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, were tailored to protect  military readiness activities, not the entire scope of DOD activities.  The proposals sought, among other things, to clarify provisions of the  Endangered Species Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act; Clean Air Act;  Solid Waste Disposal Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;  Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability  Act; and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003  enacted three provisions, including two that allow DOD to cooperate more  effectively with third parties on land transfers for conservation purposes,  and a third that provides a temporary exemption from the Migratory Bird  Treaty Act for the unintentional taking of migratory birds during military  readiness activities. In March 2003, the department submitted five  provisions to the Congress; the National Defense Authorization Act for  Fiscal Year 2004 enacted two provisions including a clarification of  “harassment” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and allowing  approved Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans to substitute  for critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act. DOD  submitted proposed legislation to the Congress on April 6, 2004, in a  continuing effort to clarify provisions of the Clean Air Act; Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
section_title: Prior GAO Reports and Testimonies
paragraphs: In 2002, we issued two reports on the effects of encroachment on military  training and readiness. In April 2002, we reported that troops stationed  outside of the continental United States face a variety of training  constraints that have increased over the last decade and are likely  to increase further. In June 2002, we reported on the impact of  encroachment on military training ranges inside the United States  and had similar findings to our earlier report. We reported that many  encroachment issues resulted from or were exacerbated by population  growth and urbanization. DOD was particularly affected because urban  growth near 80 percent of its installations exceeded the national average.  In both reports, we stated that impacts on readiness were not well  documented. In our June 2002 report, we recommended that (1) the  services develop and maintain inventories of their training ranges,  capacities, and capabilities, and fully quantify their training requirements  considering complementary approaches to training; (2) OSD create a DOD  database that identifies all ranges available to the department and what  they offer, regardless of service ownership, so that commanders can  schedule the best available resources to provide required training; (3) OSD  finalize a comprehensive plan for administrative actions that includes  goals, timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of responsibilities  for managing and coordinating the department’s efforts to address  encroachment issues on military training ranges; and (4) OSD develop a  reporting system for range sustainability issues that will allow for the  elevation of critical training problems and progress in addressing them  to the Senior Readiness Oversight Council for inclusion in Quarterly  Readiness Reports to the Congress as appropriate. In addition, we testified  twice on these issues—in May 2002 and April 2003. In September 2003,  we also reported that through increased cooperation DOD and other  federal land managers could share the responsibility for managing  endangered species.
In March 2004, we issued a guide to help managers assess how agencies  plan, design, implement, and evaluate effective training and development  programs that contribute to improved organizational performance and  enhanced employee skills and competencies. The framework outlined in  this guide summarizes attributes of effective training and development  programs and presents related questions concerning the components of  the training and development process. Over time, assessments of training  and development programs using this framework can further identify and  highlight emerging and best practices, provide opportunities to enhance  coordination and increase efficiency, and help develop more credible  information on the level of investment and the results achieved across  the federal government.
section_title: OSD’s Training Range Inventory Does Not Yet Contain Sufficient Information to Use as a Baseline for a Comprehensive Plan
paragraphs: OSD’s training range inventory does not yet contain sufficient information  to use as a baseline for developing a comprehensive training range plan.  As a result, OSD’s report does not include a comprehensive plan to  address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military  lands, marine areas, and airspace in the United States and overseas, as  required by section 366. Without a comprehensive plan that identifies  quantifiable goals or milestones for tracking planned actions and  measuring progress, or projected funding requirements, it will be difficult  for OSD to comply with the legislative requirement to report annually on  its progress in implementing the plan.
subsections: section_title: OSD’s Training Range Inventory Does Not Contain Sufficient Information
paragraphs: OSD’s training range inventory, which is a compilation of the individual  services’ inventories, does not contain sufficient information to provide a  baseline for developing a comprehensive training range sustainment plan.  Section 366 requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain an  inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all  training range capacities and capabilities, and any training constraints at  each training range. Although OSD’s inventory lists the services’ training  ranges as of November 2003 and identifies capabilities, the inventory  does not identify specific range capacities or existing training constraints  caused by encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of adequate  maintenance or modernization. Nevertheless, to date, this is the best  attempt we have identified by the services to inventory their training  ranges. In doing so, OSD and the services provided more descriptive  examples of constraints than ever before but did not fully identify the  actual impacts on training. Without such information, it is difficult to  develop a meaningful plan to address training constraints caused by  encroachment or other factors.
While OSD’s inventory is a consolidated list of ranges and capabilities as of  November 2003, OSD and the services’ inventories are not integrated and  accessibility is limited. Therefore, it is not a tool that commanders could  use to identify range availability, regardless of service ownership, and  schedule the best available resources to provide required training. In  addition, OSD has no method to continuously maintain this inventory  without additional requests for data, even though section 366 requires the  Secretary of Defense to maintain and submit an updated inventory  annually to the Congress. In 2001, RAND concluded that centralized  repositories of information on Air Force ranges and airspace are limited,  with little provision for updating the data. RAND noted that a  comprehensive database is a powerful tool for range and airspace  managers that must be continuously maintained and updated. In addition,  a knowledgeable official of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness stated that having a common management  system to share current range information is needed to identify range  availability, capabilities, capacities, and cumulative effects of  encroachment on training readiness. This official also noted that it would  take several years to develop such a system. However, OSD did not  address this system in its report.
section_title: OSD’s Training Range Report Does Not Include a Comprehensive Plan
paragraphs: Without an inventory that fully identifies available training resources,  specific capacities and capabilities, and existing training constraints, it is  difficult to frame a comprehensive training range plan to address  constraints. As a result, OSD’s report does not include a comprehensive  plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of  military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United  States and overseas for training—as required by section 366. Such a plan  was to include proposals to enhance training range capabilities and  address shortfalls, goals, and milestones for tracking planned actions and  measuring progress, projected funding requirements for implementing  planned actions, and designation of OSD and service offices responsible  for overseeing implementation of the plan. However, OSD’s report does  not contain quantifiable goals or milestones for tracking planned actions  and measuring progress, or projected funding requirements, which are  critical elements of a comprehensive plan. Rather than a comprehensive  plan, OSD and service officials characterized the report as a status report  of the services’ efforts to address encroachment that also includes service  proposals to enhance training range capabilities, as previously discussed  in the background, and designates OSD and service offices responsible  for overseeing implementation of a comprehensive training range plan.  According to a knowledgeable official of the Office of the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, by providing the Congress a  report on the current status of the individual services’ efforts to put  management systems in place to address encroachment issues and  ensure range sustainability, OSD believed it was meeting the mandated  requirements.
A professional journal article on sustaining DOD ranges, published by  knowledgeable defense officials in 2000, notes that there should be some  form of a national range comprehensive plan that provides the current  situation, establishes a vision with goals and objectives for the future, and  defines the strategies to achieve them. The article states that only with  such a comprehensive plan can sustainable ranges and synergy be  achieved. In addition, the article notes that while this plan should be done  at the department-level, “DOD’s bias will be to have the services do  individual plans.” In fact, OSD and service officials told us during our  review that OSD should not be responsible for framing a comprehensive  training range plan because the services are responsible for training  issues. Despite that view, OSD has recently issued a comprehensive  strategic plan and associated implementation plan—which includes all of  the above elements—for more broadly transforming DOD’s training.
section_title: OSD’s Training Range Report Does Not Fully Meet Other Requirements Mandated by Section 366
paragraphs: OSD’s Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range  Comprehensive Plan report, which is a consolidation of information  provided by the services, does not fully meet other requirements mandated  by section 366. Specifically, it does not (1) fully assess current and future  training range requirements; (2) fully evaluate the adequacy of current  DOD resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current  and future training range requirements; (3) identify recommendations for  legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints; or  (4) contain plans to improve the readiness reporting system.
subsections: section_title: OSD’s Report Does Not Fully Assess Current and Future Training Range Requirements
paragraphs: OSD’s report does not fully assess current and future training range  requirements. Instead, the report describes the services’ processes to  develop, document, and execute current training and training range  requirements. The services’ inputs, as required by OSD’s guidance, vary  in their emphasis on individual areas of requested information. Only the  Air Force’s submission to OSD’s report identifies specific annual training  requirements by type of aircraft, mission category, type of training activity,  and unit. By identifying its training requirements, the Air Force is in a  better position to evaluate the adequacy of resources to meet current and  future training requirements. Without a complete assessment, OSD and the  services cannot determine whether available training resources are able to  meet current and future requirements.
section_title: OSD’s Report Does Not Fully Evaluate the Adequacy of Current DOD Resources to Meet Current and Future Training Range Requirements
paragraphs: OSD’s report does not fully evaluate the adequacy of current DOD  resources to meet current and future training range requirements in the  United States and overseas. The report does not compare training range  requirements to existing resources—a primary method to evaluate the  adequacy of current resources—in the United States and does not evaluate  overseas training resources. Instead, OSD’s report states that generally the  services’ ranges allow military forces to accomplish most of the current  training missions. However, this conflicts with later statements in the  report noting that encroachment limits the services’ ability to meet  current core and joint training requirements. For example, OSD’s report  discusses an evaluation of the Air Force’s ranges in the United States, and  identifies shortfalls in the Air Force’s range resources and constraints that  affect operations. The evaluation shows that the distance between Air  Force training ranges and bases exceeded the established flying limitation  for 19 percent of the total air-to-ground training requirements for fighter  jets. The report also notes that the Army has shortages of modernized or  automated ranges and has a significant overage of older ranges that do not  fully meet current training requirements, but the report does not identify  where these shortages occur or explain how this determination was made.  In addition, the report states that 28 of 35 Army range categories have  some or major deficiencies that do not meet Army standards, or impair or  significantly impair mission performance. The report further notes the  condition of Marine Corps ranges and provides a general rating of the  ranges by installation but does not identify specific shortfalls in resources  or evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet future training  range requirements. OSD’s report also notes that simulation plays a role in  military training, but does not address the relative impact or adequacy of  simulated training to meet current and future training range requirements,  or to what extent simulation may help minimize constraints affecting  training ranges.
section_title: OSD’s Report Does Not Identify Recommendations for Legislative or Regulatory Changes
paragraphs: While OSD’s report does not include any recommendations for legislative  or regulatory changes to address training constraints, DOD submitted  proposed legislation to the Congress on April 6, 2004, in an effort to clarify  the intent of the Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act. Without these clarifications, according to DOD officials,  the department would continue to potentially face lawsuits that could  force the services to curtail training activities. According to DOD, the  clarifications are to (1) grant test ranges a 3-year extension from  complying with the Clean Air Act requirement when new units or weapons  systems are moved to a range and (2) exempt military munitions at  training ranges from provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act to avoid the classification of munitions as solid waste,  which could required expensive cleanup activities.
section_title: OSD’s Report Does Not Include Plans to Improve the Readiness Reporting System
paragraphs: OSD’s report does not address the department’s plans to improve  the readiness reporting system, called the Global Status of Resources  and Training System, as required by the mandate. According to a  knowledgeable OSD official, the Global Status of Readiness and  Training System is not the system to capture encroachment impacts that  are long-term in nature, rather it addresses short-term issues. Instead,  according to an OSD official, the department is working on a Defense  Readiness Reporting System, which is expected to capture range  availability as well as other factors that may constrain training. However,  OSD did not address either system in its report.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While OSD’s Implementation of the Department of Defense Training  Range Comprehensive Plan report addresses some of the mandated  requirements, it does not fulfill the requirement for an inventory  identifying range capacities or training constraints caused by  encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of adequate maintenance  or modernization; a comprehensive training range plan to address  encroachment on military training ranges; an adequate assessment of  current and future training range requirements; a sufficient evaluation of  the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive  assets, to meet current and future training range requirements;  recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address training  constraints; or plans to improve the readiness reporting system. Instead,  the report provides the current status of the services’ various sustainable  range efforts in the United States. Currently, OSD’s inventory consists of  individual services’ inputs as of November 2003, but it is not a tool that  commanders could use to identify range availability, regardless of service  ownership, and schedule the best available resources to provide required  training. In addition, OSD apparently has no planned method to  continuously maintain this inventory. Without an integrated training  range inventory that could be continuously updated and available at all  command levels, the services may not have knowledge of or access to  the best available training resources. This inventory may also have a  significant impact on the ability of the services to support joint training.  Also, without such an inventory, it will be difficult for OSD and the  services to develop a comprehensive plan to address these issues to  ensure range sustainability to support current and future training range  requirements. As a result, even though various services’ initiatives are  underway to better address encroachment or other factors and ensure  sustainability of military training ranges for future use, OSD’s training  range report did not include a comprehensive plan to address training  constraints in the United States and overseas—as required by section 366.  Without a plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for  tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding  requirements, OSD and the services may not be able to address the  ever-growing issues associated with encroachment and measure the  progress in addressing these issues. Similarly, OSD’s training range report  did not fully assess current and future training range requirements or fully  evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet these requirements.  Without these types of analyses, OSD and the services will not be able to  determine shortfalls in training resources to better allocate training  resources and may continue to maintain ranges that are no longer needed  to meet current training requirements. Finally, the report did not include  any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address  training constraints or a plan to improve the readiness reporting system  to reflect the impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to  limitations on the use of training ranges. Without an inventory identifying  range capacities or training constraints caused by encroachment or  other factors or a comprehensive training range plan to address training  constraints caused by limitations on the use training ranges, OSD and  the services will continue to rely on incomplete information to support  funding requests and legislative or regulatory changes to address these  issues.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To serve as the baseline for the comprehensive training range plan  required by section 366, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and  the secretaries of the military services to jointly 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.
To improve future reports, we also recommend that OSD provide a  more complete report to the Congress to fully address the requirements  specified in the section 366 mandate by (1) developing a comprehensive  plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned  actions and measuring progress, and projected funding requirements to  more fully address identified training constraints, (2) assessing current  and future training range requirements and evaluating the adequacy of  current resources to meet these requirements, and (3) developing a  readiness reporting system to reflect the impact on readiness caused by  training constraints due to limitations on the use of training ranges.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of  Defense for Readiness disagreed with our finding that OSD’s training  range report failed to address the congressional reporting requirements  mandated in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2003 and disagreed with three of our four  recommendations. As it clearly points out, this report outlines numerous  instances where OSD’s report did not address congressionally mandated  reporting requirements. Our recommendations were intended to help DOD  address all requirements specified in section 366. Without their  implementation, DOD will continue to rely on incomplete information to  support funding requests and legislative or regulatory changes to address  encroachment and other factors.
DOD disagreed with our first recommendation—to jointly develop an  integrated training range database that identified available training  resources, specific capacities and capabilities, and training constraints,  which could be continuously updated and shared among all the services  at all command levels regardless of service ownership. As discussed in  our report, OSD’s inventory consists of individual services’ inputs as of  November 2003 and is not a tool that commanders could use to identify  range availability, regardless of service ownership, and schedule the best  available resources to provide required training. Further, as noted in our  report, the individual service submissions continue to provide limited  information on how training has been constrained by encroachment or  other factors. In contrast, section 366 clearly requires the Secretary of  Defense to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available  operational training ranges, all training range capacities and capabilities,  and any training constraints at each training range. DOD’s suggestion  that our draft report recommended that DOD should initiate a “massive  new database” effort to allow OSD management of individual range  activities is without merit. Our recommendation merely specified section  366 legislative requirements that were not found in OSD’s training range  report to the Congress.
Also, DOD’s disagreement with our first recommendation seems  inconsistent with other comments DOD officials have made as noted in  this and other GAO reports regarding military training range inventories.  In commenting on this report, DOD specifically stated that it agreed that,  as a long-term goal, the services’ inventory systems should be linked to  support joint use. In commenting on a prior report, DOD stated that the  services were developing a statement of work in order to contract with a  firm capable of delivering an enterprise level web-enabled system that will  allow cross service, as well as intra-service training use of inventory data.  Further, in a 2003 study, the U.S. Special Operations Command stated that  all components needed to create master range plans that addressed their  current and future range issues and solutions. The command also  recommended that plans identify and validate training requirements and  facilities available and define the acceptable limits of workarounds.  Without an integrated training range inventory, we continue to believe that  it will be difficult for OSD and the services to develop a comprehensive  plan and track its progress in addressing training constraints and ensuring  range sustainability.
DOD generally concurred with our second recommendation—to develop a  comprehensive plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for  tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding  requirements to more fully address identified training constraints.  However, the department’s comments suggest it plans simply to  summarize ongoing efforts of individual services rather than formulate a  comprehensive strategy for addressing training constraints. Without a  plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned  actions and measuring progress, and projected funding requirements,  OSD and the services may not be able to address the ever-growing issues  associated with encroachment and other training constraints and measure  the progress in addressing these issues. Also, a summary of ongoing  efforts does not fully address the requirements of section 366, which calls  for a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the  Secretaries of Defense and 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. Second, it directly contradicts DOD’s concurrence with  recommendations made in our June 2002 report where we specifically  recommended that the department develop a plan with the same elements  subsequently required by the mandate. Third, it contradicts a January  2003 report of the Southwest Region Range Sustainability Conference  sponsored by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness and  the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and  Environment. The conference report recommended a national range  sustainability and infrastructure plan—which could also address section  366 requirements—to include range requirements, overall vision, current  and future requirements, and encroachment issues. Without a  comprehensive plan that includes quantifiable goals and milestones for  tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and projected funding  requirements, we continue to believe that OSD and the services may not  be able to address the ever-growing issues associated with encroachment  and other training constraints, and measure the progress in addressing  these issues.
DOD disagreed with our third recommendation—to assess current and  future training range requirements and evaluate the adequacy of current  resources to meet these requirements. It stated that it is inappropriate and  impractical to include this level of detail in an OSD-level report and that  the Congress is better served if the department describes, summarizes, and  analyzes range requirements. Clearly, these statements are contradictory  in that section 366 requires that OSD report on its assessment of current  and future training range requirements and an evaluation of the adequacy  of current DOD resources to meet current and future training  requirements, which could be accomplished by providing the  aforementioned description, summary, and analysis of range requirements.  While the department’s training range report provided a description of the  methodology used by each service to develop their requirements, it did not  provide any detail regarding such analyses. Without these types of  analyses, we continue to believe that OSD and the services will not be able  to determine shortfalls in training resources to better allocate training  resources and may continue to maintain ranges that are no longer needed  to meet current training requirements. In addition, the department  questions why we did not examine detailed requirements work being done  at each installation. While we agree with DOD that this type of  examination could be useful, it is unclear why OSD’s report did not  provide a discussion of the work underway at individual installations.  While we may conduct such an examination in the future, section 366 did  not specifically require us to conduct this examination, nor did it provide  us sufficient time for such an examination.
DOD disagreed with our fourth recommendation—to develop a readiness  reporting system to reflect the impact on readiness caused by training  constraints. DOD further stated that it was inappropriate to modify the  Global Status of Readiness and Training System report to address  encroachment and that it plans to incorporate encroachment impacts on  readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting System. Our draft report  recognized that the department does not believe that the Global Status of  Readiness and Training System is the system to capture encroachment  impacts. Given that OSD’s training range reports are required to provide a  status of efforts to address training constraints, it is unclear why OSD’s  report did not provide an assessment of progress in this area. We continue  to believe that future reports should provide the Congress with  information on DOD’s progress toward improving readiness reporting— whether it is the Defense Readiness Reporting System as cited in DOD’s  comments or another system—to reflect the impact on readiness caused  by training constraints due to limitations on the use of training ranges, as  required by section 366.
We continue to believe our recommendations are valid and without their  implementation, DOD will continue to rely on incomplete information to  support funding requests and legislative or regulatory proposals to address  encroachment and other training constraints, and will not be able to fully  address the congressionally mandated requirements in section 366.
The Deputy Under Secretary’s comments are included in appendix II.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which OSD’s training range inventory contains  sufficient information to develop a comprehensive training range plan, we  reviewed OSD’s inventory of the services’ training ranges to determine  whether the inventory identified training capacities and capabilities, and  constraints caused by encroachment or other factors for each training  range. In addition, we reviewed the services’ inputs to OSD’s inventory and  OSD’s report for a comprehensive training range plan. We also discussed  OSD’s inventory and the services’ inputs and the need for a comprehensive  training range plan with officials from the Office of the Director of  Readiness and Training, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,  Personnel and Readiness; and a representative of the contractor, who  compiled the report. Also, we reviewed two RAND studies on Air Force  ranges and airspace.
To determine the extent to which OSD’s Implementation of the  Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan report  meets other requirements mandated by section 366, we reviewed the  report to determine if it contained an assessment of current and future  training range requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD  resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and  future training range requirements; recommendations for legislative or  regulatory changes to address training constraints; and plans to improve  the readiness reporting system. To obtain further clarification and  information, we reviewed the individual submissions from the Army, Navy,  Marine Corps, and Air Force. We also discussed OSD’s report and the  services’ inputs with officials from the Office of the Director of Readiness  and Training, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and  Readiness; the Office of the Director, Training Directorate, Training  Simulations Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of  the Army; the Navy Ranges and Fleet Training Branch, Fleet Readiness  Division, Fleet Readiness and Logistics, Office of the Deputy Chief of  Naval Operations; the Range and Training Area Management Division,  Training and Education Command, Headquarters, Marine Corps; and the  Office of the Director of Ranges and Airspace, Air and Space Operations,  Headquarters, Air Force. We also met with a representative of the  contractor who compiled the report. To determine what guidance the  services were given when preparing their submission to the department’s  report, we also reviewed the January 28, 2003, memorandum from the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to the military  services. We also reviewed DOD’s Sustainment of Ranges and Operating  Areas directive that establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for the  sustainment of test and training ranges and the department’s Strategic  Plan for Transforming DOD Training and Training Transformation  Implementation Plan.
We assessed the reliability of the data in OSD’s report by (1) reviewing  existing information about military training ranges, (2) interviewing OSD  and service officials knowledgeable about the report and training ranges,  and (3) examining the data elements in the report by comparing known  statistics and information. We determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, as well as the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and  the Air Force, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will  also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this  letter, please contact me at (202) 512-8412, or my Assistant Director,  Mark A. Little, at (202) 512-4673. Patricia J. Nichol, Tommy Baril, Steve  Boyles, and Ann DuBois were major contributors to this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
paragraphs: SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources  and Training System, and Training Range Inventory.  (a) PLAN REQUIRED—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a  comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the  Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to  address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military  lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United States  and overseas for training of the Armed Forces.  (2) As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense shall  conduct the following:  (A) An assessment of current and future training range  requirements of the Armed Forces.  (B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of  Defense resources (including virtual and constructive training  assets as well as military lands, marine areas, and airspace  available in the United States and overseas) to meet those  current and future training range requirements. (3) The plan shall include the following:  (A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and  address any shortfalls in current Department of Defense  resources identified pursuant to the assessment and  evaluation conducted under paragraph (2).  (B) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and  measuring progress.  (C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned  actions.  (D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of  Defense and in each of the military departments that will have  lead responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan.  (4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget for  fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report  describing the progress made in implementing this subsection, including—  (A) the plan developed under paragraph (1);  (B) the results of the assessment and evaluation conducted  under paragraph (2); and  (C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for  legislative or regulatory changes to address training  constraints identified pursuant to this section.  (5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget for  each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, the Secretary shall submit to  Congress a report describing the progress made in implementing the plan  and any additional actions taken, or to be taken, to address training  constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine  areas, and airspace.  (b) READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT—Not later than June 30,  2003, the Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the  authority of the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans  of the Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources  and Training System to reflect the readiness impact that training  constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine  areas, and airspace have on specific units of the Armed Forces.  (c) TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall  develop and maintain a training range inventory for each of the Armed  Forces—  (A) to identify all available operational training ranges;  (B) to identify all training capacities and capabilities available  at each training range; and  (C) to identify training constraints caused by limitations on  the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each  training range.  (2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory to Congress  at the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal year 2004  and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at the same time as the  President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.  (d) GAO EVALUATION—The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies of  each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller  General. Within 60 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller General  shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report.  (e) ARMED FORCES DEFINED—In this section, the term ‘Armed Forces’  means the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense