Military Training: DOD's Annual Sustainable Ranges Report Addressed Statutory Reporting Requirements
Released: 2015-06-17T00:00:00

Letter

DOD’s 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report Met Statutory Reporting Requirements

DOD’s 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report met the statutory reporting requirements to describe DOD’s progress in implementing its training range sustainment plan and to describe any actions taken or to be taken in addressing training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, or airspace. DOD also provided updates to several elements of the plan required by the Act including: (1) proposals to enhance training range capabilities and to address any shortfalls in current DOD resources identified pursuant to DOD’s assessment and evaluation; (2) goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress in the implementation of its training range sustainment plan; and (3) projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions.

DOD Reported on Proposals to Enhance Range Capabilities and to Address Shortfalls

In our review of DOD’s 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, we found that DOD reported on its proposals to enhance training range capabilities and to 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. To do so, DOD updated the report sections pertaining to each military service’s issues related to range capability and encroachment and special interests, included a section in its report on evolving challenges that could affect the sustainability of ranges, and reported on the results of a training range assessment. In conducting the training range assessment, the Marine Corps, for example, 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 realistic training scenario. The area currently being used is not large enough to accommodate a full-scale, live-fire Marine Expeditionary Brigade exercise. To address this shortfall, DOD was authorized to expand this training area by approximately 103,000 acres exclusively for military use and an additional 50,000 acres for joint military and recreational use. Efforts are under way to acquire this additional land.

Additionally, the 2015 report identified seven emerging challenges to the military services’ training ranges. The seven challenges are: (1) budget reductions affecting range capability, (2) foreign investment and national security, (3) threatened and endangered and candidate species, (4) demand for electromagnetic spectrum, (5) continued growth in domestic use of Unmanned Aerial Systems, (6) early coordination with renewable energy industry, and (7) offshore oil and gas development. In December 2014, we reported on the risks to DOD ranges and installations from foreign investment encroachment and on the department’s ability to address these risks. In that review, we found that DOD had not conducted a risk assessment that included prioritizing test and training ranges based on mission criticality and assessing the degree to which foreign encroachment could pose a threat to the mission of the range, among other things. We also reported that DOD had not obtained sufficient information on commercial activity being conducted near test and training ranges in the level of detail that officials said they needed to determine whether specific transactions on federally owned or managed land in proximity to ranges pose a threat to the range. We made two recommendations to DOD: (1) develop and implement guidance for conducting a risk assessment on foreign encroachment and (2) collaborate with other federal agencies to obtain additional information on transactions near ranges. According to DOD’s 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, the department remains focused on the issue of foreign investment in industries located in proximity to military training and testing areas because of potential surveillance and collection capabilities provided to foreign entities that invest in these assets. DOD concurred with the recommendations and is continuing to develop strategies designed to mitigate the effects on training from foreign investment and national security encroachment. DOD is also working with agencies with land and airspace management authority to obtain information related to foreign investment and transactions in proximity to DOD activities.

As part of the preparation for input into the 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, DOD tasked the military services to conduct an assessment of current and future training range capabilities to support its assigned training mission and an evaluation of the adequacy of current range resources to meet its mission. In its 2015 report, DOD updates the critical range and training issues identified by the military services and provides a comprehensive update to the individual training range capability and encroachments assessments for all four military services.

According to DOD’s report, the military services assessed the ranges’ assigned training mission areasattributes and 12 encroachment factors to evaluate their ability to support assigned training missions. These capability attributes and encroachment factors were developed by DOD and the services in 2008 and help DOD create a unified reporting and analytical framework that integrates data from each of the services conducting assessments. Figure 1 describes against a common set of 13 capability the 13 capability attributes and 12 encroachment factors that the services used in their assessments.

For its 2015 report, DOD evaluated 15 Army ranges, 10 Marine Corps ranges, 21 Navy ranges, and 36 Air Force ranges. The military services assigned a rating to each capability and encroachment item—indicated as red, yellow, or green—to convey the severity of the effects of the constraints on the ranges’ ability to support their assigned training mission requirements.

DOD summarized its results of the assessments in a section of the report entitled Historical Information, Results, and Future Projections that provided a qualitative assessment of each range by presenting overall rating scores from prior years as well as comments on whether the capabilities or encroachment pressures have been improving or degrading over the years and the outlook for the future. The results of the capability and encroachment assessment for fiscal year 2015 are in figure 2.

Further, following the assessment details for each range, the military services provided observations that included explanations of how any capability and encroachment shortfalls rated severe or moderate risk were affecting training at a specific range. The services also described any planned or ongoing actions to remedy the shortfalls. For example, according to DOD’s 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report:

The Army identified training areas at Fort Stewart, Georgia, as being partially mission capable because there was a shortfall of landspace to conduct light and heavy maneuver training. As a result of limited landspace, units were not able to have realistic training. Currently, the Army had no actions or plans to increase the landspace.

The Marine Corps was prohibited from conducting live-fire individual- and unit-level training using artillery and other munitions at Marine Corps Base Hawaii. Due to landspace, airspace, and munitions restrictions, units were forced to train at other military services ranges in Hawaii.

The Navy identified two assigned training missions as being partially mission capable as a result of adjacent land use at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada. Specifically, power lines and telecommunications towers affected low-altitude helicopter training and tactics. This encroachment prohibited training events, reduced realism of segments of the training, constrained flight altitudes, and complicated all-weather training. The Navy did not have a solution to resolve these issues.

The Air Force identified several training areas as being partially mission capable because of limited access to needed airspace. At Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, training has been limited because the Air Force shares the Army’s airspace. Air Force training is a low priority for Army airspace, and daily coordination of schedules is needed in order to gain access to it.

Finally, the Army and Navy provided additional information and perspectives on any areas of special interest that affect or may affect its training capabilities and encroachment situation. In the 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, for example, the Army discussed the effect of force structure reductions on aging infrastructure, stating that it needed additional authorizations through the Base Realignment and Closure process to reduce excess infrastructure. Also, the Navy discussed its efforts to allow at-sea training while minimizing adverse effects to marine mammals. A key challenge identified by the Navy was endangered species and critical habitat encroachment that has resulted in excluding or reducing training events. We have previously reported that highlighting the services’ most pressing range sustainability issues helps DOD officials prioritize the department’s actions to address range issues in the most efficient and effective manner.

DOD Used Goals and Milestones to Update Its Progress in Implementing Its Training Range Sustainment Plan

In its 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, DOD identified goals and milestones to help address the statutory requirements to describe its progress in implementing its training range sustainment plan. DOD has seven shared goals in support of this plan. The goals are: (1) mitigate encroachment pressures on training activities from competing operating space; (2) mitigate frequency spectrum competition; (3) meet military airspace challenges; (4) manage increasing military demand for range space; (5) address effects from new energy infrastructure and renewable energy effects; (6) anticipate climate change effects;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 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, each service provided updates to its milestones and actions. For example: and (7) sustain

The Army has partially completed actions to execute training land acquisitions to offset the shortfall of nearly 5 million acres in training land assets. While the Army has purchased over 32,500 acres of land, it has postponed other purchases due to delays and costs associated with endangered species management and mitigation and Army force structure decisions.

The Navy has ongoing actions to meet its milestones of updating encroachment action plans and using Navy Community Plans and Liaisons Officers to engage communities where there is potential encroachment of installations and land ranges.

The Marine Corps has ongoing actions to analyze and assess frequency spectrum issues that potentially could affect training capabilities at range complexes.

The Air Force has met its milestone of incorporating frequency spectrum as a key and quantifiable factor in the Air Force corporate basing process.

According to the 2015 Sustainable Ranges report, these goals and milestones will be reviewed and updated annually to ensure that DOD continues to address future training requirements and constraints.

DOD Reported Its Projected Funding Requirements for Implementing Planned Actions

In its 2015 Sustainable Ranges Report, DOD met the statutory requirement to track its progress in implementing the training range sustainment plan by identifying the funding requirements needed to accomplish its goals. Requested funding for fiscal years 2015 through 2019 are identified in table 1.

DOD has delineated four funding categories to be used by the services to project their range sustainment requirements: (1) modernization and investment, (2) operations and maintenance, (3) environmental, and (4) encroachment. The funding requirements section included descriptions and specific examples for each funding category. For instance, DOD described the environmental funding category as funds dedicated to the environmental management of ranges, including range assessments, response actions, and natural and cultural resource-management planning and implementation. Examples of the environmental funding category include conducting range assessments and environmental mitigation costs associated with range modernization and range construction. The funding requirement section of DOD’s report also provides an explanation of any fluctuations in the funding categories occurring over the requested 5-year funding period covered in the report. For example, the Army’s requested funding for the modernization and investment category increased from $18.8 million in fiscal year 2015 to $121.1 million in fiscal year 2019. The Army attributes these fluctuations to range construction project delays and related adjustments in target requirements.

Agency Comments

We are not making any recommendations in this report. We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness. In its written response, DOD agreed with our report. We also received technical comments to clarify our draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOD’s written response is reprinted in its entirety in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions concerning 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 III.

Appendix I: Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003

SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources and Training System, and Training Range Inventory. (a) PLAN REQUIRED———(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United States and overseas for training of the Armed Forces. (2) As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct the following: (A) An assessment of current and future training range requirements of the Armed Forces. (B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of Defense resources (including virtual and constructive training assets as well as military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United States and overseas) to meet those current and future training range requirements. (3) The plan shall include the following: (A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any shortfalls in current Department of Defense resources identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph (2). (B) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress. (C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. (D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and in each of the military departments that will have lead responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan. (4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in implementing this subsection, including——— (A) the plan developed under paragraph (1); (B) the results of the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph (2); and (C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training constraints identified pursuant to this section. (5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Harold Reich (Assistant Director), Richard Powelson, Michael Silver, Amie Steele, Sonja Ware, and Alexander Welsh made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Defense Infrastructure: Risk Assessment Needed to Identify If Foreign Encroachment Threatens Test and Training Ranges. GAO-15-149. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2014.

Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts. GAO-14-446. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014.

Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements for Its 014 Sustainable Ranges Report. GAO-14-517. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2014.

Military Training: DOD Met Annual Reporting Requirements and Continued to Improve Its Sustainable Ranges Report. GAO-13-648. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2013.

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.