This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-13R 
entitled 'Military Training: DOD’s Report on the Sustainability of 
Training Ranges Meets Annual Reporting Requirements but Could Be 
Improved' which was released on October 20, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

October 19, 2011: 

Congressional Committees: 

Subject: Military Training: DOD's Report on the Sustainability of 
Training Ranges Meets Annual Reporting Requirements but Could Be 
Improved: 

Realistic training ranges are one of the most valued assets the 
military has in preparing its personnel for their missions. Realistic 
training requires access to areas and environments that closely match 
the locations where the military may face combat or complex situations. 
International events, changes in strategy, force structure, base 
closures, and population growth are increasing the challenges the 
military faces in training its personnel to be prepared to defend the 
nation. Moreover, the military services report that they have 
increasingly lost training range capabilities because of factors such 
as encroachment.[Footnote 1] To respond to these challenges and 
increase the sustainability of military ranges, the Department of 
Defense (DOD) has launched a number of efforts aimed at preserving 
training ranges while also minimizing adverse environmental effects of 
training activities. 

As required by section 366(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended),[Footnote 2] DOD 
was to submit a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities 
available to the department to address training constraints caused by 
limitations on the use of worldwide military lands, marine areas, and 
airspace to Congress at the same time as the President submitted his 
budget for fiscal year 2004 with annual progress reports for fiscal 
year 2005, extending through fiscal year 2013. To address these 
requirements, DOD has submitted its sustainable ranges report annually 
since 2004. In addition, we are required to submit annual evaluations 
of DOD's reports to Congress within 90 days of receiving these reports 
from DOD.[Footnote 3] Enclosure I includes the full text of section 
366, as amended. 

In addition to the sustainable ranges report, DOD provides Congress the 
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative Report. This report 
is required separately under 10 U.S.C. § 2684a and describes, among 
other things, certain projects and other actions undertaken as part of 
a long-term strategy to ensure sustainability of military test and 
training ranges, military installations, and associated 
airspace.[Footnote 4] As such, this report complements the sustainable 
ranges report in addressing some actions taken by DOD to mitigate 
encroachment on military installations and ranges that require, or may 
reasonably require, safety or operational buffer areas. Both reports 
respond to statutory reporting requirements but target different 
aspects of DOD's efforts to capture mission requirements, current asset 
capability, and current and future risks to these capabilities from 
encroachment. 

In our prior reviews of DOD's sustainable ranges reports, we noted that 
DOD had not addressed certain required elements when it initially 
submitted its comprehensive plan in 2004. Over time, we concluded that 
DOD had increasingly improved its report submissions and had reported 
on actions taken on our prior recommendations. Enclosure II provides a 
complete list of our prior recommendations and DOD's actions in 
response to them. This report is our evaluation of DOD's 2011 
sustainable ranges report. In this report, we summarize our 
observations on the extent to which DOD's 2011 sustainable ranges 
report meets the requirements specified by section 366 and identify 
opportunities for improving future report submissions. We also discuss 
DOD's plans for its 2012 report submission. In accordance with the 
mandate, we are submitting this report to you within 90 days of 
receiving DOD's 2011 sustainable ranges report on July 21, 2011. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the extent to which DOD's 2011 sustainable ranges report 
meets the requirements specified by section 366, we reviewed DOD's 2011 
report and compared it to the reporting requirements contained in 
section 366. In addition, we met with Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and military service officials to 
discuss the extent to which the 2011 report meets the mandated 
requirements. We further discussed with these officials the extent to 
which opportunities exist for improving future sustainable ranges 
report submissions. We also compared the 2010 and 2011 reports to 
determine the improvements DOD had made to its sustainable ranges 
report. The intent of our review was not to comprehensively evaluate 
the data presented in the 2011 sustainable ranges report but rather to 
determine the extent to which the report met mandated requirements and 
whether the report could be improved. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 through October 2011 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

DOD's 2011 sustainable ranges report meets the annual reporting 
requirement, that DOD describe the progress made in implementing its 
sustainable ranges 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. However, opportunities 
exist to improve future report submissions. DOD's 2011 report provides 
updates to the following four elements that section 366 required be 
included in DOD's original submissions in response to section 
366.[Footnote 5] 

* Adequacy of resources: DOD has continued to improve the section of 
its report that evaluates the adequacy of existing range resources to 
meet requirements by (1) providing a brief description of the mission 
for each of DOD's ranges; (2) adding a section on historical 
information, results, and future projections to the individual range 
assessments; and (3) providing comments explaining how a range 
complex's capabilities or encroachment issues are affecting training 
and any planned actions to remedy the situation. 

* Updates of actions and milestones: The 2011 report includes a common 
framework of goals and updated actions and milestones for the services 
to measure past performance and progress toward achieving their 
training and range sustainability objectives; however, the updates do 
not fully explain the progress made. We found that there is 
insufficient information presented in the 2011 report to effectively 
track and measure the overall progress of each action and related 
milestones based solely on the information presented for the respective 
milestone's description and estimated completion date. Specifically, it 
does not provide narrative to indicate whether an action or milestone 
has changed in comparison to its entry in the 2010 report in the 
following three ways: (1) some of the milestones reported in the 2011 
report moved their 2010 completion dates, (2) some actions or 
milestones in the 2010 report do not appear in the 2011 report because 
they were completed in 2010 but were not reported as such in the 2011 
report, and (3) new actions or milestones appear in the 2011 report 
that were not listed in the 2010 report. Without this narrative, it is 
difficult to determine what specific progress has been achieved without 
performing a detailed and time-consuming comparison between the 2010 
and 2011 reports. Providing this information in a future report would 
better explain the progress made by each of the services in meeting its 
planned actions and milestones. 

* Projected funding requirements: DOD made continued progress in its 
2011 report toward reporting its sustainable range funding 
requirements, but opportunities exist to improve future report 
submissions. For example, in its 2009 report DOD used the 
administration and support of the Army's Compatible Use Buffer program 
as an example of the type of projects that should be captured in the 
funding projections for the encroachment category. Additionally, in the 
2011 report, DOD stated that any buffer projects independently budgeted 
for by a military service should be captured in that service's 
encroachment funding projections. However, in the 2011 report, we found 
that the Army neither provided funding projections for the 
administration and support of its Compatible Use Buffer program nor for 
the execution of buffer projects implemented under the program. In 
addition, while Army officials provided us with an explanation for 
excluding funding projections associated with its Compatible Use Buffer 
program, the 2011 report did not include an explanation for excluding 
projected funds for the program. Thus, the user of the report would 
have to contact the Army for the information, as we did. Furthermore, 
although the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness) directed the services to provide explanations for 
fluctuations greater than 10 percent between years for the 2011 
sustainable ranges report as part of its internal data call to the 
services, not all of the services explained these fluctuations in their 
funding projections or explained how changes would affect the progress 
in implementing DOD's overall comprehensive range sustainment plan. 
Additionally, when we discussed funding fluctuations with Air Force 
officials, they discovered that an error had occurred when they 
inadvertently omitted funds for one of their program elements which 
prompted them to subsequently provide us with corrected funding 
projections. [Footnote 6]Explaining why projections for funding some 
categories were excluded from the report and explaining funding 
fluctuations greater than 10 percent would provide more clarity and 
understanding for the changes in the funding projections, improving the 
usefulness of the report. 

* Planned improvements to DOD's readiness system: DOD has continued to 
make progress in reporting on its plans to improve the Defense 
Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) by incorporating training range 
assessment data into the system. According to a senior official in the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), 
additional funding has been received and the planned completion date 
for full implementation of the range assessment module into DRRS is 
June 2012. 

To improve the visibility of progress in achieving DOD's stated 
sustainability goals and milestones, we are recommending that DOD 
include a brief narrative in its next report that (1) describes the 
progress for each action and milestone in the goals, actions, and 
milestones section of the report; (2) explains the omission of funding 
associated with the Army's Compatible Use Buffer program; and (3) 
explains all fluctuations in funding projections greater than 10 
percent. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred 
with our first recommendation and partially concurred with the 
remaining two recommendations, as discussed more fully later in this 
report. 

DOD's 2011 Sustainable Ranges Report Meets the Annual Mandated 
Reporting Requirements, but Additional Information Could Enhance 
Usability: 

DOD's 2011 sustainable ranges report meets the annual reporting 
requirement that DOD describe the progress made in implementing its 
sustainable ranges 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. For example, DOD's 2011 
report provides updates to four elements that section 366 required be 
included in DOD's original submissions in response to section 366: (1) 
evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources to meet current and 
future training range requirements (2) goals and milestones for 
tracking planned actions and measuring progress (3) projected funding 
requirements associated with implementing planned actions and (4) 
planned improvements to DOD's readiness reporting system to reflect the 
readiness impact that training range constraints have on specific units 
of the Armed Forces. Although we have previously reported on the 
progress DOD has made in these sections, additional information and 
clarification in some of these areas would improve the usefulness of 
future reports. Like previous DOD reports, the current DOD sustainable 
ranges report does not include any recommendations that the Secretary 
may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address any training 
constraints.[Footnote 7] However, the report provides a summary of the 
most recent legislative initiatives that had already been submitted to 
Congress for approval. 

DOD's Report Improves Its Evaluation of the Adequacy of Its Resources 
to Meet Current and Future Training Requirements: 

In reviewing the 2011 sustainable ranges report, we found that DOD has 
continued to improve the section of its report that evaluates the 
adequacy of existing range resources to meet requirements by providing 
increased content to the individual range assessments. Section 
366(a)(2)(B) required that DOD's original sustainable ranges 
comprehensive plan should include an evaluation of the adequacy of 
current DOD resources to meet current and future training range 
requirements, including military lands, marine areas, and airspace 
available in the United States and overseas. Since 2008, each military 
service's individual ranges and range complexes have been assessed for 
their ability to support their assigned training missions using 
specific capability attributes and encroachment factors.[Footnote 8] 

DOD has continued to make improvements each year to its range 
assessments, including changing how the information is presented in its 
reports. For example, in 2009, DOD's report included detailed 
capability and encroachment observations provided by the military 
services for each training range assessed in an appendix of the report. 
In 2010, to improve the report's readability, DOD moved the range-
specific detail from the appendix to the body of the report so that 
there would be a direct link between the capability and encroachment 
assessments and the services' observations. In the 2011 sustainable 
ranges report, DOD changed the display of the services' individual 
range assessments again to improve the context, clarity, and flow of 
the report. Both the capability and range assessments for each range 
continued to be displayed side by side, but to improve the readers' 
understanding of the range being assessed, a brief description of the 
range's mission was added above the chart's assessments. Additionally, 
a section on historical information, results, and future projections 
was added to the individual range assessments to provide a more 
qualitative assessment with several pieces of information. 
Specifically, overall composite rating scores from prior years were 
presented along with comments as to whether the range complex's 
capabilities or encroachment pressures were improving or degrading over 
the years and the outlook for the future. Following the assessment 
details were the military services' observations, including comments 
explaining how capability or encroachment issues were affecting 
training and any planned actions to remedy the situation. 

According to Marine Corps officials, the Marine Corps used the 
historical information, results, and future projections section of the 
report to briefly describe how a range's capability attributes and 
encroachment factors were historically affecting specific mission 
training tasks.[Footnote 9] The Marine Corps officials stated that this 
was the first time the Marine Corps included this level of detailed 
information in its training range assessments. The officials also 
stated that the Marine Corps will continue to conduct its range 
assessments based on the impact that a range's capability attributes 
and encroachment factors have on entire Marine Corps units' ability to 
conduct training. The Marine Corps included the additional detailed 
assessment information to better align internal range assessment 
methodologies. This additional information contributed to range 
readiness data that were more consistent with those of the other 
services. The inclusion of this information in DOD's 2011 report was 
consistent with the intent of our 2008 recommendation that the Marine 
Corps modify its training range assessments to include information that 
would address how specific training tasks are affected by a range's 
capability attributes and encroachment factors, thereby providing 
Congress and other interested parties with the additional information 
necessary to address and potentially fund the specific areas of 
training that are not considered fully mission capable. 

DOD's 2011 Report Updates Actions and Milestones, but It Does Not Fully 
Describe Progress Made: 

The 2011 report includes a section on goals, actions, and milestones in 
which a common framework of goals was used by the services to establish 
supporting milestones and actions. By using a common framework of goals 
and related milestones, DOD and the services were able to measure past 
performance and progress toward achieving their training and range 
sustainability objectives. Section 366 (a)(3)(B) required DOD to 
include goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring 
progress in its original comprehensive plan. In the 2010 sustainable 
ranges report, DOD included a new set of goals that DOD states are 
measurable, are attainable, and align with the seven sustainable ranges 
focus areas that the Deputy Secretary of Defense endorsed.[Footnote 10] 
However, there is insufficient information presented in the 2011 report 
to effectively track and measure the overall progress of each action 
and related milestones based solely on the information presented for 
the respective milestone's description and estimated completion date. 
Specifically, the 2011 report does not provide narrative to indicate 
whether an action or milestone has changed in comparison to its entry 
in the 2010 report. These changes include (1) milestones that appear to 
have moved their respective completion dates, (2) actions or milestones 
that appear to have been completed but were omitted from the 2011 
report, and (3) actions or milestones that appear to be new in the 2011 
report. Without more descriptive narrative that provides progress for 
each of the actions and milestones, it is difficult to determine what 
specific progress has been achieved without performing a detailed 
comparison of the respective actions and milestones with those 
identified in the 2010 report. 

Some Milestones Moved Their Respective Completion Dates: 

In our review of the goals, actions, and milestones included in the 
2011 report, we found that about 11 percent (16 of the 142 milestones) 
appear to have moved their respective completion dates based on a 
comparison of the related milestone dates cited in the 2010 report. To 
illustrate, for the first goal of mitigating encroachment pressures on 
training activities, the Army revised its date from the second quarter 
of fiscal year 2010 to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011 for 
finalizing the development of its range complex master plans for 
selected installations. The revised date was provided in the 2011 
report, but the change is only apparent by comparing it to the date in 
the 2010 report. According to Army officials, this change was due to 
its preparing new range complex master plans for several other 
installations and a delay in obtaining final approval of the plans. In 
another case involving the second goal of mitigating frequency spectrum 
competition, the Marine Corps revised the milestone completion date 
from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 for assessing operational 
impacts of frequency encroachment at the range complex level. The 
revised date was reported in the 2011 report. The 2011 report, however, 
did not state that a change in the Marine Corps' milestone completion 
date had occurred or provide an explanation for the revised time frame. 
We subsequently learned from Marine Corps officials that the dates were 
changed because of a reorganization of the Marine Corps' regional range 
complex management structure and an overall change in priorities. But 
it took our comparison of the 2010 and 2011 reports to identify the 
date change and our inquiry to determine the reason for the change. 

Some Actions and Milestones Included in the 2010 Report Were Not 
Included in the 2011 Report: 

We found that some actions and milestones reported in the 2010 report 
were subsequently not included in the 2011 report. Specifically, we 
found at least 15 items (12 actions and 3 milestones) reported in the 
2010 report were not included in the 2011 report. Furthermore, the 2011 
report does not state whether these actions and milestones were 
completed or not included in the report for other reasons. For example, 
in the 2010 report, the Air Force had an action to develop a 
cooperative civil and military study of future airspace requirements. 
This milestone was planned to be completed in fiscal year 2010. 
However, this Air Force action and related milestone were not included 
in DOD's 2011 report. We subsequently learned from Air Force officials 
that this action and milestone had been completed on schedule and 
therefore were not included in the 2011 report. However, the 2011 
report does not refer to the milestone as having been completed on 
schedule in 2010. 

Some Actions or Milestones Appeared to Be New in the 2011 Report: 

We were unclear whether some 2011 actions and milestones (1) were 
revisions to those included 2010 report or (2) were newly added since 
the 2010 report. We found at least 16 actions and 46 milestones that 
appeared new in the 2011 report without any information identifying 
them as new in the report. The following example of an Army action and 
its related milestones illustrates these two issues that made it 
difficult to track changes between DOD's 2010 and 2011 reports. To 
address DOD's third goal to meet military airspace challenges, the Army 
revised the completion time frame of its action to develop an unmanned 
aircraft systems strategy and define the Army's use of the aircraft 
systems from year 2024 through 2035. The 2011 report did not identify 
that this action was a revision to the action stated in the 2010 
report. Army officials told us that the Army revised this action in its 
unmanned aircraft strategy in which it changed the year from 2024 to 
2035. Furthermore, we found that two new milestones had been added in 
DOD's 2011 report to address this revised action but were not 
identified as new in the 2011 report. These new milestones were (1) 
sustain unmanned aircraft systems training at 28 locations in fiscal 
years 2013 through 2017 and (2) perform additional facility upgrades of 
unmanned aircraft systems training facilities at 28 locations in fiscal 
years 2013 through 2017. In another example, the Air Force included a 
new action and milestone in support of DOD's fifth goal to address 
impacts from new energy infrastructure and renewable energy impacts. 
The action was to create and field a DOD tracking and visualization 
tool for energy proposals, and the related milestone was to develop the 
mission compatibility awareness tool, which was planned to be completed 
in fiscal year 2011; however, the Air Force did not state that these 
were new actions and milestones in DOD's 2011 report thus making it 
difficult to track the progress made for 2011. 

Overall, the information presented in the 2011 report is not sufficient 
to effectively track the progress the services have made with their 
actions and milestones to address DOD's seven new range sustainment 
goals. Including information in future reports that informs the readers 
when a new action or milestone is added to the report and when an 
action or milestone has been completed, revised, updated or deleted 
would better explain the progress made by each service in meeting its 
planned actions and milestones and would be consistent with the 
reporting practices used by DOD in its prior reports. 

DOD Has Continued to Make Progress in Reporting Its Projected Funding 
Requirements, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement: 

We found that DOD made continued progress toward reporting its 
sustainable range funding requirements but opportunities exist for 
improving future report submissions. Section 366(a)(3)(C) required that 
DOD include funding projections for implementing planned range 
sustainment actions in its original comprehensive plan. Similar to the 
2010 sustainable ranges report, the 2011 report included funding 
projections for each of the military services for the current fiscal 
year through fiscal year 2015 across the four funding categories 
established in 2008.[Footnote 11] 

In its 2008 report, the first report to address funding requirements, 
DOD established four funding categories to be used by the services when 
projecting their range sustainment efforts: (1) modernization and 
investment, (2) operation and maintenance, (3) environmental, and (4) 
encroachment. To address our 2008 recommendation, in its 2009 report, 
DOD included descriptions for the four funding categories to ensure 
consistent data reporting across the services along with specific 
examples of the types of projects that should be included in each of 
the categories. For example, in the 2009 report, the administration and 
support of the Army's Compatible Use Buffer program was identified as 
an example of the type of projects that could be captured in the 
funding projections for the encroachment category. However, in the 2011 
report, we found that the Army did not provide any funding projections 
in the encroachment category. Army officials initially told us that 
funding for administration and support of the Army Compatible Use 
Buffer program--the Army's primary program used to address encroachment 
on an installation--is part of the overall Army budget for civilian 
manpower costs and cannot be easily broken out at the specific program 
level of detail. However, in subsequent discussions, Army officials 
stated that they will identify a process to estimate the funding 
associated with the Compatible Use Buffer program administration and 
support in the 2012 sustainable ranges report. The inclusion of this 
information would be consistent with DOD's example of the types of 
projects that should be captured in the encroachment category. 

In its 2011 report, DOD made a notable change to the sustainable ranges 
projected funding table by including a separate funding category for 
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative program 
funds.[Footnote 12] According to the report, separately reporting these 
funds is an attempt to increase the accuracy of reporting. Readiness 
and Environmental Protection Initiative program funds are centrally 
managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to support buffer 
lands initiatives. The Office of the Secretary of Defense includes 
these funds in its budget and subsequently allocates them to the 
military services based on an assessment of need. DOD therefore decided 
that it would be more accurate to report these funds as an Office of 
the Secretary of Defense program as opposed to under the military 
services' encroachment funding. At the same time, the respective 
military services' budget lines for the encroachment category are to 
capture any buffer projects that are independently budgeted for by that 
military service. We found that the Marine Corps and Navy provided 
funding projections in the encroachment category, while the Air Force 
and the Army did not provide any funding projections for this category. 
In the 2011 report, the Air Force stated that its reporting framework 
for funding Air Force training ranges does not line up precisely with 
the DOD's funding categories and definitions. As a result, the Air 
Force stated that it was unable to provide projected funds for the 
encroachment category. According to the Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and Army officials, the Army did 
not include funding projections in the encroachment category for its 
buffer projects executed under the Army's Compatible Use Buffer program 
in the 2011 report because the program does not have a dedicated 
funding stream. Rather, the proposed Army Compatible Use Buffer 
projects are funded during the year of execution with unexecuted funds 
from other Army programs.[Footnote 13] However, this explanation is not 
included in the 2011 report. The inclusion of this explanation in the 
next report would be consistent with the reporting practices used by 
DOD for the other services and would provide Congress with clear 
information on why funds used in support of the Army Compatible Use 
Buffer program are not captured in the DOD sustainable ranges report. 

The 2011 Sustainable Ranges Report Does Not Explain Fluctuations in 
Funding Projections: 

For the 2011 annual sustainable ranges report, the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued a memorandum 
directing the services to provide explanations for funding fluctuations 
greater than 10 percent between each of the 5 years across the four 
funding categories as part of its internal data call to the 
services.[Footnote 14] Including explanations for these fluctuations in 
the report would inform the readers about the rationale for change as 
well as the impact the fluctuation may have on the services' range 
sustainability efforts. However, in responding to this data call, not 
all of the services explained the fluctuations in their funding 
projections or explained how changes would affect the progress in 
implementing DOD's overall comprehensive range sustainment plan, such 
as a reduction in a range's hours of operation or the number of 
personnel managing the range. Additionally, the 2011 report did not 
always include explanations for these differences between years for 
each of these categories. While the section of the report related to 
the Navy always included explanations for fluctuations greater than 10 
percent in the 2011 report, the section of the report related to the 
Army only explained funding fluctuations for some instances, and the 
sections of the report related to the Marine Corps and Air Force did 
not explain instances of fluctuations greater than 10 percent at all. 
For example, in one instance, in the funding requirements section of 
the report, the Navy attributed a 55 percent increase in funding in the 
encroachment category from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 to an 
increase in the installation community plans and liaison officers and 
funding for encroachment partnering acquisition within the Navy. 
Similarly, in this same section of the report, the Army attributed a 51 
percent increase in funding in the modernization and investment 
category from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013 to an increase 
needed for military construction funding in support of the Army 
Campaign Plan and Global Defense Posture Realignment implementation. 
The direction to explain funding fluctuations greater than 10 percent 
for purposes of the internal data call was initially included in the 
memorandum for the 2011 report, and has also been included in Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) guidance for 
the 2012 report.[Footnote 15] 

While the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness) guidance directed the services to explain funding 
fluctuations greater than 10 percent at the funding category level 
between years as part of DOD's internal data call, it did not direct 
them to explain fluctuations greater than 10 percent that may exist 
across the categories and fiscal years between the current and previous 
year's reports. However, we believe doing so would improve the 
reliability of the report. We compared the funding projections included 
in the 2010 report to those included 2011 report. Our analysis shows 
that the 2011 report does not explain fluctuations in funding 
projections greater than 10 percent that may exist across the funding 
categories and fiscal years between the current report and last year's 
report and does not explain how these fluctuations may affect DOD's 
range sustainability efforts. For example, for fiscal year 2012, the 
Air Force's funding projections for its modernization and investment 
category decreased by 56 percent, which was apparently only by 
comparing the 2010 report to the 2011 report. Similarly, for that same 
fiscal year, the Air Force's projections for its operation and 
maintenance category decreased by 51 percent. Subsequent to our 
discussions with Air Force officials concerning the reasons for these 
decreases, the Air Force provided us with revised funding amounts. 
According to these officials, an error was made in the 2011 report by 
inadvertently omitting funds for one of the Air Force's program 
elements.[Footnote 16] A comparison of the original funding projections 
included in DOD's 2011 report with the corrected Air Force funding 
projections is included in enclosure III of this report. The Air 
Force's correction to the funding projections reported in the 2011 
report helped reduce the gap between the amounts reported between the 
2010 and 2011 reports, but differences greater than 10 percent still 
exist in the modernization and investment and operation and maintenance 
funding categories. It took our comparison of the 2010 and 2011 reports 
to identify the funding change, and our inquiry led to the discovery of 
the funding projections error. The inclusion of this information would 
provide the readers with more clarity on the changes in the funding 
projections between the current and previous year's reports and 
therefore would improve the usefulness of the report. 

Overall, our analysis of the 2011 report shows that several 
opportunities exist for improving the funding requirements section of 
the 2012 sustainable ranges report. According to a senior official in 
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), 
the change in the funding projections represents risk management 
decisions made by the services given the overall reduction in funding 
for defense operations. However, the 2011 report does not consistently 
explain fluctuations in funding projections greater than 10 percent 
that may exist across the funding categories and fiscal years within 
the current report or between the current report and the prior report 
and does not explain how these fluctuations may affect DOD's range 
sustainability efforts. Federal internal control standards indicate 
that such a practice would provide a reasonable assurance of the 
reliability of DOD's financial reporting, including reports on budget 
execution and financial statements and other reports for internal and 
external use.[Footnote 17] Although the senior official in the Office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) stated that 
an overall cut in the defense operations and management budget could 
have a variety of impacts on the sustainability of DOD ranges, such as 
a reduction in a range's hours of operation or the number of personnel 
managing the range, this information is not included in the 2011 
report. 

DOD's Report Describes Progress in Its Plans to Improve Its Defense 
Readiness Reporting System: 

In its 2011 report, we found that DOD has continued to make progress in 
reporting on its plans to improve its Defense Readiness Reporting 
System (DRRS) by incorporating training range assessment data into the 
system. Section 366(b) required DOD to report to Congress, not later 
than June 30, 2003, on its plans to improve its readiness reporting 
system to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints caused 
by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace 
have on specific units of the armed forces.[Footnote 18] According to a 
senior official in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness), DOD used a phased concept development to 
enhance DRRS by establishing a range assessment module to address range 
resource and readiness issues. DOD has completed the first phase of 
development for incorporating a range assessment module into DRRS that 
allows the services to enter range assessment data in DRRS that are 
used in support of DOD's sustainable ranges reports. DOD also has 
developed a prototype for the second phase that will ultimately provide 
the capability for users of the range to examine and report the extent 
to which encroachment factors affect a range's ability to support 
various operational capabilities. The second phase ended in June 2010; 
however, according to the same senior official in the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), because of 
funding shortfalls, additional testing and development required to 
establish the functionality within the system to strategically examine 
how the ranges are and can be used was deferred to a third phase of 
development funded in 2011. In its 2011 report, DOD states that it will 
coordinate with the services to integrate range readiness from the 
service-specific readiness systems into DRRS and that the service 
representatives from the readiness community, the installation 
community, and the DRRS implementation offices are working closely 
together to ensure that these measures are implemented. To accomplish 
this task, according to its 2011 report, DOD is exploring the 
development of a business intelligence tool to collect operational 
readiness information in DRRS, which could then be related to range 
availability and capability. This tool would be made available to 
installation or range complex managers to help them relate encroachment 
with the impact on operational readiness and would serve as an 
important decision support tool for both the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense and the military services. The senior official further stated 
that additional funding has been received and DOD plans to have fully 
implemented the range assessment module into DRRS by June 2012. 

DOD's Plans for Its Final Sustainable Ranges Report: 

Section 366 (as amended) requires that the Secretary of Defense submit 
the sustainable ranges report at the same time as the President's 
budget is submitted each year for fiscal years 2005 through 2013. This 
means that the 2012 report, accompanying the fiscal year 2013 budget, 
will be the last submission required to satisfy the section 366 
reporting requirement. According to a senior official in the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), the format 
for this final report is planned to remain substantially unchanged and 
the report will be an update of the 2011 report. Additionally, the 
senior official stated that DOD plans to continue to include key 
service initiatives and success stories that highlight significant 
areas of progress in mitigating encroachment and ensuring range 
sustainability. Further, the special interest section that DOD began 
including in its 2009 report, which allows the services to briefly 
highlight critical issues they are facing regarding range capabilities 
and encroachment, along with other general issues related to the 
sustainable ranges report is planned to be included in the final 
report. This senior official also stated that while next year marks the 
last year that DOD is required to issue its sustainable ranges report 
to Congress, DOD plans to continue to collect much of this information 
because it is needed to effectively manage its training range 
resources. 

Conclusions: 

DOD's annual sustainable ranges report, in conjunction with other DOD 
reports and processes, helps to provide significant perspectives of 
what improvements have been made or need to be made on an annual basis 
to DOD's training range capabilities. DOD has met the section 366 
requirement to describe the progress made in implementing its 
sustainable ranges plan and any additional actions taken or to be taken 
to address training constraints, and has continued to improve the 
annual reporting of its sustainable ranges. However, in reviewing DOD's 
2011 sustainable ranges report, we found that additional information 
regarding changes to planned actions and milestones as well as to 
explanations for fluctuations in the funding projections would improve 
these reports. For example, additional information would clarify 
whether (1) completion dates moved from one year to the next, (2) an 
action mentioned in the prior year's report but not in the current one 
was completed in the prior year, and (3) some actions in the current 
report are new. Without this clarifying information, the report becomes 
a snapshot in time rather than a report on progress made. Additionally, 
while the 2011 report shows funding projections for a 5-year budget 
cycle, it does not provide the rationale for omitting funding 
associated with the Army's Compatible Use Buffer Program, or 
consistently explain fluctuations in the funding projections or 
identify the impact the difference in funding may have on DOD's 
comprehensive sustainable ranges plan. Overall, such information 
clarifies for congressional decision makers and DOD actual progress 
made since the prior report as well as how best to address training 
shortfalls caused by any lack of or limitations on military range 
capabilities. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve the visibility of progress in achieving DOD's stated 
sustainability goals and milestones, and to assist congressional 
decision makers in determining future range sustainment fiscal needs, 
we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in consultation with the 
Secretaries of the military departments, to include the following three 
items in its 2012 sustainable ranges report: 

* In the goals, actions, and milestones section, include a brief 
narrative that describes the progress made since the prior year's 
report for each action and milestone. 

* In the funding requirements section, provide an explanation for 
excluding the funds required to execute buffer projects under the 
Compatible Use Buffer program from the Army funding projections for the 
encroachment category. 

* In the funding requirements section, for each funding category, 
provide an explanation for significant fluctuations in funding 
projections. For example, these explanations could align with DOD's 
direction to the services to explain fluctuations greater than 10 
percent. This would include fluctuations reported between fiscal years 
that are included in the current report, and fluctuations that would 
otherwise only be apparent by comparing the prior report to the current 
report. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Readiness) concurred with our first 
recommendation and partially concurred with the remaining two 
recommendations. For our recommendation regarding updating the status 
of its goals, actions and milestones, DOD indicated that actions will 
be taken in preparing the 2012 report to address this recommendation. 
DOD partially concurred with our two recommendations related to the 
funding requirements section. Specifically, in its comments, DOD 
addressed our finding regarding the inclusion of the administration and 
support of the Army Compatible Use Buffer program in DOD's sustainable 
ranges report by stating that the Army is working to estimate funding 
associated with these costs in DOD's 2012 report. However, DOD did not 
directly address our recommendation to provide an explanation for 
excluding the additional projected funds required to execute buffer 
projects under the Army's program. During our review, DOD and the Army 
told us that the projected costs required to execute the proposed 
projects under the Army Compatible Use Buffer program were not captured 
in the sustainable ranges report funding requirements section because 
the program does not have a dedicated funding stream and the projects 
executed under this program are funded during the year of execution 
with unexecuted funds from other Army programs. Our recommendation is 
intended to ensure that the Army also explains this to Congress in 
DOD's next report and not just to us. Moreover, explaining why DOD is 
excluding projected costs needed to execute projects under the Army's 
program is consistent with the reporting practices used by the Air 
Force where it explained why no projected funds were included in its 
encroachment category. Consequently, we believe that our recommendation 
remains valid. Finally, regarding our recommendation to provide an 
explanation for significant fluctuations in funding projections, DOD's 
response noted, in part, that the intent of the financial reporting 
section is to provide broad insight into future program requirements, 
not to serve as a financial statement for accounting purposes. However, 
DOD stated that it will attempt to discuss significant fluctuations in 
proposed funding profiles in the 2012 sustainable ranges report. 
Including a discussion of significant fluctuations in funding 
projections would meet the intent of our recommendation. DOD's comments 
are reprinted in enclosure IV. DOD also provided technical comments, 
which we have incorporated into this report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the 
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps; the Director, Office of Management and Budget and 
interested congressional committees. In addition, this report is 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 
this report are listed in enclosure V. 

Signed by: 

Brian J. Lepore, Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

Enclosures -5: 

List of Committees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John McCain: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Thad Cochran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: 

Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended)[Footnote 19] 

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

(a) Plan Required--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a 
comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to 
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of 
military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the 
United States and overseas for training of the Armed Forces. 

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

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

(B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of Defense 
resources (including virtual and constructive training assets as well 
as military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United 
States and overseas) to meet those current and future training range 
requirements. 

(3) The plan shall include the following: 

(A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and address any 
shortfalls in current Department of Defense resources identified 
pursuant to the assessment and evaluation conducted under paragraph 
(2). 

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

(C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned actions. 

(D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
and in each of the military departments that will have lead 
responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan. 

(4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget 
for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress 
a report describing the progress made in implementing this subsection, 
including--: 

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

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

(C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or 
regulatory changes to address training constraints identified pursuant 
to this section. 

(5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget 
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2013, the Secretary shall submit 
to Congress a report describing the progress made in implementing the 
plan and any additional actions taken, or to be taken, to address 
training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military 
lands, marine areas, and airspace. 

(b) Readiness Reporting Improvement----Not later than June 30, 2003, 
the Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority 
of the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans of the 
Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources and 
Training System to reflect the readiness impact that training 
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine 
areas, and airspace have on specific units of the Armed Forces. 

(c) Training Range Inventory----(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
develop and maintain a training range inventory for each of the Armed 
Forces--: 

(A) to identify all available operational training ranges; 

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

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

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory to 
Congress at the same time as the President submits the budget for 
fiscal year 2004 and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at 
the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005 
through 2013. 

(d) GAO Evaluation------The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies 
of each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller 
General. Within 90 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller 
General shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report. 

(e) Armed Forces Defined ---In this section, the term "Armed Forces" 
means the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: List of Prior GAO Reviews and Recommendations and 
Department of Defense (DOD) Actions to Date: 

GAO-10-977R: Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on 
the Sustainability of Training Ranges (Sept. 14, 2010). 

GAO recommendation: No recommendations were included in the report, but 
the report noted that improvements were being made and that 
opportunities exist to improve future reports; 
Original DOD response: Concur. Agrees with report and has no specific 
comments; 
DOD actions: N/A. 

GAO-10-103R: 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 (Oct. 27, 
2009). 

GAO recommendation: Because our prior recommendation for quantifiable 
goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring 
progress and our recommendation for projecting funding requirements to 
more fully address training constraints remain open, we did not make 
new recommendations in this report; 
Original DOD response: N/A; 
DOD actions: N/A. 

GAO-09-128R: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable 
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and 
Comprehensive Plan (Dec. 15, 2008). 

GAO recommendation: Include each service's rationale for excluding the 
specific training ranges not included in its assessment of the adequacy 
of current resources to meet requirements in future sustainable ranges 
reports; 
Original DOD response: Concur. Future reports will incorporate 
rationale as to why some ranges may be included in the inventory, yet 
not have a capability or encroachment assessment performed; 
DOD actions: DOD included in its 2009 report the rationale for 
excluding some Army and Marine Corps range assessments. In the 2010 and 
2011 reports, DOD extended this rationale to all service ranges not 
assessed in the report. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO recommendation: Include the Marine Corps' individual combat 
training elements as the mission areas in the range capability and 
encroachment assessment in future sustainable ranges reports; 
Original DOD response: Did not concur. The Marine Corps' approach to 
assessing range capability and encroachment is consistent with all the 
source documents and methodologies by which the Marine Corps manages and 
resources its ranges. The capabilities assessments are designed to 
measure the ranges' ability to support the levels of training on the 
Marine Corps training continuum. Those levels of training are all based 
on established training responsibilities embodied in Marine Corps 
Tasks. In future reports, they will provide greater explanatory 
comments on both capabilities and encroachment impacts, but the 
framework established in their Required Range Capabilities Document, 
range complex management plans, and range management orders all support 
the methodology they have employed in this report; 
DOD actions: During our 2009 review, DOD officials told us that the 
Marine Corps is considering how best to provide future assessments to 
include greater detail in response to an increased emphasis on 
developing consistent measures for DOD readiness reporting. In the 2011 
DOD report, the Marine Corps included the additional range readiness 
data that are more consistent with those of other services. 
Recommendation implemented). 

GAO recommendation: Update on the actions taken by the Air Force to 
address DOD's modernization and investment goals for range sustainment 
in future sustainable ranges reports; 
Original DOD response: Concur. Updates of actions taken by each Service 
over the proceeding year towards completion of goals and milestones 
will be addressed; 
DOD actions: DOD reported in its 2009 report that the Air Force still 
had not taken any action to address the modernization and investment 
goal. However, in its 2010 report, DOD included a set of seven new 
goals after determining in 2009 that many of the goals and milestones 
used in previous reports either had been overcome by other events or 
outlived their relevance. DOD stated that these seven new goals more 
closely aligned with the seven focus areas endorsed by the sustainable 
ranges integrated product team. The Air Force had provided actions and 
milestones with measurable end dates for all of the new goals except 
for mitigating frequency spectrum competition which is to be 
determined. In the DOD 2011 report, the Air Force included an action 
and milestone to address this goal. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO recommendation: Include a detailed description of all funding data 
included in each funding category, for each of the military services in 
future sustainable ranges reports; 
Original DOD response: Concur. The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
will work with the Services to provide a more detailed description of 
what areas are financed within each of the funding categories; 
DOD actions: Since 2009, in response to our recommendation, DOD 
included a table with specific examples for each of the four funding 
categories. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO-08-10R: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable 
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and 
Comprehensive Plan (Oct. 11, 2007). 

GAO recommendation: Develop clear criteria and standard methods for 
assessing current and future training range requirements and 
capabilities; 
Original DOD response: Concur. Will continue to develop and improve the 
criteria and methodology associated with our range requirements and 
capabilities assessment processes in our subsequent reports; 
DOD actions: In response to our recommendation, DOD established 
standardized criteria and identified common factors to assess range 
capabilities and encroachment in the 2008 sustainable ranges report. 
Since 2008, DOD has continued to use these standardized criteria and 
common factors to address the adequacy of its resources in meeting 
current and future requirements. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO recommendation: Include funding information on the services' range 
sustainment efforts in future reports; 
Original DOD response: Concur. Programming funding data associated with 
range sustainment will be captured and documented in future Sustainable 
Ranges Reports to Congress to the extent possible. However, any funding 
data presented beyond the current year will be subject to a caveat that 
final Service budgets for out years are subject to change; 
DOD actions: In response to our recommendation, DOD included funding 
projections in its 2008 report for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 
Additionally, in its 2010 report, DOD provided training range funding 
projections through fiscal year 2015. DOD also included footnotes to 
the table providing an explanation as to how some funding requirements 
are determined. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO-06-725R: Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable 
Ranges but Additional Time Is Needed to Fully Implement Key Initiatives 
(June 20, 2006). 

GAO recommendation: Because our previous recommendations remained open, 
we did not recommend any new executive actions in this report; 
Original DOD response: N/A; 
DOD actions: N/A. 

GAO-06-29R: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training 
Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional 
Requirements (Oct. 25, 2005). 

GAO recommendation: Because our prior recommendations for improving the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense's annual training range reporting 
remained open, valid, and not fully addressed, we did not make new 
recommendations in this report; 
Original DOD response: N/A; 
DOD actions: N/A. 

GAO-04-608: Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not 
Fully Address Congressional Reporting Requirements (June 4, 2004). 

GAO recommendation: 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; 
Original DOD response: Did not concur. Each military service already 
processes and is improving range information systems that address the 
features described in this recommendation. Further, DOD agrees that, as 
a long-term goal these systems should be linked to support joint use. 
It is DOD policy to document encroachment concerns and environmental 
considerations and improve information systems related to range 
management. The services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense are 
moving forward in a deliberate approach that builds on existing systems 
and carefully manages the costs and risks inherent in information 
system integration and development. As part of our yearly section 366 
reports, DOD will document progress in this evolutionary effort to link 
and improve the Service range information systems; However, DOD non-
concurs with the recommendation. It must be recognized that each 
Service operates ranges to meet specific training requirements. While 
increased cross-Service or cross-functional use is a DOD goal, it does 
not resolve training constraints brought about by encroachment; 
DOD actions: Although DOD did not concur with our recommendation to 
develop a stand-alone training range database, DOD is developing a 
range module to be included in the Defense Readiness Reporting System 
(DRRS) which will provide an integrated database and assessment 
capability for available training resources and constraints. DOD has 
continued to make progress in its plans to improve its DRRS by 
incorporating training range assessment data into the system. According 
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense officials, additional funding 
has been received and the planned completion date for full 
implementation of the range assessment module into DRRS is planned for 
June 2012. Upon completion, the module will provide the user with a 
strategic look at how ranges are being used and allow integration of 
unit commanders assessments that relate to range capabilities. 
(Implementation of recommendation is in process). 

GAO recommendation: Develop a comprehensive plan, which includes 
quantifiable goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and 
measuring progress, and projected funding requirements to more fully 
address identified training constraints; 
Original DOD response: Concur. Meeting section 366 requirements can be 
accomplished only through a long-term approach. Under the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense leadership, each of the military services has 
initiated an enhanced range management and comprehensive planning 
process, as an integral element of expanding range sustainability 
programs. In line with this evolution, future reports will more fully 
address goals and milestones and project funding requirements 
associated with these comprehensive plans. DOD is and will continue to 
execute a comprehensive program to improve sustainability of its 
ranges, and disagrees with the implication in this recommendation that 
it does not; 
DOD actions: In response to our recommendation, DOD included broad 
goals and some milestones in its 2005 report. In its 2010 report, DOD 
included a new set of goals that it states are measurable, attainable, 
and more in line with the Integrated Product Team's focus areas. The 
report outlines which offices in each of the military services are 
responsible for actions needed to achieve each milestone. The report 
also outlines actions and milestones for each service to meet a 
particular goal and provides measurable dates for when each milestone 
is to be accomplished. DOD officials stated that actions will be 
reviewed and updated as necessary during monthly Working Integrated 
Product Team meetings. In its 2011 report, DOD continued to provide 
updated actions and milestones to address these goals. Additionally, 
the 2011 report provides training range funding projections through 
fiscal year 2015. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO recommendation: Assess current and future training range 
requirements and evaluate the adequacy of current resources to meet 
these requirements; 
Original DOD response: Did not concur. DOD has begun a program to 
better define range requirements. Because a valid requirements base 
must be a bottom-up process, this effort entails detailed work at each 
installation. It is unclear why GAO chose to not examine these efforts. 
Also, it is both impractical and inappropriate to include this level of 
detail in an Office of the Secretary of Defense-level report. DOD 
believes that the Congress is better served if it describes, 
summarizes, and analyzes training requirements in its section 366 
report, rather than simply providing the requirements themselves; 
DOD actions: In its 2007 report, DOD conducted its initial assessment 
of the services' range capabilities and the external pressures that 
constrain training ranges. These assessments were presented in table 
format to convey the severity of impacts caused by shortfalls in 
required capabilities. While these assessments were an important first 
step; they were based on data that were not completed or accurate 
enough to reflect current conditions. In its 2008 report DOD included a 
set of standardized criteria (13 range capability attributes and 12 
encroachment factors) for evaluating the adequacy of each services 
current resources to meet current and future requirements. Since 2008, 
DOD has continued to use these standardized criteria and common factors 
to address the adequacy of its resources in meeting current and future 
requirements. (Recommendation implemented). 

GAO recommendation: Develop a readiness reporting system to reflect the 
impact on readiness caused by training constraints due to limitations 
on the use of training ranges; 
Original DOD response: Did not concur. DOD stated that it is 
inappropriate to modify the Global Status of Resources Training System 
report to address encroachment. DOD believes it is best to assess how 
encroachment impacts affect the ability of installations and ranges to 
conduct training and testing. DOD plans to incorporate encroachment 
impacts on readiness into the Defense Readiness Reporting System 
(DRRS), which is currently under development; 
DOD actions: According to DOD officials, the initial phase of DRRS is 
operational and incorporates the capability and encroachment 
assessments for training contained in the sustainable ranges report. 
This phase was completed in May 2009. Currently the Range Assessment 
Module shows information at the unit level. DOD is continuing to update 
the module in an effort to provide the end user with a more strategic 
assessment of individual range capabilities. This module is planned to 
be completed and fully implemented by June 2012. (Implementation of 
recommendation is in process). 

Sources: GAO and DOD. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Enclosure III: Original Air Force Funding Projections Included in DOD's 
2011 Sustainable Ranges Report and Corrected Funding Projections: 

Dollars in millions. 

Funding categories: Original Air Force funding projections: 
Modernization and investment; 
Fiscal Year 2011: $60.40; 
Fiscal Year 2012: $53.60; 
Fiscal Year 2013: $49.10; 
Fiscal Year 2014: $47.20; 
Fiscal Year 2015: $39.40. 

Funding categories: Original Air Force funding projections: Operation 
and maintenance; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 89.60; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 91.10; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 80.90; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 82.50; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 85.60. 

Funding categories: Original Air Force funding projections: 
Environmental; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 26.80; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 27.70; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 26.10; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 25.60; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 26.20. 

Funding categories: Original Air Force funding projections: 
Encroachment; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 0. 

Funding categories: Original Air Force funding projections: Total 
original funding; 
Fiscal Year 2011: $176.80; 
Fiscal Year 2012: $172.40; 
Fiscal Year 2013: $156.10; 
Fiscal Year 2014: $155.30; 
Fiscal Year 2015: $151.20. 

Funding categories: Corrected Air Force funding projections: 
Modernization and investment; 
Fiscal Year 2011: $60.40; 
Fiscal Year 2012: $98.19; 
Fiscal Year 2013: $88.86; 
Fiscal Year 2014: $96.32; 
Fiscal Year 2015: $87.97. 

Funding categories: Corrected Air Force funding projections: Operation 
and maintenance; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 175.13; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 174.72; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 146.54; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 150.46; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 149.15. 

Funding categories: Corrected Air Force funding projections: 
Environmental; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 26.80; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 27.70; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 26.10; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 25.60; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 26.20. 

Funding categories: Corrected Air Force funding projections: 
Encroachment; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 0. 

Funding categories: Corrected Air Force funding projections: Total 
corrected funding; 
Fiscal Year 2011: $262.33; 
Fiscal Year 2012: $300.61; 
Fiscal Year 2013: $261.50; 
Fiscal Year 2014: $272.38; 
Fiscal Year 2015: $263.32. 

Funding categories: Differences between original and corrected Air 
Force funding projections: Modernization and investment; 
Fiscal Year 
2011: $0; 
Fiscal Year 2012: $44.59; 
Fiscal Year 2013: $39.76; 
Fiscal Year 2014: $49.12; 
Fiscal Year 2015: $48.57. 

Funding categories: Differences between original and corrected Air 
Force funding projections: Operation and maintenance; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 
85.53; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 83.62; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 65.64; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 67.96; 
63.55. 

Funding categories: Differences between original and corrected Air 
Force funding projections: Environmental; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 0. 

Funding categories: Differences between original and corrected Air 
Force funding projections: Encroachment; 
Fiscal Year 2011: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2012: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2013: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2014: 0; 
Fiscal Year 2015: 0. 

Funding categories: Differences between original and corrected Air 
Force funding projections: Total differences in funding; 
Fiscal Year 
2011: $85.53; 
Fiscal Year 2012: $128.21; 
Fiscal Year 2013: $105.40; 
Fiscal Year 2014: $117.08; 
Fiscal Year 2015: $112.12. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and Air Force data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Enclosure IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 4000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000: 

Personnel And Readiness: 

October 17, 2011: 

Mr. Brian J. Lepore: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team: U.S. Government 
Accountability Office: 441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Lepore:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government 
Accountability Office Draft Report, GAO-12-13R, "Military Training: 
DoD's Report on the Sustainability of Training Ranges Meets Annual 
Reporting Requirements but Could be Improved," dated September 28, 2011 
(GAO Code 351615). 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft. The DoD 
appreciates the opportunity to work with the GAO to continually improve 
reporting on the ability of our training ranges to meet the needs of 
the warfighter. While the Department agrees in general with the report, 
we find the recommendations to be of an administrative nature vice 
substantive. Also, as the intent of the financial reporting section is 
to provide broad insight into future program requirements, viewing this 
information through the rigor of internal control standards may not 
apply in this case. 

DoD responses on the specific GAO recommendations are enclosed. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Laura J. Junor
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Readiness Enclosure:
As stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated September 28, 2011: GAO-12-13R (GAO CODE 
351615): 

"Military Training: Dod's Report On The Sustainability Of Training 
Ranges Meets Annual Reporting Requirements But Could Be Improved": 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Gao Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in 
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to 
include in its 2012 sustainable ranges report: In the goals, actions, 
and milestones section, include a brief narrative that describes the 
progress made since the prior year's report for each action and 
milestone.  (See page 22/GAO Draft Report.) DoD RESPONSE: Concur. 
Additional information will be included in the 2012 Report to reflect 
progress made since the 2011 Report. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in 
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to 
include in its 2012 sustainable ranges report: In the funding 
requirements section, provide an explanation for excluding the funds 
required to execute buffer projects under the Compatible Use Buffer 
Program from the Army funding projections for the encroachment 
category. (See page 22/GAO Draft Report.) 

DoD Response: Partially Concur. As noted in this draft report, the 
Department has explained that the Army's Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) 
initiative is not a program of record with its own dedicated funding 
stream. The Army has stated that they are working to estimate funding 
associated with ACUB administration and support in the 2012 Report. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in 
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, to 
include in its 2012 sustainable ranges report: In the funding 
requirements section, for each funding category, provide an explanation 
for significant fluctuations in funding projections. For example, these 
explanations could align with DoD's direction to the services to 
explain fluctuations greater than 10 percent. This would include 
fluctuations reported between fiscal years that are included in the 
current report, and fluctuations that would otherwise only be apparent 
by comparing the prior report to the current report. (See pages 22 and 
23/GAO Draft Report.) 

DoD Response: Partially Concur. The Sustainable Ranges Report (SRR) 
provides Congress with information summarizing the assessment of 
Service range capabilities and potential threats to those capabilities 
from encroachment using like data sets. More broadly, the purpose is to 
assure Congress that the Services are effectively managing the 
resources entrusted to them in the areas of range and encroachment 
management. The intent of the financial reporting section is to provide 
broad insight into future program requirements, not to serve as a 
financial statement for accounting purposes. Nonetheless, the 
Department will attempt to discuss significant fluctuations in proposed 
funding profiles in the 2012 SRR. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report include Harold Reich, Assistant Director; 
Larry Bridges; Grace Coleman; Jacqueline McColl; Charles Perdue; John 
Van Schaik; and Michael Willems. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Military Training: DOD Continues to Improve Its Report on the 
Sustainability of Training Ranges. [http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-29R]. Washington, 
D.C.: October 25, 2005. 

Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to Transform 
Joint Training. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-548]. Washington, 
D.C.: June 21, 2005. 

Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to 
Improve Conditions of Military Training Ranges. 
[http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-534]. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 
2005. 

Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address 
Congressional Reporting Requirements. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-
04-608]. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004. 

Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase 
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training 
Ranges. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-976]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 29, 2003. 

Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training 
Ranges Still Evolving. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-621T]. 
Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2003. 

Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage 
Encroachment on Training Ranges. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-
614]. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002. 

Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to Manage 
Encroachment on Training Ranges. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-
727T]. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002. 

Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in 
Readiness Reporting. [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-525]. 
Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002. 

(351615): 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] DOD defines "encroachment" as the cumulative result of any and all 
outside influences that impede normal training and testing. DOD 
initially identified the following eight encroachment factors: 
endangered species and critical habitat, unexploded ordnance and 
munitions constituents, competition for frequency spectrum, protected 
marine resources, competition for airspace, air pollution, noise, and 
urban growth around installations. 

[2] Pub. L. No. 107-314 (2002). Section 366 originally required reports 
for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. However, this requirement was 
extended through 2013 by section 348 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364 
(2006). Additionally, section 1063(c)(2) of Pub. L. No. 110-181 (2008) 
and section 1075(g)(2) of Pub. L. No. 111-383 (2011) made clerical 
amendments to section 348 of Pub. L. No. 109-364. 

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

[4] The legislation does not require GAO to evaluate DOD's Readiness 
and Environmental Protection Initiative Report. 

[5] In addition to DOD's comprehensive plan to address training 
constraints, section 366 also required DOD to develop a plan to improve 
its readiness system to reflect the readiness impact of training 
constraints, among other things. Since 2007, DOD has included 
information concerning its plans to improve its readiness reporting 
system in its annual sustainable ranges reports. 

[6] According to Air Force officials, the program element that was 
inadvertently omitted related to modernization and investment and 
operation and maintenance at the Nevada Test and Training Range and the 
Utah Test and Training Range. 

[7] Section 366 (a)(4)(C) required the submission of any 
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address 
training constraints in the 2004 comprehensive plan. While DOD has 
never submitted such recommendations with its sustainable ranges 
report, DOD explained in its 2007 report that it had an alternate 
mechanism in place for transmitting legislative proposals to Congress. 
See GAO, Improvement Continues in DOD's Reporting on Sustainable 
Ranges, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Its Range Assessments and 
Comprehensive Plan, [http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-10R] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 2007). 

[8] Based on DOD's 2011 sustainable ranges report, the majority of the 
training ranges and complexes have assessments. For those ranges and 
complexes that were not assessed, in general, the reasons for not 
conducting the assessments include, but are not limited to ranges being 
small individual training ranges that are managed by the National Guard 
and state agreements and policies; ranges having limited training 
facilities, such as having only small arm ranges for limited purpose 
weapons qualification training; or ranges lacking permanent training 
range infrastructure. 

[9] Each Marine air-ground task force trains to execute six warfighting 
functions: maneuver, fires, intelligence, command and control, 
logistics, and force protection. 

[10] DOD's seven goals are to align with the seven sustainable ranges 
focus areas. The DOD goals are to (1) mitigate encroachment pressures 
on training and test activities from competing operating space (land, 
air, sea, space, and cyber) uses; (2) mitigate frequency spectrum 
competition; (3) meet military airspace challenges; (4) manage 
increasing military demand for range space; (5) address impacts from 
new energy infrastructure and renewable energy impacts; (6) anticipate 
climate change impacts; and (7) sustain excellence in environmental 
stewardship. In the 2011 report, the reference to test activities in 
the first goal was deleted. 

[11] The 2010 report was the first in which DOD had reported the 
services' out-year funding estimates of their range sustainment efforts 
beyond the current budget year. 

[12] The Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative program 
supports DOD compatible land use and conservation partnering 
initiatives and projects at ranges and installations across the 
country. This program is a critical component of DOD's sustainable 
ranges initiative to prevent or reduce encroachment by protecting 
installation capability, accessibility, and availability for training 
and testing. 

[13] According to Army officials, and as reported in DOD's 2011 report, 
the Army plans to compete for out-year Army funding to support the 
Army's Compatible Use Buffer program during its Program Objective 
Memorandum cycle for fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017. 

[14] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
memorandum, Service Inputs to 2011 Sustainable Ranges Report (SRR) to 
Congress (July 1, 2010). 

[15] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
memorandum, Service Inputs to 2012 Sustainable Ranges Report (SRR) to 
Congress (Jun. 22, 2011). 

[16] According to Air Force officials, the program element that was 
inadvertently omitted related to modernization and investment and 
operation and maintenance at the Nevada Test and Training Range and the 
Utah Test and Training Range. 

[17] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999). 

[18] In 2002, DOD Directive 7730.65, Department of Defense Readiness 
Reporting System (DRRS), established DRRS to measure and report on the 
readiness of military forces and the supporting infrastructure to meet 
missions and goals assigned by the Secretary of Defense. 

[19] Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003 was amended by Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 348 (2006); 
Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1063(c)(2) (2008); and Pub. L. No. 111-383. § 
1075(g)(2) (2011).

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: