Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range  
Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional	 
Requirements (25-OCT-05, GAO-06-29R).				 
                                                                 
A fundamental military readiness principle is that the military  
must train as it intends to fight, and military training ranges  
provide the primary means to accomplish this principle. To	 
successfully accomplish today's missions, U.S. forces are	 
conducting significantly more complex operations, requiring	 
increased joint training and interoperability between and among  
the military services, combatant commands, and other Department  
of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD organizations. For some time, senior
DOD and military service officials have reported that they face  
increasing difficulties in carrying out realistic training at	 
military installations due to training constraints, such as those
resulting from encroachment. In recent years, we have reported on
these training constraints and identified the need for an	 
integrated, readily accessible inventory of training ranges,	 
capacities, and capabilities so that commanders across the	 
services can schedule the best available resources to provide the
required training; a comprehensive plan that includes goals,	 
timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of		 
responsibilities to address encroachment on military training	 
ranges; and a more comprehensive approach for addressing	 
deficiencies to ensure that ranges are adequately sustained and  
modernized in order to accomplish the department's transformation
goals and ensure their long-term viability. Title III, section	 
366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for	 
Fiscal Year 2003, required that the Secretary of Defense develop 
a comprehensive plan for the sustainment of military training	 
ranges using existing authorities available to the Secretaries of
Defense and the military departments to address training	 
constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands,  
marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United	 
States and overseas for training. Among other items, section 366 
also required the Secretary to submit to Congress a report	 
containing the comprehensive training range sustainment plan, the
results of an assessment and evaluation of current and future	 
training range requirements, and any recommendations that the	 
Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to	 
address training constraints. Section 366 also directed the	 
Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain an inventory of	 
training ranges for each of the armed forces, which identifies	 
all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at each	 
training range, and it required the Secretary of Defense to	 
submit a report on his plans to improve the system for reporting 
the impact that training restraints have on readiness. DOD was to
submit both the report and the training range inventory to	 
Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for 
fiscal year 2004 and to provide status reports annually for	 
fiscal years 2005 through 2008. Instead of issuing a report along
with the President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission in 2003, 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted to	 
Congress its first report--Implementation of the Department of	 
Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan--and its training range
inventory on February 27, 2004. OSD submitted its second annual  
report, along with an updated inventory, to Congress on July 14, 
2005. Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an  
evaluation of OSD's annual reports. This is our second such	 
report. In this report, we discuss the extent to which OSD's (1) 
2005 training range inventory contains sufficient information to 
use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive sustainment	 
plan mandated by section 366; and (2) 2005 training range report 
meets other requirements mandated by section 366 that could help 
guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term		 
sustainability of their training ranges.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-29R 					        
    ACCNO:   A40277						        
  TITLE:     Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training
Range Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional
Requirements							 
     DATE:   10/25/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Combat readiness					 
	     Defense capabilities				 
	     Military facilities				 
	     Military forces					 
	     Military inventories				 
	     Military training					 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-29R

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

October 25, 2005

Congressional Committees

Subject: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD's Annual Training Range
Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements

A fundamental military readiness principle is that the military must train
as it intends to fight, and military training ranges provide the primary
means to accomplish this principle. To successfully accomplish today's
missions, U.S. forces are conducting significantly more complex
operations, requiring increased joint training and interoperability
between and among the military services, combatant commands, and other
Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD organizations. For some time,
senior DOD and military service officials have reported that they face
increasing difficulties in carrying out realistic training at military
installations due to training constraints, such as those resulting from
encroachment.1 In recent years, we have reported on these training
constraints and identified the need for an integrated, readily accessible
inventory of training ranges, capacities, and capabilities so that
commanders across the services can schedule the best available resources
to provide the required training; a comprehensive plan that includes
goals, timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of
responsibilities to address encroachment on military training ranges; and
a more comprehensive approach for addressing deficiencies to ensure that
ranges are adequately sustained and modernized in order to accomplish the
department's transformation goals and ensure their long-term viability.

Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003, required that the Secretary of Defense develop a
comprehensive plan for the sustainment of military training ranges using
existing authorities available to the Secretaries of Defense and the
military departments to address training constraints caused by limitations
on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are
available in the United States and overseas for training.2 (See section
366 of the Bob

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 ordinance and munitions constituents,
competition for frequency spectrum, protected marine resources,
competition for airspace, air pollution, noise pollution, and urban growth
around installations. Some emerging issues involve overseas ranges, water
use, resource extraction, and civilian access. 2 P.L. 107-314, Title III,
Section 366 (Dec. 2, 2002).

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 in encl. I.)
Among other items, section 366 also required the Secretary to submit to
Congress a report containing the comprehensive training range sustainment
plan, the results of an assessment and evaluation of current and future
training range requirements, and any recommendations that the Secretary
may have for legislative or regulatory changes to address training
constraints. Section 366 also directed the Secretary of Defense to develop
and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the armed forces,
which identifies all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at
each training range, and it required the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on his plans to improve the system for reporting the impact that
training restraints have on readiness. DOD was to submit both the report
and the training range inventory to Congress at the same time the
President submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004 and to provide status
reports annually for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. Instead of issuing a
report along with the President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission in
2003, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted to Congress
its first report-

Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive
Plan-and its training range inventory on February 27, 2004. OSD submitted
its second annual report, along with an updated inventory, to Congress on
July 14, 2005.3

Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of
OSD's annual reports. This is our second such report. In our first report,
issued in June 2004,4 we found that OSD's initial 2004 report and
inventory did not fully address several of the reporting requirements
mandated by section 366. For example, we reported that OSD's 2004 report
did not include a comprehensive training range plan with quantifiable
goals or milestones to measure progress, and it did not identify funding
requirements. In comments on a draft of our first report, DOD disagreed
with our findings and with three of our four recommendations. In this
second report we discuss the extent to which OSD's (1) 2005 training range
inventory contains sufficient information to use as a baseline for
developing the comprehensive sustainment plan mandated by section 366; and
(2) 2005 training range report meets other requirements mandated by
section 366 that could help guide OSD and the

5

services in ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training
ranges.

To address our objectives, we relied on the work used to develop our June
2005 report on the condition of military training ranges.6 In addition, we
reviewed OSD's updated training range inventory for 2005 to assess whether
the inventory identified training capabilities (e.g., types of training
that can be conducted and available targets), capacities (e.g., number of
personnel or weapon systems that can be accommodated), and constraints
caused by limitations at each training range (e.g.,

3 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range
Comprehensive Plan (Washington, D.C.: July 2005). 4 GAO, Military
Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address
Congressional Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington, D.C.: June
4, 2004).

5 In this report, we use the term "training range" to collectively refer
to air ranges, live-fire ranges,
ground maneuver ranges, sea ranges, and operating areas.
6 GAO, Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to
Improve the Conditions
of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005).

restrictions on live-fire training) as required by section 366. Also, we
reviewed OSD's 2005 report to determine if it addressed the elements
required by the act-a comprehensive training range sustainment plan; an
assessment of current and future training range requirements; an
evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and
constructive assets, to meet current and future training range
requirements; recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to
address training constraints; and plans to improve the readiness reporting
system-and evaluated the quality of the information by comparing it to
sound management principles for strategic planning, such as the
identification of quantifiable goals, planned actions, funding
requirements, milestones to measure progress, and organizations
responsible for implementing the planned actions. Because OSD's 2005
report notes that it should be viewed as a supplement to the department's
2004 report, we evaluated this year's report within the context of last
year's report, considering the degree to which they both met the
requirements mandated by section 366. We also met with knowledgeable OSD
and service officials to discuss the contents and the adequacy of OSD's
2005 inventory and training range report.

We conducted our work from July through August 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

Similar to the inventory OSD submitted to Congress last year, the 2005
training range inventory does not contain sufficient information to use as
a baseline for developing a comprehensive plan to address training
constraints and help ensure range sustainability because it does not
identify specific capacities, capabilities, and training constraints for
ranges of all the services as required by section 366. Instead, it is a
consolidated list of ranges provided by the individual services that lacks
critical data and is not integrated or easily accessible by potential
users. Both this year's and last year's inventories list the services'
training ranges and provide general data on the size and type of range.
Unlike last year's inventory, OSD's 2005 inventory also identifies
specific routes pilots use to transit from a base to a training range and
provides information on upper and lower altitudes for shared airspace near
military installations for all the services. Still, neither inventory
identifies specific capacities and capabilities for individual Army, Navy,
or Marine Corps ranges or lists existing training constraints caused by
encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of maintenance or
modernization. In addition, OSD's 2005 inventory is not integrated or
readily accessible to potential users. Therefore, this year's inventory is
still not a tool that commanders across the services could use to identify
range availability regardless of service ownership to schedule the best
available resources to provide required training. In responding to similar
findings in our 2004 report, OSD commented that it was a long-term goal to
have an integrated management system to support joint use of training
ranges. However, OSD does not identify this as one of its goals in this
year's report. Instead, OSD's 2005 report identifies different service-
and range-level information and inventory systems-some of which have been
in place for years. We continue to believe as we did last year that,
without a complete, integrated, and continuously updated training range
inventory, it is difficult for potential users to

identify the best available ranges to meet their required training and for
OSD to frame a meaningful plan to address training constraints and help
ensure range sustainability.

OSD's 2005 training range report-similar to the one issued to Congress
last year- fails to meet other requirements mandated by section 366 that
could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of their training ranges. Nevertheless, there is one
noteworthy change: OSD's 2005 report includes some elements of a plan
intended to address the long-term sustainability of training ranges while
last year's report did not. The plan provides general goals, actions, and
milestones but does not identify funding requirements for implementing
planned actions, although specifically required to by section 366, and
does not assign responsibility for implementation of specific actions or
provide explicit performance metrics to measure progress-critical elements
for a meaningful plan. Like last year's report, OSD's 2005 report does not
include an assessment of current and future training range requirements;
an evaluation of the adequacy of current resources, including virtual and
constructive assets, to meet current and future training range
requirements; or recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to
address training constraints-although specifically required to do so by
section 366. In addition, OSD's 2005 report does not include its plans to
improve the department's readiness reporting system, despite a specific
mandate in section 366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003. Although
other OSD components have demonstrated that the department is capable of
developing reports that contain information and comprehensive strategic
plans similar to those specified by section 366, OSD's 2005 report is
generally descriptive in nature. Namely, a large portion of the current
report describes efforts underway within the department to use information
technology and individual services' efforts to address sustainable range
issues, while providing background information on funding sources,
encroachment issues, and overseas ranges-information that congressional
decision makers most likely already understand or may not find very useful
in carrying out their oversight responsibilities.

Because our prior recommendations for improving OSD's annual training
range reporting remain open, valid, and not fully addressed, we are not
making new recommendations in this report. (See encl. II for a list of our
open recommendations from our June 2004 report7 and other recent reports
associated with the sustainment of military training ranges.) In comments
on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it is fully committed to a
comprehensive approach to range management and that its annual reports to
Congress on this matter reflected the importance the department accords
this subject. DOD also stated that successful comprehensive planning does
not equate to centralized management and that it does not believe a
single, continuously updated and widely accessible inventory database is
currently practical, feasible, or needed. While we recognize that DOD is
committed to improving its range management, we previously recommended and
continue to believe that DOD needs to develop a training range inventory
and a comprehensive report that better fulfill the reporting requirements
mandated by section 366. We have not equated successful

7 GAO-04-608.

comprehensive planning to centralized management as suggested by DOD and
believe that, without an integrated and continuously updated range
inventory, it is difficult for potential users to identify the best
available ranges and for OSD to frame a meaningful plan to address
training constraints and help ensure sustainability. We address DOD's
comments in greater detail later in the report. The department also
provided a technical clarification, which we incorporated.

Background

As recently demonstrated in Iraq and elsewhere, U.S. forces are conducting
significantly more complex operations, requiring increased joint training
and interoperability between and among the military services, combatant
commands, and other DOD and non-DOD organizations. Training ranges
represent important national assets for the development and sustainment of
U.S. military forces and better enable joint force operations. DOD
requires ranges for all levels of training to include airspace for
air-to-air, air-to-ground, drop zone, and electronic combat training;
livefire ranges for artillery, armor, small arms, and munitions training;
ground maneuver ranges to conduct realistic force-on-force and live-fire
training at various unit levels; and sea ranges to conduct surface and
subsurface training maneuvers. However, the military services report they
have increasingly lost training range capabilities due to encroachment and
other factors, such as a lack of maintenance and modernization. According
to DOD, encroachment has resulted in a slow but steady increase in
problems affecting the use of their training ranges. They believe that the
gradual accumulation of these limitations will increasingly threaten
training readiness.

Decentralized Range Management Framework

Historically, range management has been decentralized, from OSD to the
services' headquarters to major commands to installations and units. In
practice, this means that OSD and DOD-wide organizations provide
management oversight, develop overarching policies, and facilitate
cross-service and joint activities. The military services develop
training, testing, and range requirements; schedule and conduct training
and testing; develop implementation policy and guidance; design and
implement programs and information systems; and develop funding plans,
programs, and budgets. According to DOD, this division of effort reflects
the department and service responsibilities enumerated in Title 10 of the
United States Code and DOD directive.8 The directive assigns the most
prominent responsibilities for range sustainment to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation; the military services; and DOD agencies. In addition, DOD has
created an Overarching Integrated Product Team to act as the DOD
coordinating body for developing strategies to preserve the military's
ability to train. The Overarching Integrated Product Team reports to the
Senior Readiness Oversight Council, which reviews range sustainment
policies and issues. A Working

8 DOD Directive, Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas (OPAREAs),
3200.15 (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).

Integrated Product Team (cochaired by the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Readiness, the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, and the Office of
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation) meets regularly and works
collaboratively with other DOD organizations on issues related to
sustainable ranges.

Prior GAO Reports Addressing Constraints on Training Ranges

Several of our reports in recent years have addressed constraints on the
use of military training ranges, particularly those related to
encroachment.9 A common theme in these reports has been the need for more
comprehensive results-oriented planning to include, for example, clearly
establishing goals and milestones for tracking progress in addressing
constraints on training ranges, identifying the funding needed to
accomplish tasks, and assigning responsibility for managing and
coordinating departmental efforts. Brief summaries of these reports
follow:

o  	In April 2002, we reported that troops stationed outside of the
continental United States face a variety of training constraints that have
increased over the past decade and are likely to increase further.10 We
also reported that impacts on readiness due to these constraints were not
well documented.

o  	In June 2002, we reported on the impact of encroachment on military
training ranges inside the United States with similar findings to those of
the April 2002 report and identified the need for a comprehensive plan to
manage

                                       11

encroachment on military training ranges.

o  	In June 2004, we reported that DOD's 2004 training range report to
Congress did not fully identify available training resources, specific
training capacities and capabilities, and existing training constraints;
fully assess current and future training requirements; fully evaluate the
adequacy of current resources to meet current and future training range
requirements in the United States and overseas; or include a comprehensive
plan with quantifiable goals or milestones to measure progress, or
projected funding requirements needed to implement the plan.12 Instead,
OSD's report described the services' processes to develop, document, and
execute current training and training range requirements and the types of
ranges the services need to meet their training requirements in the United
States. In addition, we reported that OSD's training range inventory
provided to Congress did not contain sufficient information to

9 GAO-05-534 contains a comprehensive list of GAO products associated with
military training ranges.
10 GAO, Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not
Reflected in Readiness
Reporting, GAO-02-525 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002).
11 GAO, Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training
Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002).
12 GAO-04-608.

use as a baseline for developing a comprehensive training range plan
required by section 366.

o  	In June 2005, we reported that our visits to eight training ranges
along with DOD's own assessments showed that ranges were in deteriorated
conditions and lacked maintenance and modernization, which adversely
affected training activities and jeopardized the safety of military
personnel.13 For example, we observed ranges with malfunctioning
communication systems, impassable tank trails, overgrown areas, and
outdated training areas and targets. Whenever possible, the services work
around these conditions by modifying the timing, tempo, or location of
training, but officials have expressed concern that workarounds are
becoming increasingly difficult and costly and that they compromise the
realism essential to effective training. We also noted that DOD's progress
in improving training range conditions was limited and was partially
attributable to a lack of a comprehensive approach to ensure that ranges
provide the proper setting for effectively preparing its forces for
warfare. Specifically, a comprehensive approach should include several key
elements, such as the following: well-defined policies that address all
factors impacting range sustainability; servicewide plans that guide the
timely execution of range sustainability actions; range requirements that
are geared to meet both service and joint needs; adequate management of
range funding; and a commitment to the implementation of this approach.

OSD's 2005 Inventory Does Not Contain Sufficient Information for
Developing a Comprehensive Sustainment Plan

OSD's 2005 training range inventory contains more information than the one
submitted to Congress in 2004 but it still does not meet the requirements
mandated by section 366 because it does not identify specific capacities,
capabilities, and training constraints for ranges of all the
services-information necessary for developing a comprehensive plan to
address training constraints and help ensure range sustainability.
Instead, similar to last year's inventory, the 2005 inventory lists
available operational training ranges and provides data on the size and
type of ranges (e.g., air to ground, land maneuver, and urbanized
terrain). Unlike the inventory from last year, the 2005 inventory also
identifies specific routes pilots use to travel from an installation to a
training range and back, and provides upper and lower altitudes for shared
airspace near installations. However, neither inventory identifies
specific training capacities and capabilities available at each range of
all the services as required by section 366. For example, while both
inventories identify capacities and capabilities at each Air Force range
in terms of the number and type of aircraft that can be accommodated
simultaneously or sequentially, and in terms of the types of ordnance
permitted, targets, and feedback systems, they do not identify training
capacities and capabilities available at individual Army, Navy, or Marine
Corps ranges. Also, although specifically required to do so by section
366, neither inventory

13 GAO-05-534.

lists existing training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
each range due to encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of
maintenance or modernization. Still, individually the services have
developed some of the specified information mandated by section 366. For
example, Army and Marine Corps officials told us that they had identified
training capacities and capabilities of their ranges, and the Army was
able to provide us with a list of identified training constraints
subsequent to the issuance of OSD's 2005 inventory. Also, Air Force
officials said a list of identified training constraints for their ranges
was provided to OSD last year but was not incorporated into either
inventory and the Navy has initiated an effort to identify capabilities
and constraints for 17 of its training ranges-four of these studies are
completed but are still in final draft.

A training range inventory that could be continuously updated and easily
accessible to potential users would make these data more useful to address
training constraints caused by encroachment and to identify the best
available resources to fulfill training requirements. Instead, similar to
last year's inventory, OSD's 2005 inventory is a list of the individual
services' inventories merged into one document that is not integrated or
readily accessible by commanders across all the services. In response to a
similar finding in a draft of our 2004 report, OSD stated that it is a
long-term goal to have an integrated management system to support joint
use of training ranges. However, the training range sustainment plan
presented in OSD's 2005 report does not identify this as one of the
department's goals. Instead, the report discusses various service- and
range-level information and inventory systems. Collectively, these
information and inventory systems are important to provide more complete
data concerning training resources, but they are not integrated in a way
that makes training ranges, their capacities and capabilities, and their
limitations readily accessible to all commanders. For example, in 2001
DOD's Business Initiative Council recognized that range users, managers,
and schedulers need information about multiple ranges, facilities, and
associated resources in terms of scheduling and availability.
Consequently, DOD has developed a common range scheduling tool that
interfaces with 12 Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force ranges and
simulation sites, providing near-real time display of scheduling and
resource information. Also, as described in OSD's 2005 report, the Marine
Corps has developed an active, centralized training range Web site that
provides both general and detailed information about each of its ranges,
allows commanders from any service to schedule their training events
remotely, and provides photos and video footage of some ranges to assist
potential users in scheduling and designing their training events. At the
same time, the Army and Marine Corps have recognized the benefits of
working together while jointly developing several information systems and
decision tools that support cross-service utilization of both Marine Corps
and Army training ranges. While the Navy and Air Force do not have similar
Web-based inventories, they have worked together on the development and
application of an aviation range safety software application, which is
described in OSD's 2005 report. Additionally, the Navy's Southern
California Offshore Range has developed an information management system
that allows its users to complete a number of tasks, such as tracking the
causes of modified or cancelled training and reporting range deficiencies.

OSD's 2005 Report Still Does Not Meet Other Requirements that Could Help
Guide the Sustainability of Ranges

Similar to OSD's training range report issued to Congress last year, the
2005 report does not meet other requirements mandated by section 366 that
could help guide OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of their training ranges. One noteworthy change since last
year is that OSD's current report provides some elements of a plan
intended to address the long-term sustainability of training ranges while
last year's report did not. However, the plan presented does not identify
funding requirements for implementing planned actions although specified
by section 366, and does not assign responsibility for implementation of
actions or provide performance metrics to measure progress, although both
are critical elements of a meaningful plan. Also, neither annual report
includes OSD's assessment of current and future training range
requirements; its evaluation of the adequacy of current resources,
including virtual and constructive assets, to meet these requirements; its
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes; or its plans to
improve the reporting of the readiness impact that training constraints
have on specific units of the services-although specifically required to
do so by section 366. While other OSD components have demonstrated that
the department is capable of developing reports that contain information
and comprehensive strategic plans similar to those specified by section
366, OSD's 2005 report is still generally descriptive and fails to fully
address congressional requirements.

OSD's Plan Does Not Identify Funding Requirements, Assign
Responsibilities, or Provide Explicit Performance Metrics

OSD's current plan provides a general framework for goals, actions, and
milestones, but it does not provide information on the amount and sources
of funding required for implementing the planned actions, or when these
types of funds are needed. However, OSD describes the efforts of the
Sustainable Range Working Integrated Product Team to develop a more
consistent and accurate system to capture and report funding associated
with ranges and to develop investment strategies. It further describes
different types of funding available for ranges (e.g., procurement,
operation and maintenance, and military construction funds) and the
current and proposed funding framework for ranges, without specifically
identifying its funding requirements. In our June 2005 report, we found
that the services lack the capability to accurately and easily capture
overall training range funding information and were unable to easily and
precisely identify their funding requirements, funding levels, and trends
in expenditures for training ranges on an annual basis. In comments on a
draft of that report, DOD responded that a standing subgroup, under the
direction of the Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team, is developing
a framework that provides increased visibility into year-to-year funding.
During this review, responsible DOD officials noted that additional time
is needed to complete this effort and could not provide any definitive
estimate for completion.

OSD's plan also lacks complete information on which organizations will be
assigned responsibility for implementing which planned action. Instead,
OSD discusses in general terms organizational roles and responsibilities
for the sustainment of test and training ranges and operating areas.
Individually, the military services have undertaken a number of planning
actions to address the sustainability of their ranges. For example, the
Navy and Marine Corps have started to develop local management plans for
their training ranges that, among other things, provide a strategic vision
for range operations and identify capability shortfalls. In addition, the
Army recently started developing standardized local range plans; the Air
Force is creating a management system, scheduled to be operational in
2007, to develop plans for its ranges; and several local range offices
have started to develop plans to address the sustainability of their
training ranges. In comments on our June 2005 report, OSD stated that more
fully articulating the roles and responsibilities of primary OSD offices,
the services, and the combatant commands will better address the full
range of management functions required to sustain training ranges. OSD
further noted that it intended to undertake a review of the department's
policies to ensure the roles and responsibilities for addressing such
sustainable range issues are integrated and clearly articulated. More
recently, DOD officials could not provide an estimated completion date for
this endeavor.

In addition, OSD's plan does not provide explicit performance metrics to
measure progress in addressing training constraints and ensuring the
sustainability of ranges. Instead, DOD organizes its general goals,
actions, and milestones under four main categories: modernization and
investment, operations and maintenance, environmental, and encroachment.
For each category, DOD identifies actions to be completed in fiscal year
2005 and actions to be completed during fiscal years 2006 and beyond.
However, the plan lacks explicit metrics to indicate what level of
performance toward the achievement of these goals would be acceptable or
unacceptable. For example, while the plan states that one of the actions
that should be taken to achieve modernized ranges is to develop, complete,
and periodically update training range complex plans, it does not provide
the services any metrics to indicate how many or percentage of complex
plans should be developed or within what time frame they should be
completed (e.g., 10 percent in fiscal year 2005, 40 percent in fiscal year
2006, or 70 percent in fiscal year 2007). Without established, sound
metrics DOD will be unable to accurately measure the progress made in
implementing the plan, as required in section 366.

OSD's Report Does Not Assess Current and Future Requirements

Similar to last year's report, OSD's 2005 report does not include an
assessment of current and future training range requirements of the
military services. Instead, the 2005 report describes the services' ranges
in the United States and overseas and their processes to develop,
document, and execute current training and training range requirements. On
the other hand, the data to meet the mandated requirement to assess
current training range requirements already exist in selected instances.
For example, we recently reported that the Army had conducted a detailed
capacity

analysis during the 2005 base closures and realignments process that
identified the types of training lands and facilities required to support
various units (e.g., light and heavy maneuver brigades).14 In addition, as
we reported in our June 2005 report, the Navy and Marine Corps had
identified specific requirements for their ranges in 2004 and the Air
Force had assessed its range requirements in 2003. However, none of these
studies provided assessments of their future training range requirements.
Without the specified assessments mandated by section 366, OSD continues
to lack the basis for determining whether current and future resources are
adequate.

OSD's Report Does Not Evaluate the Adequacy of Current Resources to Meet
Current and Future Requirements

Similar to last year's report, OSD's 2005 report does not include an
evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD 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 current and
future training range requirements. Neither report compares current or
future training range requirements to existing resources-a primary method
to evaluate the adequacy of current resources. While the Army has not
evaluated the adequacy of its resources, the other services have used the
results of their range assessments discussed previously to evaluate the
adequacy of their training ranges. However, the results of these
evaluations were not included in OSD's 2005 report and none of the
services have completed an evaluation of the adequacy of current resources
to meet future training range requirements. In comments on a draft of our
report last year, DOD stated that it was inappropriate and impractical to
include this detail in an OSD-level report and that Congress is better
served if the department describes, summarizes, and analyzes range
requirements. However, these statements are contradictory to section 366,
which specifically requires OSD to report its evaluation of the adequacy
of current DOD resources to meet current and future training range
requirements, and do not adequately consider concerns that training ranges
already face environmental and encroachment issues that constrained their
ability to meet unit training requirements.

We recently reported that concerns over the ability of existing Army
training ranges to meet training requirements were exacerbated by
uncertainties over the final number and composition of additional modular
brigades15 that will require training as well as the potential impact of
additional forces returning from bases overseas to U.S. bases.16 As part
of DOD's Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy,17 the Army

14 GAO, Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Section Process and
Recommendations for Base
Closures and Realignments, GAO-05-785 (Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005).
15 The Army's current modular force restructuring plan calls for the
creation of 10 modular brigades
within the United States by 2006, with the possibility of an additional 5
modular brigades beyond then.
16 GAO-05-785.
17 On September 17, 2004, DOD issued a report entitled Strengthening U.S.
Global Defense Posture,
also referred to as the integrated global presence and basing strategy.
This strategy-the culmination
of various DOD studies including the overseas basing and requirements
study, the overseas presence

plans to restation up to 47,000 soldiers from U.S. bases in Germany, South
Korea, and
other overseas locations to the United States over the next 10 years. We
have also
reported on the challenges DOD faces in implementing its Training
Transformation
Program aimed at enhancing joint training among the services.18
Consequently, we
continue to believe that information regarding the adequacy of current
resources to
meet current and future requirements is vital to establishing a baseline
for measuring
losses or shortfalls in training capabilities, and it is likely to grow in
importance for
congressional decision makers in carrying out their oversight
responsibilities when
DOD seeks their approval for acquiring additional lands to meet current
and future
training requirements-as OSD suggested several times in its 2005 training
range
report.

OSD's Report Does Not Identify
Recommendations for
Legislative or Regulatory Changes

Similar to last year's report, OSD's 2005 report makes no recommendations
for legislative or regulatory changes to address encroachment or other
training constraints even though such changes existed. While OSD's current
report ends with a section on observations, it does not provide any
recommendations for legislative or regulatory action for Congress to
consider. Instead, DOD submitted proposed legislation in a separate
document to Congress on April 6, 2004, which was intended to clarify the
intent of the Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. According to a senior OSD official, it is difficult to
synchronize the process of obtaining the approval required from both DOD
and the Office of Management and Budget for any legislative or regulatory
proposal, while also issuing an OSD-level report, such as the mandated
training range sustainment report. Still, without including its
recommendations in this year's report, we believe that OSD missed an
opportunity provided by section 366 to present Congress with additional
information that may be useful to carry out its oversight responsibilities
and further address training constraints.

OSD Has Not Reported Its Plans for Improving the Readiness Reporting
System

OSD has not reported to Congress its plans to improve the department's
readiness reporting system, regardless of a specific mandate in section
366 that it do so no later than June 30, 2003. Instead, OSD concluded last
year that it is inappropriate to modify the Global Status of Resources and
Training System (GSORTS) identified by the mandate to address long-term
encroachment impacts and reported that it planned to incorporate
encroachment impacts on readiness into its Defense Readiness Reporting

study, and the U.S. global posture study-calls for restationing of U.S.
military forces overseas to bases located in the United States and is
intended to enhance flexibility and achieve efficiencies. 18 GAO, Military
Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's Program to Transform Joint
Training, GAO-05-548 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).

System, which is currently under development. However, OSD has not
explained how or when it intends to do this or provided any additional
details on how it plans to improve its readiness reporting in either this
or last year's report. More significantly, as we reported in June 2005,
none of the services regularly assesses either the conditions of their
ranges or whether the ranges are able to meet the specific training
requirements of the service and combatant commanders. While the Army and
Marine Corps annually assess the physical condition of their training
ranges, the services do not assess the capabilities of the ranges or any
impacts to training. The Navy and Air Force do not routinely conduct
annual assessments of their training ranges. While we appreciate that OSD
does not believe GSORTS is the system to capture encroachment impacts, its
failure to explain this and include in the 2005 report its plans to
improve its readiness reporting does not address the concerns raised by
Congress, GAO, and others that its readiness reporting system does not
accurately reflect the impacts due to limitations on the use of training
ranges.

Other DOD Components Have Developed Comprehensive Strategic Plans and
Reports

Other OSD components have demonstrated that the department is capable of
developing comprehensive strategic plans and reports with data similar to
those mandated by section 366. Still, unlike these strategic planning
efforts and in contradiction to the reporting requirements specified in
section 366, OSD's 2005 training range report continues to be generally
descriptive in nature, with large sections dedicated to providing
background information on funding sources, encroachment issues, and
overseas ranges and describing current efforts to use information
technology and individual services' efforts to address sustainable range
issues. In contrast to OSD's annual training range report, the Office of
Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict released a DOD-wide
strategic plan on antiterrorism in June 2004 with five goals, 35 specific
performance objectives, and annual milestones and metrics through 2011 to
measure progress.19 The strategic goals and performance objectives
describe how DOD components are to achieve the desired end state and the
annual milestones and metrics detail the level of performance expected by
fiscal year. Within the first year, the services and several combatant
commands had developed plans to implement the DOD-wide strategic plan. The
OSD office plans to annually review these organizations' progress to
ensure that the actions outlined in the plans are being achieved in the
stated time frames. Other examples are OSD's training transformation
strategic plan and its annual implementation plans that include specific
goals, planned actions, performance metrics, and milestones for
transforming DOD's training.20 As part of its approach to managing
training transformation, OSD has taken action to establish accountability
and authority early in the program, and performance metrics are being
continuously

19 Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict, Department of Defense Antiterrorism Strategic Plan, O-2000.12-P
(Washington, D.C.: June
15, 2004).
20 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, Strategic Plan
for Transforming DOD Training (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002); and
Department of Defense
Training Transformation Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: June 10,
2003, and June 9, 2004).

developed and revised in an attempt to better measure training
transformation's impact on joint force readiness and guide investments in
training transformation.

Concluding Observations

Although we agree with DOD that assuring the sustainment of its training
ranges requires a long-term commitment that will take several years to
execute, we also believe the development of a comprehensive strategic plan
and report can be accomplished in a more timely manner. Noting that
section 366 allots 5 years to produce, update, and improve the mandated
report, we believe that sufficient time has elapsed for the department to
have developed both a training range inventory and a comprehensive report
that fulfill requirements mandated by section 366. By now, nearly 3 years
after the mandate was established, OSD should be reporting on its progress
implementing the training range sustainment plan. Without the information
mandated by section 366, congressional and DOD decision makers will
continue to rely on incomplete data to address training constraints and to
support funding requests. Further, these types of information will likely
grow in importance as Congress realizes the need to evaluate and approve
the department's proposals to purchase additional training lands and areas
in the future as predicted in OSD's current report. Since OSD and the
services have individually or jointly initiated a number of range
inventory and sustainment activities, any further delay in developing a
comprehensive training range sustainment plan that identifies funding
requirements as mandated by section 366, assigns lead responsibility for
implementation of specific actions, and provides explicit performance
metrics to measure progress puts the department at risk of lacking a
strategy that fully addresses training limitations and ensures the
long-term sustainability of military training ranges. This is especially
important in light of the need to address emerging training requirements
due to the relocation of forces from bases overseas to the United States,
implementation of new joint training initiatives, and creation of modular
brigades in the Army. Because our prior recommendations for improving
OSD's annual training range reporting remain open, valid, and not fully
addressed, we are not making new recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Readiness stated that DOD is fully committed to a
comprehensive approach to range management and that its annual reports to
Congress on this matter reflected the importance DOD accords this subject.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense also stated that successful
comprehensive planning does not equate to centralized management and that
DOD does not believe a single, continuously updated and widely accessible
inventory database that doubles as a Web-based scheduling tool is
currently practical or feasible.

While we recognize that DOD is committed to improving the management of
its ranges, we previously recommended and continue to believe that DOD
needs to

develop a training range inventory and a comprehensive report that better
fulfill the reporting requirements mandated by section 366. Implementation
of our prior recommendations on this matter would provide DOD with a
framework to better address training range sustainability issues and
provide for a more comprehensive approach for ensuring that ranges are
adequately sustained and modernized in order to ensure their long-term
viability. As in this report and our prior reports on sustainability of
ranges, we have not equated successful comprehensive planning to
centralized management as suggested by DOD, but instead we have recognized
fully the importance of the military services' role and the steps they
have taken in addressing the sustainability of their ranges. We also
disagree with DOD's contention that a single, continuously updated and
widely accessible inventory database is not currently practical or
feasible, and would not meet the needs of the services or OSD. As
illustrated in this and our prior reports, all of the services and several
individual commands have recognized the need for information and inventory
systems that could be continuously updated and easily accessible to
potential users for addressing sustainment issues and for identifying the
best available resources to fulfill training requirements. Both the Army
and Marine Corps have implemented inventory systems to meet the
requirements of their commanders. The Air Force and several individual
commands are in the process of developing systems that could meet their
needs, and the Navy's Southern California Offshore range has its own
management system that is used for scheduling training and tracking
sustainment issues and resolutions. Clearly, these individual information
and inventory systems demonstrate that the development of a departmentwide
inventory is practical and feasible. Also, we continue to believe that
without such an inventory it will be difficult for OSD and the services to
develop a meaningful comprehensive plan and to track their progress in
addressing training constraints and ensuring range sustainability.

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense's comments are included in enclosure
III. DOD also provided a technical clarification, which we incorporated.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and members; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretaries of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The report is also available at no charge
on GAO's Web Site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-5581 or [email protected]. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this

report. Tommy Baril, Steve Boyles, Susan Ditto, and Mark Little were major
contributors to this report.

Barry W. Holman, Director
Defense Capabilities and Management

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense
United States Senate

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense
House of Representatives

                            Enclosure I Enclosure 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
andTraining System, and Training Range Inventory

(a) PLAN REQUIRED--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop
acomprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to
theSecretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments
toaddress training constraints caused by limitations on the use of
militarylands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United
Statesand overseas for training of the Armed Forces.

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

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

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

(3) The plan shall include the following:

(A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities andaddress any
shortfalls in current Department of Defenseresources identified pursuant
to the assessment and evaluationconducted under paragraph (2).

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

(C) Projected funding requirements for implementing plannedactions.

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

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

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

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

                            Enclosure I Enclosure I

(C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have forlegislative or
regulatory changes to address trainingconstraints identified pursuant to
this section.

(5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budgetfor
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, the Secretary shall submit
toCongress a report describing the progress made in implementing the
planand any additional actions taken, or to be taken, to address
trainingconstraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands,
marineareas, and airspace.

(b) READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT--Not later than June 30, 2003,the
Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority ofthe
Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans of theDepartment
of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources andTraining System to
reflect the readiness impact that training constraintscaused by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, andairspace have
on specific units of the Armed Forces.

(c) TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY--(1) The Secretary of Defense shalldevelop
and maintain a training range inventory for each of the ArmedForces-

           (A) to identify all available operational training ranges;

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

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

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory toCongress
at the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscalyear 2004
and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at the sametime as the
President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005 through2008.

(d) GAO EVALUATION--The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copiesof each
report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the ComptrollerGeneral.
Within 60 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller Generalshall
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.

Enclosure II Enclosure II

                           GAO Prior Recommendations

Figure 1 lists our prior recommendations designed to help ensure the
long-term viability of military training ranges and enhance the Department
of Defense's (DOD) responsiveness to the legislative requirements
specified in section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Individually, they have not been fully
implemented and we continue to consider them open and continuing
recommendations from our prior reports.

Figure 1: Prior Recommendations Associated with the Sustainment of
Military Training Ranges

Report Recommendation Status

Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in
Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002)

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the chiefs of the
military services in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense,
Personnel and Readiness, to develop a report that will accurately capture
training shortfalls for senior DOD leadership. This document should
objectively report a unit's ability to achieve its training requirements
and include

o  	all instances in which training cannot occur as scheduled due to
constraints imposed by entities outside DOD as well as all instances when
training substitutes are not sufficient to meet training requirements,

o  	a discussion of how training constraints affect the ability of units
to meet training requirements and how the inability to meet those
requirements is affecting readiness, and

o  	a description of efforts to capture training shortfalls in existing as
well as developmental readiness reporting systems.

DOD agreed-no action taken

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct that the war fighting
DOD agreed-no
commands, in concert with their service component commands, develop action
taken
an overarching strategy that will detail the initiatives the command and
each service plan to pursue to improve training, such as access to
additional host government facilities, participation in bilateral and
multilateral exercises, and acquisition of new technology.

Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment
on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002)

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense

o  	require the services to develop and maintain inventories of their
training ranges, capacities, and capabilities, and fully quantify their
training requirements considering complementary approaches to training;

o  	create a DOD data base that identifies all ranges available to the
department and what they offer, regardless of service ownership, so that
commanders can schedule the best available resources to provide required
training;

o  	finalize a comprehensive plan for administrative actions that includes
goals, timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of
responsibilities for managing and coordinating the department's efforts to
address encroachment issues on military training ranges; and DOD
agreed-some limited action taken by the services

DOD agreed-some limited action taken by the services

DOD agreed-some limited action taken

                           Enclosure II Enclosure II

o  	develop a reporting system for range sustainability issues that will
DOD partially allow for the elevation of critical training problems and
progress in agreed-no action addressing them to the Senior Readiness
Oversight Council for taken inclusion in Quarterly Readiness Reports to
Congress as appropriate.

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

We recommended that OSD provide a more complete report to Congress to
fully address the requirements specified in the section 366 mandate by

o  	developing a comprehensive plan that includes quantifiable goals and
milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and
projected funding requirements to more fully address identified training
constraints;

o  	assessing current and future training range requirements and
evaluating the adequacy of current resources to meet these requirements;
and

o  	developing a readiness reporting system to reflect the impact on
readiness caused by training constraints due to limitations on the use of
training ranges.

DOD agreed-some limited action taken

DOD disagreed-no action taken

DOD disagreed-no action taken

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under DOD
disagreed-
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the secretaries of
some limited action
the military services to jointly develop an integrated training range
taken by the services
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.

Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve
the Conditions of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534 (Washington, D.C.:
June 10, 2005)a

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to

o  	update DOD Directive 3200.15 to broaden the focus of the policy to
clearly address all issues that affect the long-term viability of military
training ranges; and clearly define the maintenance and modernization
roles and responsibilities of all relevant DOD components, including the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Joint
Forces Command, and Special Operations Command;

o  	broaden the charter of the DOD-wide working group, the Sustainable
Range Integrated Product Team, to address all issues that could affect the
long-term viability of military training ranges, and include all DOD
components that are impacted by range limitations; and

o  	update DOD's training transformation plan to address all factors that
could impact the sustainability of military training ranges and not just
external encroachment issues.

DOD agreed-no action taken

DOD agreed-no action taken

DOD agreed-no action taken

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the secretaries of the
military services to implement a comprehensive approach to managing their
training ranges, to include

o  	a servicewide sustainable range policy that implements the updated DOD
agreed-no DOD Directive 3200.15 and clearly defines the maintenance and
action taken modernization roles and responsibilities of relevant service
officials at all levels;

o  	a servicewide sustainable range implementation plan that includes DOD
agreed-no goals, specific actions to be taken, milestones, funding
sources, and action taken

                           Enclosure II Enclosure II

an investment strategy for managing their ranges;

o  	defined training range requirements and a systematic process to
annually assess the conditions of training ranges and their consequent
impact on training, including whether the ranges are able to meet the
specific training requirements of the service and combatant commanders;

o  	a Web-based range information management system that allows training
range officials at all levels to share information, such as range
conditions and their impact on training, funding sources, requirements and
expenditures, and local range initiatives; and

o  	regularly developed strategies to address the factors contributing to
funding shortages for ranges, including the reassessment of funding
priorities for maintaining and modernizing ranges relative to other needs.

DOD agreed-no action taken

DOD agreed-no action taken

DOD agreed-no action taken

Source: DOD and GAO.

a While DOD agreed with the recommendations in this report, more time is
needed for the department and military services to implement them.

                          Enclosure III Enclosure III

                    Comments from the Department of Defense

                          Enclosure III Enclosure III

                                    (350644)

                                 GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

                           To Report Fraud, Contact:

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

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                                   PRINTED ON

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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
*** End of document. ***