Military Training
Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges Gao ID: GAO-03-976 September 29, 2003Military lands provide habitat for more than 300 species that must be protected under the Endangered Species Act and many other species that may become endangered. In some cases, military installations provide some of the finest remaining habitat for these species. However, Department of Defense (DOD) officials stated that protection of endangered species may result in land-use restrictions that reduce the military's flexibility to use land for training. GAO was asked to examine the (1) extent to which DOD and other nearby federal land managers in the region are managing cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training ranges and (2) factors that can limit cooperative management for endangered species on military training ranges.
DOD and other federal land managers have taken some steps to implement interagency cooperative efforts to manage endangered species on a regional basis, but the extent to which they are using this approach for military training ranges is limited. Federal land managers recognize that cooperative management of endangered species has several benefits, such as sharing land-use restrictions and resources and providing better protection for species in some cases. The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have issued policies, and DOD has issued directives to promote cooperative management of natural resources. They have also outlined specific actions to be taken--such as identifying geographic regions for species management and forming working groups. However, follow-through on these actions has been limited, without many of the prescribed actions being implemented. A few cooperative management efforts have been taken but were generally in response to a crisis--such as a species' population declining. The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture have identified a number of factors that can limit cooperative management for endangered species on military training ranges. When a species is found on training ranges but is not found on other federal land or is not protected under the Endangered Species Act, neighboring land managers do not always consider management of the species a high priority. Limited interaction among agencies and limited resources to employ cooperative programs also inhibit cooperative management. Lack of training and expertise has limited federal land managers' ability to identify such opportunities. Moreover, federal agencies cannot easily share information--such as best practices and land management plans--because there is no centralized source of such information. Given that federal agencies have made little progress in implementing the various agreements for cooperative management, an interagency reporting requirement would provide a basis to hold agencies accountable for sharing endangered species management on training ranges.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-976, Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-976
entitled 'Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training
Ranges' which was released on October 29, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
September 2003:
Military Training:
Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for
Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges:
GAO-03-976:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-976, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Military lands provide habitat for more than 300 species that must be
protected under the Endangered Species Act and many other species that
may become endangered. In some cases, military installations provide
some of the finest remaining habitat for these species. However,
Department of Defense (DOD) officials stated that protection of
endangered species may result in land-use restrictions that reduce the
military‘s flexibility to use land for training. GAO was asked to
examine the (1) extent to which DOD and other nearby federal land
managers in the region are managing cooperatively for endangered
species affecting military training ranges and (2) factors that can
limit cooperative management for endangered species on military
training ranges.
What GAO Found:
DOD and other federal land managers have taken some steps to implement
interagency cooperative efforts to manage endangered species on a
regional basis, but the extent to which they are using this approach
for military training ranges is limited. Federal land managers
recognize that cooperative management of endangered species has
several benefits, such as sharing land-use restrictions and resources
and providing better protection for species in some cases. The
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have issued policies, and
DOD has issued directives to promote cooperative management of natural
resources. They have also outlined specific actions to be taken”such
as identifying geographic regions for species management and forming
working groups. However, follow-through on these actions has been
limited, without many of the prescribed actions being implemented. A
few cooperative management efforts have been taken but were generally
in response to a crisis”such as a species‘ population declining.
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture have
identified a number of factors that can limit cooperative management
for endangered species on military training ranges. When a species is
found on training ranges but is not found on other federal land or is
not protected under the Endangered Species Act, neighboring land
managers do not always consider management of the species a high
priority. Limited interaction among agencies and limited resources to
employ cooperative programs also inhibit cooperative management. Lack
of training and expertise has limited federal land managers‘ ability
to identify such opportunities. Moreover, federal agencies cannot
easily share information”such as best practices and land management
plans”because there is no centralized source of such information.
Given that federal agencies have made little progress in implementing
the various agreements for cooperative management, an interagency
reporting requirement would provide a basis to hold agencies
accountable for sharing endangered species management on training
ranges.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and
Agriculture develop and implement an interagency strategy, a
comprehensive training program, and a centralized data source for
cooperative management efforts. The Departments of Defense, the
Interior, and Agriculture concurred on the need to improve interagency
cooperation. GAO also proposes that Congress consider requiring the
agencies to jointly report annually on their efforts to manage
cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training
ranges.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-976.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Barry W. Holman at
(202) 512-8412 or holmanb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Despite Some Positive Examples, Cooperative Management for Endangered
Species Affecting Military Training Ranges Is Limited:
Factors Limiting Cooperative Management for Endangered Species:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD's and Other Federal Agencies' Policies and
Initiatives That Promote Cooperative Management:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 29, 2003:
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
Military lands provide habitat for more than 300 federally listed
species that must be protected under the Endangered Species Act and
many other species that may become endangered.[Footnote 1] The
Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species depend are conserved. Under the act, all
federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered
species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of this
purpose. The Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency officials
have testified that some of the finest remaining examples of rare
wildlife habitats for these species exist on military installations.
However, DOD officials have stated that protection of endangered
species may result in land-use restrictions that reduce the military's
flexibility to use designated lands for training, a restriction that
can put military missions in jeopardy. Likewise, senior DOD and
military service officials have testified before Congress that they
face increasing difficulty in carrying out realistic training at
military installations and have identified endangered species as one of
eight "encroachment" issues[Footnote 2] that affect or have the
potential to affect military training and readiness. In an effort to
address these encroachment issues, DOD drafted a sustainable range
action plan for each of the encroachment issues in 2001. The draft
Endangered Species Act Sustainable Range Action Plan[Footnote 3]
suggests that the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military
services should build new and expand upon existing partnerships with
other federal land managers in an effort to manage for endangered
species on a regional basis as a way to accommodate military training
and operations as well as meet the legal requirements for endangered
species protection and conservation.
In 2002, we issued two reports on the effects of encroachment on
military training and readiness. In April 2002, we reported that troops
stationed outside of the continental United States face a variety of
training constraints that have increased over the last decade and are
likely to increase further.[Footnote 4] In June 2002, we reported on
the impact of encroachment on military training ranges[Footnote 5]
inside the United States and had similar findings to our earlier
report.[Footnote 6] We reported that many encroachment issues resulted
from or were exacerbated by population growth and urbanization. DOD was
particularly affected because urban growth near 80 percent of its
installations exceeded the national average. In both reports, we stated
that impacts on readiness were not well documented. We also testified
twice on these issues--in May 2002 and April 2003.[Footnote 7]
At your request, we examined the (1) extent to which DOD and other
nearby federal land managers[Footnote 8] are managing cooperatively
on a regional interagency basis for endangered species affecting
military training ranges and (2) factors that can limit interagency
cooperative management for endangered species affecting military
training ranges. In conducting our work, we interviewed headquarters
and field office personnel for the major land management departments--
the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture--to obtain
information related to policies, directives, procedures, interagency
agreements, and practices that advocate or promote cooperative
management of natural resources and, more specifically, endangered
species. We also visited three military installations and two major
commands, and toured three training ranges--Yakima Training Center,
Washington; Fort Lewis, Washington; and the Barry M. Goldwater Training
Range, Arizona. In addition, we met with other federal land managers
near the Yakima Training Center and Barry M. Goldwater Training Range.
We also visited several nongovernmental organizations near the training
ranges at the Yakima Training Center, the Barry M. Goldwater Training
Range, and elsewhere to obtain their observations on interagency
cooperative management and factors that limit their participation. A
more thorough description of our scope and methodology is provided in
appendix I. This report focuses exclusively on issues concerning
species that must be protected under the Endangered Species Act and
many other species that may become endangered affecting military
training ranges inside the United States.
We conducted our work from September 2002 through September 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Although DOD and federal land managers over time have taken some steps
to implement interagency cooperative efforts to manage endangered
species on a regional basis, the extent to which this approach is used
for military training ranges is limited. DOD and other federal land
managers recognize that cooperative management of endangered species
has several benefits, such as sharing land-use restrictions and limited
resources and providing better protection for species in some cases.
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have issued policies,
and DOD has issued directives, instructions, and an action plan to
promote cooperative management of natural resources. They have also
entered into memorandums of understanding that contain specific actions
to be taken to implement cooperative management, such as forming
interagency working groups, identifying geographic regions for species
management, and reporting on progress. However, follow-through on these
steps has been limited. For example, in 1994, 14 federal agencies
signed a memorandum of understanding in support of cooperative
management to implement the Endangered Species Act in response to
legislative proposals that at the time could have reduced the scope and
authority of the act. However, according to a DOD official, once the
legislative proposals failed, management support for the memorandum was
reduced, and it expired without many of the prescribed actions being
implemented. A few cooperative management efforts have been taken but
were generally in response to a crisis, such as a species' population
dramatically declining. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater Training
Range, military services and other land managers have worked together
to manage the Sonoran pronghorn--an endangered species that has
significantly declined.
Officials of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
identified numerous factors that can limit regional interagency
cooperative management for endangered species affecting military
training ranges, ranging from those instances when there is not a
shared crisis among federal land managers to the current lack of
centralized or otherwise easily accessible information on cooperative
management efforts. More specifically, federal land managers may not
consider cooperative management efforts a high priority when a species
does not exist on their land or is not federally listed as an
endangered species and therefore may not participate in such efforts.
At the Yakima Training Center, the Army is managing for the western
sage grouse in an attempt to prevent the species from being federally
listed, an action that could result in land-use restrictions at the
center. The Army's efforts to work with other federal land managers
have been largely unsuccessful because the sage grouse is not listed by
the federal government and populates only the center's training range
and not other nearby federal lands. Another factor is limited agency
interaction. Federal agency officials said that this has resulted in a
lack of a single vision, mistrust, and a misunderstanding about each
other's land-use responsibilities. An additional factor, according to
agency officials, is limited resources. DOD and other federal land
managers stated that they have to finance interagency cooperative
management efforts from already limited funds. Federal agency officials
also identified a lack of training and experience as factors that limit
interagency cooperative management. For instance, a lack of cooperative
management training has limited federal land managers' ability to
identify opportunities for cooperative management as well as the
neighboring land managers needed to implement them. Furthermore,
federal land managers lack a centralized or otherwise easily accessible
source of information on cooperative management efforts. As a result,
officials said that they are unable to easily share information and
learn about cooperative management efforts within and across agencies.
While officials of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and
Agriculture have identified these factors as limiting their ability to
manage cooperatively, they have not developed a comprehensive strategy
to address these factors and increase the use of regional interagency
cooperative management. Such a strategy could include a systematic
methodology to identify opportunities to participate in cooperative
management efforts, funding sources, science and technology sources,
and goals and criteria to measure success. Also, considering that
federal agencies have made little progress in implementing the various
agreements to undertake cooperative management, an interagency
reporting requirement to Congress would provide a basis to improve
agency accountability for implementation of interagency cooperative
management for endangered species affecting military training ranges.
To encourage cooperative management for endangered species affecting
military training ranges, this report recommends that the Secretaries
of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture jointly develop and implement
an interagency strategy, a comprehensive training program, and a
centralized or otherwise easily accessible source of information for
cooperative management efforts. To hold DOD and other federal land
managers accountable for implementing regional interagency cooperative
efforts, this report also suggests that Congress may wish to consider
requiring that the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and
Agriculture jointly report each year on their efforts to manage
cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training
ranges. In commenting on a draft of the report, the Departments of
Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture concurred on the need to improve
interagency cooperation in managing for endangered species.
Background:
DOD and other federal land management agencies--including the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture--manage millions of acres
of land that provide habitat for hundreds of endangered species. Each
of these federal agencies have specific land-use responsibilities that
have to be executed while at the same time conserving the existing
natural resources and complying with the Endangered Species Act. DOD
uses its lands primarily to train military forces and test weapon
systems. In doing so, DOD operates on training ranges that vary in size
from a few acres to more than a million acres. The Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management manages about 264 million acres of
public land for a variety of resources and uses including minerals,
timber, forage, and fish and wildlife habitat; Interior's National Park
Service mission is the conservation of the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and wildlife in the parks in order to leave them
unimpaired for future generations; Interior's National Wildlife Refuge
System mission is to administer lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and their habitat; and
the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service manages about 192
million acres of national forest and grasslands for a variety of
resources and uses including timber, forage, recreation, and fish and
wildlife habitat.
The Endangered Species Act:
In 1973, Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to protect plant
and animal species whose survival is in jeopardy. The act requires that
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce publish
lists of all species determined to be endangered or
threatened.[Footnote 9] A species is defined as endangered when it is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its
range and as threatened when it is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable
future.
Concurrent with listing a species, the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Commerce must, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, designate "critical habitat" for the species.[Footnote
10] Critical habitat is defined as the specific areas that are
essential for the conservation of the species and, for areas occupied
by the species, may require special management considerations or
protection. Species that are federally listed are entitled to certain
protections under the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, the
taking[Footnote 11] of a listed animal species without a permit from
the Secretary is prohibited. Further, under the act, each federal
agency, in consultation with the Secretary, is required to ensure that
its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
protected species or adversely modify habitat critical to their
survival.
Defense and Interior officials have stated that in managing endangered
species affecting training ranges, DOD's past successful efforts have
resulted in the ranges becoming havens for at-risk species after rapid
urban growth destroyed habitat, leaving military lands as the last
refuge for many species. DOD officials believe that balancing
endangered species management with mission needs can sometimes be
problematic.[Footnote 12] For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater
Training Range, Air Force officials report that in 2001, 32 percent of
their live-fire missions were either cancelled or moved due to the
presence of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn. Also, a recent Marine
Corps report stated that at Camp Pendleton, California, compliance with
the Endangered Species Act is the leading encroachment factor impacting
military training and operations.[Footnote 13] The report noted that
the Marine Corps is only able to complete up to 68 percent of the
service's readiness standard for an advanced tactical training scenario
and its participation in realistic training has been significantly
degraded due to endangered species and other forms of
encroachment.[Footnote 14]
The Sikes Act:
Since 1960, the Sikes Act has required military installations to
provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on
their lands. In 1997, the Sikes Act was amended to require that the
military services prepare integrated natural resources management plans
in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
appropriate state agencies and established a timeframe for the
completion of all plans. The plans are expected to balance the
management of natural resources with mission requirements and other
land-use activities affecting those resources and should reflect the
mutual agreement of the parties concerning management of fish and
wildlife resources.
DOD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials believe that DOD's
integrated natural resources management plans provide a holistic
approach for natural resources management and for installations where
an approved natural resources management plan is in place, the plan
should be used as a substitute for critical habitat designations. For
several years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been using these
management plans in lieu of designating critical habitat on military
lands. In testimonies in March and April 2003, Interior Department
officials said that a recent lawsuit that successfully challenged U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's failure to designate critical habitat casts
doubt on the service's ability to substitute critical habitat
designations on military lands with approved natural resources
management plans. In that lawsuit, which involved a Forest Service
plan, the court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was
incorrect in its interpretation that land may be excluded from critical
habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act when management or
protection of the area is already in place.[Footnote 15] In DOD's
recent legislative proposal--Readiness and Range Preservation
Initiative for Fiscal Year 2004--it is requesting that Congress confirm
an existing practice that, according to DOD, may make the designation
of critical habitat on military lands unnecessary when an approved
integrated natural resources management plan is in place.[Footnote 16]
DOD and other federal and state agencies as well as some
nongovernmental organizations view this initiative as providing a
crucial balance between the stewardship of its lands and the ability
for the military to train for combat missions. Some public interest
groups, however, are concerned that needed species' protections would
be compromised by such an approach.
Prior GAO Reports:
In 2002, we issued two reports on the effects of encroachment on
military training and readiness. The findings of the two reviews have
some similarities. In April 2002, we reported that troops stationed
outside of the continental United States face a variety of training
constraints that have increased over the last decade and are likely to
increase further.[Footnote 17] While these constraints can have a
variety of adverse impacts, including adjustment or cancellation of
training events, we found that these impacts largely have not been
captured in DOD's readiness reporting.[Footnote 18] In June 2002, we
reported on the impact of encroachment on military training ranges
inside the United States.[Footnote 19] We found that, over time, the
military services have increasingly lost training range capability
owing to encroachment, such as urban growth and competition for
airspace, and that encroachment issues limit a unit's ability to train
as it would be expected to fight or would require adjustments to
training events. We again found that readiness reports did not indicate
the extent to which encroachment has significantly affected reported
training readiness. We also testified twice on these issues--in May
2002 and April 2003--noting that, while DOD had made some progress in
addressing individual encroachment issues, efforts were still evolving
and more would be required to put in place a comprehensive plan to
address the department's encroachment issues.[Footnote 20]
Despite Some Positive Examples, Cooperative Management for Endangered
Species Affecting Military Training Ranges Is Limited:
Notwithstanding some positive efforts to implement regional interagency
cooperative efforts, the extent to which DOD and other federal land
managers are managing cooperatively for endangered species affecting
military training ranges is limited. Recognizing the benefits of
cooperatively managing natural resources, the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture have issued policies, and DOD has issued
directives, instructions, and an action plan to promote such efforts.
In addition, these departments have entered into memorandums of
understanding that contain specific actions to be taken to implement
cooperative management--such as forming interagency working groups,
identifying geographic regions for species management, and identifying
reporting requirements--but many of these actions were never fully
implemented. In cases where cooperative management efforts were
undertaken, they were generally undertaken in response to a crisis.
(See app. II for more details on DOD's and other federal agencies'
policies and initiatives that promote cooperative management.):
Some Positive Examples Show Cooperative Management Has Benefits for DOD
and Other Federal Land Managers:
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture and other
federal land managers recognize that cooperative management of
endangered species is beneficial to both the agencies and the species.
The Interagency Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or
Permitted Federal Lands Used by the Military stated that cooperative
relations among the military services and other land management
agencies can provide benefits beyond what could be achieved if each
agency approached the issue separately.[Footnote 21] In addition, a
1996 Keystone Center[Footnote 22] report stated that a regional
approach increases opportunities for military commanders to achieve
compliance with the Endangered Species Act and to share the burden for
natural resource conservation with other landowners, thereby
potentially reducing the impact on military land.[Footnote 23]
DOD and other federal land managers generally agree that interagency
cooperative management of endangered species has benefits, such as
sharing the costs of recovery efforts, the burden of land-use
restrictions, and expertise and resources, as shown in the following
examples:
* At the Barry M. Goldwater Range, land managers are sharing the cost
of some recovery efforts to increase the endangered Sonoran pronghorn's
population, which the managers might not have been able to fund or
undertake, if not done cooperatively. For example, the Marine Corps,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and
the Arizona Game and Fish Department each contributed one-fourth of the
funding for a genetic study of the pronghorn, the results of which are
important for determining the types of recovery actions the land
managers can use to protect the species.
* Another effort at the Barry M. Goldwater Range benefits both the
species and the Air Force. According to range operating instructions,
if pronghorn are spotted on the range within a prescribed distance from
the target, training must be cancelled or moved. DOD and nearby federal
land managers in the region agreed to create forage enhancement plots
on an adjacent national wildlife refuge that entices the pronghorn to
the plots and away from the targets.[Footnote 24]
* Federal agencies can also benefit by sharing expertise and resources
through cooperative management efforts. For example, the Midwest
Natural Resources Group meets three times a year to discuss various
land management issues, crises that are affecting them, and ways they
can help each other.[Footnote 25] At one of these meetings, according
to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official, the Forest Service asked
for help to develop a land management plan for endangered species. As a
result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service colocated one of its
employees at a Forest Service office to, among other things, assist
with the plan. Another example of sharing expertise and resources
through cooperative management efforts is the Southwest Strategy
group,[Footnote 26] which was created by the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environmental Security in 1997 to develop and implement a strategy to
more effectively coordinate, among other things, natural resource
issues in Arizona and New Mexico. The group has also eliminated
duplicative data collection and analysis efforts.
* In its response to a draft of this report, the Department of the
Interior provided a few other examples of cooperative management. One
was between the Air Force's Dare County Bomb Range, North Carolina, and
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge where they are managing
cooperatively for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and the
endangered red wolf. It also cited two examples of cooperation between
DOD and the Forest Service. Specifically, the Army at Fort Polk,
Louisiana, is managing cooperatively with the Kisatchie National Forest
to limit land-use restrictions on the range and recover the endangered
red-cockaded woodpecker. At Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, the Air
Force is working with the Conecuh National Forest to cooperatively
manage for the red-cockaded woodpecker. According to agency officials,
these efforts have limited land-use restrictions on the training range
and helped recover the species.
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture Policies and DOD
Directives, Instructions, and an Action Plan Advocate Broad Cooperative
Management Approaches:
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have issued policies
and DOD has issued directives, instructions, and an action plan that
call for broad cooperative management of natural resources.
The Department of the Interior's policy for effective program
management is defined as "conservation through cooperation,
consultation and communication," which includes cooperation and
collaboration on endangered species management. In addition, Interior's
Draft Revised Strategic Plan for 2003-2008 states that it will strive
to protect habitat that supports endangered and other native species
through an increasing number of partnership efforts.[Footnote 27]
Several land management agencies within Interior--the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wildlife Refuge System--have policies with similar
commitments to manage cooperatively for endangered species.
The Department of Agriculture's Strategic Plan for FY2002-2007
identifies five major programmatic policies, including protecting and
enhancing the nation's natural resource base and environment.[Footnote
28] As part of these policies, the department states that it will
strive to manage and protect America's public and private lands by
working cooperatively with other federal agencies. In addition, the
Forest Service Manual promotes an interagency cooperative approach to
endangered species management.
DOD has issued directives, instructions, and an action plan that
promote an interagency cooperative approach to natural resource
management, which includes endangered species management, as in
the following examples:
* DOD's natural resources management program directive states that DOD
should coordinate its natural resources program with other federal
agencies.[Footnote 29]
* DOD's environmental security directive[Footnote 30] and regional
environmental coordination instruction[Footnote 31] establishes a
system of regional environmental coordinators, which could facilitate
DOD's efforts to manage for endangered species on its training ranges
and identify opportunities to work with other federal land managers on
natural resource issues.
* DOD's environmental conservation program instruction[Footnote 32]
establishes that integrated natural resources management plans shall
incorporate the principles of ecosystem management[Footnote 33] that
supports present and future mission requirements and is realized
through effective partnerships among federal interests.
* DOD's sustainment of ranges and operating areas directive[Footnote
34] establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for the sustainment
of test and training ranges, and states that DOD should enter into
cooperative agreements and partnerships with other federal agencies to
sustain training ranges by, among other things, managing for endangered
species.
In 2001, DOD drafted an action plan for each of the eight encroachment
issues identified as having significant negative impact to its training
and readiness. Specifically, the draft Endangered Species Act
Sustainable Range Action Plan contains a combination of administrative
and legislative initiatives to balance endangered species management
with mission requirements. The plan addresses, among other things, the
need for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military
services to build new and expand upon existing partnerships--such as
the Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council[Footnote 35]--and to
work in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
federal land management agencies as a way to accommodate military
training while meeting legal requirements for endangered species
protection and conservation. However, DOD officials told us that the
department could do more to implement the action plan.
Interagency Agreements for Cooperative Management Have Been Adopted,
but Not Fully Implemented:
In addition to agency policies, directives, instructions, and an action
plan, DOD and other federal agencies have entered into several
agreements for the purpose of implementing a cooperative approach to
endangered species management. However, many of the specific actions in
these agreements were never fully implemented and most agreements
have expired.
Fourteen federal agencies--including the Departments of Defense,
the Interior, and Agriculture--entered into the 1994 Memorandum of
Understanding on Implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
According to a DOD official, this was in response to two legislative
proposals that could have reduced the scope and authority of the act.
The memorandum stipulated that the participants establish a general
framework for cooperation and establish a national interagency working
group that would coordinate the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act by, among other things, identifying geographic regions for
species management and reporting its accomplishments annually to the
public. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture stated that some efforts were undertaken as a
result of this memorandum, and they believe interagency cooperation had
increased. However, we found that some officials at the land management
agencies we visited were unaware of this memorandum. According to two
officials who helped develop the agreement, the legislative proposals
failed, and management support for cooperative management for
endangered species was subsequently reduced. As a result, the national
interagency working group was never formed, and the annual reporting
requirements were never met. The memorandum expired in 1999.
In addition, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
and other federal agencies signed the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding
to Foster the Ecosystem Approach to implement the recommendations of
the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force.[Footnote 36] The task
force recommended that agencies should engage in coordinated,
integrated actions and adopt principles to provide guidance for
participating in ecosystem efforts. The federal agencies agreed to
participate in interagency efforts and look for new opportunities for
cooperative efforts. The agencies also designated oversight
responsibility and agreed to report on their accomplishments to the
task force. According to a knowledgeable DOD official, the task force
dissolved when changes were made to the task force's leadership and
personnel, and neither DOD nor other federal agencies initiated any
coordinated approaches as a result of this memorandum; it expired in
1999.
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, and another
federal agency, as part of their efforts on the Interagency Military
Land Use Coordination Committee,[Footnote 37] drafted a memorandum in
2002 promoting the coordination of land use activities. The memorandum
encourages federal land managers to work together and regularly discuss
military and other land-use issues with nearby land managers and to
consider the effects of their actions on lands managed by other federal
agencies. In addition, the memorandum stipulates that the committee
develop overarching policies and procedures to ensure that federal land
managers implement this approach. Also, it is expected that federal
land managers would develop agency-specific policies and procedures for
engaging other federal land managers on a routine basis and report to
the committee annually on their progress. To date, the committee has
not acted on this memorandum. According to a cognizant DOD official,
once the memorandum is signed, it is still unclear how the actions
outlined in the memorandum would be implemented or affect agency
participation in cooperative management efforts.
Cooperative Management Efforts Undertaken Generally in Response to
a Crisis:
While there are some examples of cooperative management efforts between
DOD and other federal land managers, most of these efforts have been
undertaken in response to a crisis. Such crises can include a marked
decline of a species' population or land-use restrictions that may
impact the federal land managers' ability to carry out their missions.
Experience has shown that when there is not a crisis, there is little
incentive to cooperate.
Because of a marked decline in the number of Sonoran pronghorn at the
Barry M. Goldwater Range, federal and other land managers were being
pressured by the public to manage cooperatively in support of the
species. As a result, regional land managers formed the Barry M.
Goldwater Range Executive Council in 1997 to discuss issues of concern,
ensure consistent land management in the region, and identify and
coordinate species recovery efforts. The council identifies and
prioritizes pronghorn recovery efforts and has agreed to a number of
initiatives to help preserve the species, such as establishing forage
enhancement plots. As a result, restrictions on the training range have
been minimized through DOD and other federal land managers' efforts to
cooperate on protective measures on nonmilitary lands.
Recently, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
reacted to the potential listing of the black-tailed prairie dog. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to list the black-
tailed prairie dog and according to the Department of the Interior, it
is working with 11 states, DOD, the Department of Agriculture, and
other stakeholders to coordinate their conservation and management
efforts for the species and its habitat. A memorandum of understanding
among these agencies to enhance cooperation for the conservation and
management of the black-tailed prairie dog is currently being staffed
for signature. According to a knowledgeable Army official, the federal
land managers agreed to work together because of the potential loss of
land management flexibility should the species be listed. For example,
the Army is concerned about land-use restrictions and impacts to
training at Fort Carson, Colorado, and other installations should the
black-tailed prairie dog be listed. By working together, federal land
managers believe that they have better managed for the species and
helped avoid the need to list the species, which could result in land-
use restrictions.
Factors Limiting Cooperative Management for Endangered Species:
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture have
identified a number of factors that can limit interagency cooperative
management for endangered species affecting military training ranges.
These factors include a lack of a shared crisis among federal land
managers, limited agency interaction, resource constraints, lack of
land manager training and experience, and the lack of centralized or
otherwise easily accessible source of information. However, these
departments have not developed a comprehensive strategy to address
these factors.
Lack of a Shared Crisis among Federal Land Managers Hinders Cooperative
Management:
When there is not a shared crisis among federal land managers, such as
when a species does not exist on each other's land or is not federally
listed, federal land managers do not always consider management of the
species a high priority. This in turn, can limit their participation in
cooperative management for the species, as in the following examples:
* At the Yakima Training Center, the potential loss of key areas of its
tank maneuver range prompted the Army to initiate the Washington
(formerly Western) Sage Grouse Working Group in 1996 in an effort to
engage nearby land managers in western sage grouse management
efforts.[Footnote 38] The training center manages the sage grouse, a
candidate species,[Footnote 39] to prevent restrictions on the training
range that may occur should the species be federally listed. One of the
Army's goals for the working group was to create a regional
conservation plan for the sage grouse that would include individual
conservation management plans from each of the nearby land managers.
Although other land managers attend working group meetings, they have
not completed their plans because they do not place the same priority
on recovering the western sage grouse as the Army, as the species is
not listed and is not found on their lands. Consequently, the Army will
continue to bear the majority of the responsibility of managing for the
western sage grouse.
* At Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, California, the Navy has held
numerous meetings with other land managers to encourage regional
management of the least tern and the snowy plover, which are federally
listed species. However, Navy officials told us that, to date, they
have not received commitment from local land managers to share the
burden of species management. The presence of these birds has resulted
in the lost use of the majority of the base's training beaches. For
example, while there are 14 beach lanes[Footnote 40] at Naval
Amphibious Base Coronado, 4 lanes have been completely closed because
the birds occupy the lanes, and training on 5 additional lanes is
restricted when the birds are present. Consequently, Navy officials
said they have to substantially alter training activities or conduct
them elsewhere, which disrupts training cycles, increases costs, and
adds to the time sailors spend away from their families. To reduce the
burden of training range restrictions caused by the presence of the
birds, the Navy has identified the opportunity to move some birds to a
nearby national wildlife refuge where there is an established bird
population. Navy officials added that the wildlife refuge has not
cooperated as much as the Navy would like. However, according to a
refuge official, the Navy has never officially requested that the
refuge accept additional birds and currently the refuge is doing all it
can do to share the burden of species management in the region.
Limited Agency Interaction Affects Cooperative Management:
Another factor that impacts cooperative management for endangered
species affecting training ranges is limited agency interaction.
Various agency officials stated that the lack of regular exchanges of
information has led to a lack of trust, a lack of a single vision,
inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and misunderstanding of other
agencies' missions. For example, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
officials have suggested that the Army at the Yakima Training Center
should relocate its training to other nearby locations to preserve the
western sage grouse habitat. According to Army officials, this
suggestion demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Army's training
mission at the Yakima Training Center because these nearby locations
are neither large enough to allow live fire or tank formations nor
topographically suited to tank maneuver training.
DOD and other agency officials have stated that regular coordination
and communication should be addressed at national, regional, and local
levels by establishing interagency working groups and exchanging or
colocating staff among agencies at each of these levels. There is some
coordination at the headquarters level through liaison positions and
the Endangered Species Roundtable, an informal group comprised of
members from the Department of Defense, military services, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, which have enhanced coordination and
communications since 1999. This also occurs on a limited basis at the
local level, such as the Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council.
However, it does not occur regularly at all three levels. For example,
DOD created regional environmental coordinator positions at each of the
10 Environmental Protection Agency regional offices to address
environmentally related issues in the regions. According to a former
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, even though these regional
coordinators' current focus is on compliance issues, that should not
preclude them from interacting with other federal land managers in a
broader capacity such as for endangered species management. DOD and
other federal agencies have proposed that these regional coordinators
bring together regional, state, and local officials to address
sustainable range issues including endangered species.
Resource Constraints Limit Cooperative Management:
Defense, Interior, and Agriculture officials said that resource
constraints, such as funding, staff, and a lack of incentives, limit
efforts to manage cooperatively for endangered species affecting
military training ranges.
A former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense said that installation
commanders face chronic underfunding issues and mission-related
projects take priority over other projects, such as cooperative
management activities. At Fort Lewis, Army officials stated that based
on discussions with other federal officials, these agencies lack the
resources to participate in endangered species-related projects, such
as species inventories. In addition, knowledgeable U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service officials told us that the service is underfunded and
understaffed and spends most of its time on lawsuits and other
priorities. Department of the Interior headquarters officials also said
that limited funding and staff is a significant barrier to better
cooperation. They explained that much of what the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service does is driven by lawsuits and that there are not
enough funds to cover all endangered species needs. They also suggested
that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strategic planner could
facilitate cooperation and coordination with DOD. Subsequently, DOD and
the military services are now funding a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
liaison position. Similarly, a Forest Service headquarters official
said that limited funding and staffing are barriers to cooperative
management efforts.
A 2002 Army Environmental Policy Institute study concluded that
understaffing is a common problem for both installation environmental
and natural resources programs.[Footnote 41] At several installations
included in the study, a lack of staff was viewed as a critical issue
and, in some cases, cooperative management implementation was limited
due to understaffing. For example, at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the Army
reported there is a lack of staff to implement cooperative management
efforts and insufficient funding to support cooperative management
projects. Understaffed natural resources offices find they can respond
to short-term initiatives and immediate demands, but longer-term
cooperative management initiatives are conducted piecemeal and only as
time permits. In addition, the study states that partnerships to create
a regional vision require commitment, which in turn requires funding
and staff. However, developing this vision is often not a high priority
for an installation, and therefore there is usually little funding
available to implement projects that support cooperative management
efforts. Without enough qualified environmental professionals on staff,
successful cooperative management is greatly inhibited.
Officials from the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture,
and other federal agencies stated that they lack incentives to manage
cooperatively. For example, Department of the Interior officials stated
that interagency cooperative management is not part of their
performance expectations and they are not rated on their ability to
manage cooperatively for endangered species with DOD and other federal
land managers.[Footnote 42] At Fort Knox, issues and activities facing
command and staff tend to be relatively near term and personnel are
rewarded for their abilities to address these issues quickly.
Cooperative management, on the other hand, is a fundamentally long-term
endeavor. The divergence of these time frames makes cooperative
management efforts difficult.
Lack of Training and Expertise Limits Cooperative Management:
DOD officials and other federal land managers said that a lack of
training and expertise has limited federal land managers' ability to
identify opportunities for cooperative management efforts as well as
the neighboring land managers needed to implement them. The Department
of the Interior, in commenting on a draft of this report, stated that
many courses are available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Conservation and Training Center that could facilitate federal
land managers' ability to identify opportunities for cooperative
management. However, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials stated
that additional training is needed to train land managers to identify
opportunities for interagency cooperation and to implement cooperative
efforts. The Army Environmental Policy Institute study concluded that
there is a large turnover in natural resources staff at military
installations due to low pay and limited advancement opportunities, and
the newly hired staff requires considerable training in natural
resources issues.[Footnote 43] For example, according to the study,
field biologists at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California,
are critical to managing the ecosystem. However, field biologists'
salaries are very low and they lack job security, so turnover is high.
As a result, the natural resources manager needs to frequently rehire
and train biologists.
DOD officials noted that staff reductions and the reliance on
contractors to perform some functions have resulted in the loss of
institutional memory and expertise that has adversely affected long-
term initiatives, such as cooperative management for endangered
species. This lack of expertise in natural resources programs limits
the abilities of managers to implement cooperative management efforts.
For example, at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, installation
environmental staff suggested that cooperative management requires
existing staff to have a broader and more diverse skill set than ever
before, and more specialized training is needed toward that end. In
addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials said that high staff
turnover at some national wildlife refuges leads to a loss of
expertise, which makes it difficult to establish and maintain good
working relationships with other agencies.
Lack of Centralized or Otherwise Easily Accessible Source of
Information Limits Cooperative Management:
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture and other
federal agencies lack a centralized or otherwise easily accessible
source of information, which could facilitate the exchange of reliable,
current, and consistent information among and between federal land
managers.
Officials with The Nature Conservancy, a nongovernmental organization
that works cooperatively with DOD and other federal land managers,
noted that the federal agencies lack a simple, comprehensive, and
reliable way to learn from each other's successes and failures in
conservation planning and action, and of ongoing conservation plans and
actions being conducted within the region. The officials added that
information related to cooperative management efforts is often
incomplete, outdated, difficult to access, and not widely available.
For example, while DOD's Defense Environmental Network and Information
Exchange is centralized and fairly good, the network is not widely
available, does not contain comprehensive data on lessons learned or
best practices of interagency cooperative management, and contains
mostly information related to policies or regulations. In addition,
according to DOD officials, federal agencies have no established method
to share and integrate endangered species research, development,
monitoring actions, priorities, and results. They identified this as
being a serious impediment to developing the science needed for
interagency cooperative management of endangered species.
DOD and other federal land managers suggest that information such as
agency points of contact, land management and conservation plans,
description of agency missions, training opportunities, and interagency
meetings and conferences is needed to encourage more cooperative
management efforts. Such information, which could be provided through
agency Web sites, should be readily accessible to all land managers and
could facilitate cooperative efforts.
Federal Land Managers Lack a Comprehensive Implementation Strategy to
Overcome Limiting Factors:
While the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture and
other federal land managers have identified several factors discussed
above as limiting their ability to manage cooperatively, they have not
developed a comprehensive strategy to address them. The Army
Environmental Policy Institute study concluded that using the current
project-by-project approach to cooperative management would guarantee
its ultimate failure as an overall implementation strategy.[Footnote
44] According to DOD officials, there needs to be a more comprehensive
strategic approach to cooperative management for natural resources
management. They added that initiatives such as those at the Barry M.
Goldwater Range for the Sonoran pronghorn should not come about as a
result of a crisis, but rather from a systematic approach to identify
cooperative management opportunities. In addition, a former Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense stated there needs to be a systematic and
structured process for natural resources management. DOD and other
agency and nongovernmental officials added that the current
administration supports cooperative management efforts and that federal
land managers need to reach agreement on how best to approach
cooperative management. Also, in commenting on a draft of this report,
the Department of the Interior stated that its mission is integrally
tied to cooperative natural resources conservation and management,
while U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials we interviewed during
this review suggested there needs to be a strategy to institutionalize
cooperative management efforts. Such a strategy could include a
systematic methodology to identify opportunities to participate in
cooperative management efforts, funding sources, science and technology
sources, and goals and criteria to measure success.
Moreover, federal land management agencies are not subject to any
reporting requirements to Congress on regional interagency cooperative
management efforts for endangered species affecting military training
ranges. Congress typically uses agency or program annual reports to
monitor and hold accountable the federal agencies that oversee or
implement programs. However, Congress currently has no such mechanism
available to monitor interagency efforts to cooperatively manage
endangered species on a regional basis.
Conclusions:
DOD and other federal land managers' efforts to cooperatively manage
endangered species affecting military training ranges are limited, and
there are numerous factors that hinder these efforts. Without an
interagency strategy that addresses these factors, DOD and other
federal land managers are likely to continue undertaking cooperative
management efforts in response to crises. A strategy that includes a
systematic methodology to identify opportunities for cooperative
management efforts, funding sources, science and technology sources,
and goals and criteria to measure success would facilitate federal land
managers sharing the burden of land-use restrictions and limited
resources, and potentially help avoid exacerbating constraints on
training at affected military installations. Similarly, without
training programs to train land managers to identify opportunities for
interagency cooperation as well as to train neighboring land managers
to implement cooperative efforts, DOD and other federal land managers
may miss opportunities to manage endangered species more effectively
while carrying out their land management responsibilities. In addition,
without a centralized or otherwise easily accessible source of
information that includes elements such as lessons learned, best
practices, and agency contacts, DOD and other federal land managers
cannot easily share information or learn about cooperative management
efforts within and across agencies. Given that federal agencies have
made little progress in implementing the various agreements for
cooperative management, an interagency reporting requirement to
Congress would provide the basis to hold the agencies accountable for
making progress on sharing the management for endangered species
affecting military training ranges.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To encourage cooperative management for endangered species affecting
military training ranges, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense,
the Interior, and Agriculture jointly (1) develop and implement an
interagency strategy that includes a systematic methodology to identify
opportunities for cooperative management efforts, funding sources,
science and technology sources, and goals and criteria to measure
success; (2) develop a comprehensive training program for federal land
managers, to include senior executives, regional, and on-site staff to
identify and implement opportunities for interagency cooperation; and
(3) create a centralized or easily accessible source of information on
cooperative management efforts that includes elements such as lessons
learned, best practices, and agency contacts for federal land managers.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To hold DOD and other federal land managers accountable for
implementing regional interagency cooperative efforts for managing
endangered species affecting military training ranges, Congress may
wish to consider requiring the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior,
and Agriculture to jointly report each year on their efforts to manage
cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training ranges
and share the burden of land use restrictions.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the
Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture. They agreed on
the need to improve interagency cooperation in managing for endangered
species.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Acting Assistant Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Environment agreed with our
recommendations with some additional observations. Concerning our
recommendation to develop and implement an interagency strategy for
cooperative management efforts, DOD stated that the Interagency
Military Land Use Coordination Committee structure and process could be
used to develop a strategy. While we agree that the committee could be
used to develop the interagency strategy and methodology, the committee
has periods of inactivity and the memorandum of understanding that
formed this group is set to expire in October 2004. Therefore, we
believe that a more formalized effort needs to be undertaken with
support from the Secretary of each department. In commenting on our
recommendation that the departments with land management
responsibilities jointly develop an education program, DOD agreed but
suggested a focus on training rather than education might be more
appropriate. We agreed and have modified the recommendation
accordingly. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix III.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the
Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget
generally agreed with our findings, noting that its agencies are
continually working to improve and expand interagency coordination and
cooperation and stating that our recommendations could help
link conservation efforts among the departments and produce better
information for land managers to address endangered species issues.
The department also stated that it was concerned the recommendations
would likely create increased demands on already strained resources.
However, we believe that if cooperative management were incorporated
into the department's daily management practices as stated in the
department's policy of "conserving through cooperation" and not viewed
as a separate effort, the impact on resource requirements could be
limited. At the same time, based on the department's concerns about
resource requirements and recognizing the prevalence of Web-based
information systems, we modified our second recommendation to suggest
that a centralized or otherwise easily accessible source of information
be developed. In addition, the department also expressed the view that
the level of coordination and cooperation between the department and
DOD is more extensive than the report's findings indicated. The
department suggested that the report should include a more
comprehensive view of current interagency cooperation for management of
endangered species. While the department suggested a number of
additional instances of interagency cooperation, we found that many of
them were more related to regulatory consultations[Footnote 45] than
efforts to achieve increased cooperative management between federal
land managers on a regional basis. Nevertheless, we did include a few
additional examples as appropriate. The Department of the Interior's
comments are reprinted in appendix IV.
In commenting on the draft of this report, the Department of
Agriculture did not respond directly to our recommendations for
executive action, but indicated that it strongly supports interagency
cooperative management for endangered species. The Department of
Agriculture's comments are reprinted in appendix V.
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture also provided
various technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
As requested by your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30
days from the date of this report. We will then send copies of this
report to the appropriate congressional committees, as well as the
Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov/.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in
this report, please contact Barry Holman at (202) 512-8412, or Barry
Hill at (202) 512-9775. Patricia Nichol, Tommy Baril, Michelle K.
Treistman, Byron Galloway, Patricia McClure, Mark Little, and R.K. Wild
were major contributors to this report.
Barry W. Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and Management:
Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Barry W. Holman and Barry T. Hill:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify the extent to which DOD and nearby federal land managers
are managing cooperatively for endangered species affecting military
training ranges on a regional basis, we met with officials of the
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment; Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Readiness; the Environmental Programs Division, Office of the Civil
Engineer, Headquarters, Air Force; Director of Ranges and Airspace, Air
and Space Operations, Headquarters, Air Force; the Office of the
Director for Environmental Programs, Army Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management; the Land Use and Military Construction Branch,
Installations and Logistics Department, Headquarters, Marine Corps;
Environmental Readiness Division, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, Department of the Navy; the Army Forces Command; the Air
Force Air Education and Training Command; Luke Air Force Base, Arizona;
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona; and Fort Lewis, Washington. We
also met with headquarters and field officials of the Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture, including the Bureau of Land Management,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its National Wildlife Refuge
System, the National Park Service, and headquarters officials at the
Forest Service. In addition, we interviewed a former Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense and officials with nongovernmental organizations
including the Endangered Species Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, and
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We also
visited three training ranges--Yakima Training Center, Washington; Fort
Lewis, Washington; and the Barry M. Goldwater Training Range, Arizona-
-in order to identify the extent to which the training ranges and the
nearby federal land managers are managing cooperatively for endangered
species. Specifically, we visited the Yakima Training Center based on
discussions with Army officials about their unsuccessful attempts to
work with other federal land managers in the region. We also visited
with officials at Fort Lewis, as they previously managed the Yakima
Training Center. We visited the Barry M. Goldwater Training Range based
on discussions with various DOD and other federal agency officials
concerning the successful cooperative management efforts that have been
undertaken in the region. We also obtained and analyzed information
from nearby land managers, state wildlife agency officials, Native
American Tribal representatives, and nongovernmental organizations in
Washington and Arizona on their views of cooperative management and the
extent to which they are cooperating with the training range in the
management of endangered species. To identify the policies of the major
land management departments--Departments of Defense, the Interior, and
Agriculture--that promote a cooperative approach to natural resources
and endangered species management, we reviewed DOD directives,
instructions, and an action plan that promote cooperative approaches to
further sustainment objectives to include training ranges. We also
reviewed a DOD-sponsored tri-service partnering guide for environmental
missions of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The guide was created for
the purpose of encouraging greater use of partnering at the policy,
installation, and project levels of several DOD programs, including
conservation. In addition, we reviewed the military services
implementing instructions for the management of natural resources. We
also reviewed policies, instructions, land-use planning documents, and
manuals for the implementation of the Endangered Species Act from
selected agencies of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture
and reviewed a number of their memorandum of understanding to cooperate
in the execution of the Endangered Species Act.
To determine the factors that limit cooperative management of
endangered species affecting military training ranges, we met with
officials of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment; Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Readiness; the Environmental Programs Division, Office of
the Civil Engineer, Headquarters, Air Force; Director of Ranges and
Airspace, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters, Air Force; the Office
of the Director for Environmental Programs, Army Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management; the Land Use and Military
Construction Branch, Installations and Logistics Department,
Headquarters, Marine Corps; Environmental Readiness Division, Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy; the Army Forces Command; and the
Air Force Education and Training Command. In addition, we met with a
former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. We also met with officials of
the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, including the Bureau
of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its National
Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park Service, and the Forest
Service. We also analyzed and compared the views of officials at the
Yakima Training Center and Barry M. Goldwater Training Range to the
responses obtained from neighboring land managers, DOD, and other
agency officials cited above, and relevant program officials. We also
reviewed reports that document issues that were identified as obstacles
to achieving cooperative management, including the August 2002 Army
Environmental Policy Institute's Department of Defense Ecosystem
Management Policy Evaluation[Footnote 46] and the draft September 2002
Interagency Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or
Permitted Federal Lands Used by the Military[Footnote 47] and our 1994
report entitled Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to
Adequately Test a Promising Approach.[Footnote 48] In all, we sought to
identify common reasons cited by program officials and land managers
for their inability to pursue cooperative regional management of
endangered species.
We conducted our work from September 2002 through September 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD's and Other Federal Agencies' Policies and
Initiatives That Promote Cooperative Management:
1989:
Jan. 24:
DOD Directive 4700.4, Natural Resources Management Program, that, among
other things, requires DOD to coordinate its natural resources program
with other federal agencies and develop criteria and procedures for
cooperative planning and integrated natural resources management
planning process; and establish a DOD Natural Resources Council.
1994:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, An Ecosystem Approach to Fish and
Wildlife Conservation, guides the agency's implementation of
ecosystem management.
Jan. 25:
Interagency memorandum of understanding--Candidate, Proposed, and
Sensitive Species--signed by five federal agencies, encourages federal
agencies to address the threats to these species, thereby reducing or
possibly eliminating the need for them to be federally listed--
especially those species that require regional/ecosystem conservation
actions. The memorandum expired in September 1999.
March 24:
Congressional Research Service, at the request of six congressional
committees, hosted a two-day ecosystem management symposium for federal
agencies to identify opportunities for interagency cooperative
management.
April 26:
Department of the Army, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Biological Service hosted a 2-day interagency endangered
species symposium for the purpose of formulating a better understanding
of agencies' missions to foster interagency cooperative management for
endangered species.
July 1:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Interagency Cooperative Policy for the Ecosystem Approach to
the Endangered Species Act, incorporated ecosystem considerations in
Endangered Species Act actions. In part, the agencies are to use the
authorities of the act to develop clear, consistent policies that
integrate the mandates of federal, state, tribal, and local governments
to prevent species endangerment by protecting, conserving, restoring,
or rehabilitating ecosystems that are important for conservation of
biodiversity.
Aug. 8:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) policy
statement, Implementation of Ecosystem Management in the DOD, states
that ecosystem management will become the basis for future management
of DOD lands and waters. The policy statement identifies five key
elements for ecosystem management, including developing
coordinated approaches.
Sept. 28:
Interagency memorandum of understanding, Implementation of the
Endangered Species Act, signed by 14 federal agencies to establish a
general framework for cooperation and participation in the exercise of
each agency's responsibility under the act. The memorandum expired in
September 1999.
1995:
June:
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force report, The Ecosystem
Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies Report--Vol. I,
describes the ecosystem approach and identifies key crosscutting issues
relevant to its implementation, including understanding what the
ecosystem approach is. Specifically, the approach emphasizes improving
coordination among federal agencies and forming partnerships between
federal, state, tribal, and local governments; private landowners; and
other stakeholders.
Sept.
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force report, The Ecosystem
Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies Report--Vol. II
Implementation Issues, describes major issue areas that influence the
effectiveness of the ecosystem approach and made recommendations for
improvements.
Dec. 15:
Interagency Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem
Approach, signed by 14 federal agencies, carries out an Interagency
Ecosystem Management Task Force report recommendation that member
agencies enter into an agreement to provide leadership in and
cooperation with activities that foster the ecosystem approach. The
memorandum expired in September 1999.
1996:
DOD and The Nature Conservancy, Conserving Biodiversity on Military
Lands: A Handbook for Natural Resources Managers, promotes ecosystem
and regional management approaches on military installations.
Jan. 23:
Keystone Center, Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on a Department of
Defense Biodiversity Management Strategy, was developed by
representatives from DOD, other government agencies, and
nongovernmental interests to develop policy guidance for enhancing and
protecting DOD lands in a way that is integrated with the military
mission. The report covers three aspects of biodiversity conservation,
including (1) the policy framework for DOD's biodiversity and
suggestions for clarifying and improving current policies and programs,
and for integrating mission planning and biodiversity conservation; (2)
principles and steps of a model process for biodiversity conservation
on DOD installations and describes the regional context in which
biodiversity occurs; and (3) measures of success that can be used to
monitor diversity conservation in the context of military readiness at
the installation level to support decision making at policy levels.
Feb. 24:
DOD Directive 4715.1, Environmental Security, establishes the Defense
Environmental Security Council and requires the designation of a
military department to serve as an executive agent for environmental
coordination in each of the 10 Environmental Protection Agency federal
regions.
May 3:
DOD Instruction 4715.2, Regional Environmental Coordination,
implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures
under DOD Directive 4715.1 by establishing DOD Regional Environmental
Coordinators.
May 3:
DOD Instruction 4715.3, Environmental Conservation Program, implements
policy and prescribes procedures under DOD Directive 4715.1 for, among
other things, the integrated management of natural and cultural
resources on property under DOD control; establishes the DOD
conservation committee; defines ecosystem management as an approach
realized through effective partnerships; states that in ecosystem
management policy all interested parties (federal, state, tribal, and
local governments; nongovernmental organizations; private
organizations; and the public) should collaborate in developing a
shared vision of what constitutes desirable future ecosystem conditions
for the region of concern; and instructs installations to meet
regularly with regional stakeholders.
July:
Air Force, Army, Navy Tri-Service Committee, Partnering Guide for
Environmental Missions of the Air Force, Army, Navy, developed by a
tri-service committee under sponsorship of DOD to describe ways in
which partnering could be used in the environmental programs of the
three services.
1998:
Sept.
Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture memorandum of
understanding, Cooperation and Coordination of the Use and Management
of Lands and Resources, establishes the Interagency Military Land Use
Coordination Committee to improve interagency communication and
coordination on matters of mutual interest. Subsequently, the
Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and General
Services Administration joined the committee.
1999:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Director's
Priorities: Ecosystem Approach, identifies specific actions plans and
dates to implement ecosystem management.
May 17:
DOD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum of understanding,
Ecosystem-based Management of Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Resources on
Military Lands, establishes a policy of cooperation and coordination
between the agencies for the effective and efficient management of
fish, wildlife, and plant resources on military lands.
Aug. 18:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service memo, Guidelines for Ecosystem Teams,
guides service personnel in their implementation of an ecosystem
approach. Defined as a comprehensive approach to conservation and to
embrace partnerships outside the agency.
2001:
Feb. 22:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Environmental Protection Agency memorandum of agreement, Enhanced
Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, to
enhance coordination between the agencies to best carry out their
responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
Aug. 28:
DOD, Endangered Species Action Plan (Draft), provides an overview and
analysis of its endangered species encroachment issue, along with
potential strategies and action concepts for consideration by DOD
decision makers.
2002:
April 2:
National Military Fish and Wildlife Association, Endangered Species
Program Talking Points, states that successful recovery planning and
implementation depends on building support and participation by
federal, state, and local agencies; tribal governments; researchers;
conservation organizations; private landowners; and individuals.
Cooperation and coordination among all parties is essential to
effective recovery programs.
Aug.
Army Environmental Policy Institute, Department of Defense Ecosystem
Management Policy Evaluation, provides insights into the level of
ecosystem management implemented across the military services.
Recommendations include that the military services move closer to the
goal of the DOD Instruction 4715.3, where ecosystem management
principals, such as cooperative management, become not just special
projects, but rather where they form the basis for decision making at
the installation level.
Sept.
Interagency Military Land Use Coordination Committee, draft Interagency
Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or Permitted Federal
Lands Used by the Military states that the common interest in the
stewardship of these lands forms the basis for innovative interagency
efforts to develop coordination mechanisms and procedures for
accomplishing the stewardship of natural and cultural resources.
Sept.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan for FY2002-2007,
identifies five major programmatic policies, including protecting and
enhancing the nation's natural resource base and environment.
Oct. 17:
Navy Instruction 5090.1B, Navy Environmental and Natural Resources
Program Manual, establishes Navy policy to incorporate ecosystems
management as the basis for planning and managing Navy installations.
2003:
Jan. 10:
DOD Directive 3200.15, Sustainment Of Ranges And Operating Areas
(OPREA), establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for the
sustainment of test and training ranges, and states that DOD should
enter into cooperative agreements and partnerships with other federal
agencies to sustain training ranges by, among other things, managing
for endangered species. It also directs that the services promote
inter-and intra-service coordination of sustainment-management issues
and institute multi-tiered (e.g., national, regional, and local)
coordination and outreach programs that promote sustainment of ranges
and operating areas and resolution of encroachment issues. Also, to
improve communications, the services should enter into cooperative
agreements and partnerships with other federal agencies, state, tribal,
and local governments, and with non-governmental organizations with
expertise or interest in DOD ranges, operating areas, and airspace to
further sustainment objectives.
Feb.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Draft Revised Strategic Plan for
FY 2003-2008, defines the Secretary's vision of conservation through
cooperation, consultation, and communication. The department relies on
three key tools, including partnerships, to meet its strategic goals
and accomplish its mission. Through an increasing number of partnership
efforts, the department will continue to reduce the threat from
invasive species and strive to protect habitat that supports
threatened, endangered, and other native species.
April 29:
[End of section]
The U.S. Geological Survey, responding to a request from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Department of Defense Endangered Species
Roundtable, hosted a two-day forum focused on the science of threatened
species, endangered species, and at-risk species. The forum attempted
to develop a more effective approach to identify and share information;
coordinate research and monitoring; and facilitate the development of
more effective strategies and plans to address research and
development.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
ACQUISITION TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000:
SEP 05 2003:
Mr. Barry W. Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management U.S. General Accounting
Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Holman:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-03-976, "MILITARY TRAINING! Implementation Strategy Needed
to Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting
Training Ranges," dated July 29, 2003 (GAO Code 350268).
In general, the DoD concurs with both the general findings and the
specific recommendations in this draft report. We are enclosing our
responses to the three GAO recommendations and the item for
Congressional consideration, as well as several technical comments.
Our primary action officer is Mr. Peter Boice, (703) 604-0524.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Meehan, Jr.
Acting Assistant Deputy Under Secretary (Environment):
Signed by Patrick J. Meehan, Jr.:
Enclosures:
GAO DRAFT REPORT 03-976 DATED JULY 29, 2003 (GAO CODE 350268):
"MILITARY TRAINING: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY NEEDED TO INCREASE
INTERAGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES AFFECTING TRAINING
RANGES":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Defense,
the Interior, and Agriculture jointly develop and implement an
interagency strategy that includes a systematic methodology to identify
opportunities for cooperative management efforts, funding sources, and
goals and criteria to measure success. (Page 27/Draft Report).
DoD RESPONSE: Concur with recommendation 1. Currently, all of the
military departments are members of the Interagency Military Land Use
Coordination Committee (IMLUCC) created in 1996 to improve and maintain
interagency communication and coordination on matters of mutual
interests to the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and
Transportation. The existing IMLUCC coordinating structure and process
could be used to develop the interagency strategy and methodology.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Defense,
the Interior, and Agriculture jointly develop an education program to
train federal land managers to identify opportunities for interagency
cooperation. (Page 27/Draft Report).
DoD RESPONSE Concur with recommendation 2. Suggest rewording the
recommendation to read: "Develop a comprehensive training program for
federal land managers (both senior executives on-the-ground staff, and
regional officers) to identify and implement opportunities for
interagency cooperation;" Rationale - The text of the report uses the
term "training," not "education." Education implies a long-term,
comprehensive series of courses, whereas the draft report implies that
a series of individual training courses (for different types of
employees, with different levels of control) is what is needed to
address the interagency cooperation question. In many cases, this type
of training could become a part of existing courses. The IMLUCC could
develop an interagency education/training strategy and identify the
organization best suited to develop and implement the recommended
program.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Defense,
the Interior, and Agriculture jointly create a centralized information
source on cooperative management efforts that includes elements such as
lessons learned, best practices, and agency contacts for federal land
managers. (Page 27/Draft Report).
DoD RESPONSE: Concur with recommendation 3. The IMLUCC could serve as
the focal point to identify a centralized information management
organization such as the Defense Environmental Network and Information
Exchange (DENIX) that could implement a centralized information
management source. DENIX already performs centralized information
management functions for the Department of Defense.
GAO DRAFT REPORT 03-976 DATED JULY 29, 2003 (GAO CODE 350268):
"MILITARY TRAINING: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY NEEDED TO INCREASE
INTERAGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES AFFECTING TRAINING
RANGES":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS ON THE MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
CONSIDERATION:
SUGGESTION: The GAO suggested that the Congress may wish to consider
requiring the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture to
jointly report each year on their efforts to manage cooperatively for
endangered species affecting military ranges and share the burden of
land use restrictions. (Page 27/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Non-concur with the suggestion. An additional reporting
requirement to summarize cooperative management efforts is not
necessary. However, as noted in response to recommendation 3, the
Interagency Military Land Use Coordination Committee (IMLUCC) could
serve as the focal point to identify a centralized information
management organization such as the Defense Environmental Network and
Information Exchange (DENIX) that could implement a centralized
information management source. DENIX could include information on
cooperative management efforts for endangered species in a format
available to the public. It should be noted that it is essential that
the federal responsibilities for managing endangered species affecting
military ranges be shared cooperatively. The burden of land use
restrictions potentially will increase over time as adjacent lands are
developed, more species become listed, and more lands become subject to
critical habitat designation. The Range Readiness Preservation
Initiative is one step in the direction of reducing the burden that
critical habitat presents by providing that critical habitat not be
designated on military lands that have prepared and implemented an
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20240:
SEP 10 2003:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment U.S. General Accounting
Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting Office
report entitled, "Military Training. Implementation Strategy Needed to
Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting
Training Ranges, " (GAO-03-976), dated July 29, 2003.
Although we generally concur with the findings in the report, the level
of coordination and cooperation between Department of the Interior land
management agencies and the Department of Defense is more extensive
than the findings indicate. Further, our agencies are continually
working to improve and expand interagency coordination and cooperation.
We have concerns with the report's recommendations which include the
implementation of an interagency strategy, educational programs, and a
centralized data source for cooperative management efforts. While these
recommendations could help link conservation efforts among the
Departments and produce better information for land managers to deal
with endangered species issues, they are likely to create increased
demands on already strained resources. GAO's proposal that Congress
consider requiring agencies to report on their efforts to manage
cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training ranges
would impose an additional burden that may not achieve the intended
result, and would divert resources from higher priority conservation
activities.
The Department recommends that the draft GAO report include a more
comprehensive view of the military training facilities' current
interagency cooperation for management of federally-listed species and
their contributions to the recovery of these species, as indicated in
the enclosure. These ongoing cooperative efforts evolved over time as a
result of long standing relationships developed through the interagency
consultation process, and a genuine effort on the part of these
military installations to use their authorities to carry out programs
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. We recommend
that the report acknowledges that interagency cooperative efforts are
considerable, given budget constraints.
The enclosure provides specific comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. We hope that these
comments will assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
14th & Independence SW P.O. Box 96090:
Washington DC 20090-6090:
File Code: 2670/1420 Date: SEP 05 2003:
Mr. Mark Little:
Assistant Director in Defense Capabilities and Management
U.S. Government Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Little:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report
entitled "Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges
(GAO-03-976)." Our comments are included in the enclosure. We trust
these comments will be useful to you during development of a final GAO
report on this topic. We strongly support interagency cooperation in
managing to recover threatened and endangered species populations and
the ecosystems upon which they depend. We will continue to look for and
take advantage of more opportunities to cooperate with the Department
of Defense and other federal agencies in this effort.
Sincerely,
DALE N. BOSWORTH
Chief:
Signed by DALE N. BOSWORTH:
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Endangered Species Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Commerce to publish lists of all species determined
to be threatened or endangered. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c).
[2] The eight encroachment issues are: endangered species habitat on
military installations, unexploded ordnance and munitions
constituents, competition for radio frequency spectrum, protected
marine resources, competition for airspace, air pollution, noise
pollution, and urban growth around military installations.
[3] Department of Defense, Sustainable Range Action Plans (Draft),
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001).
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: Limitations
Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002).
[5] We use the term "training ranges" to collectively refer to air
ranges, live-fire ranges, ground maneuver ranges, and sea ranges.
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a
Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-
614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002).
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Needs a
Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-
727T (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002) and Military Training: DOD
Approach to Managing Encroachment on Training Ranges Still Evolving,
GAO-03-621T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2003).
[8] For the purposes of this report, other federal land managers
include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge
System, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Forest
Service. We selected those for this review because they are the largest
federal land managers in addition to DOD.
[9] The Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, is responsible for implementing the act for most freshwater
and land species. The Secretary of Commerce, through the National
Marine Fisheries Service, is responsible for most saltwater species.
[10] The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he or
she determines that the benefits of excluding an area outweigh the
benefits of specifying the area.
[11] Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect a listed species. See 16 U.S.C. §
1538(a)(1)(B).
[12] The Endangered Species Act provides that an agency may apply to
the Endangered Species Committee for an exemption from the act's
requirements for an agency action. The act provides that the committee
must grant an exemption for an agency action if the Secretary of
Defense finds the exemption is necessary for reasons of national
security. However, according to a Congressional Research Service
report, DOD has never sought an exemption under the Endangered Species
Act.
[13] SRS Technologies, Encroachment Impacts on Training and Readiness
at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, (a special report prepared for
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif.: Mar. 2003).
[14] At the same time, our prior work in this area found that negative
results of training limitations are rarely reflected in official unit
readiness reports.
[15] Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090
(D. Ariz. 2003).
[16] Department of Defense, Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
for Fiscal Year 2004, submitted to Congress in Feb. 2003.
[17] GAO-02-525.
[18] While service readiness data in 2002 did not show the impact of
encroachment on training readiness or costs, DOD's most recent
quarterly report to the Congress on readiness did tie a training issue
directly to encroachment.
[19] GAO-02-614.
[20] GAO-02-727T and GAO-03-621T.
[21] Interagency Military Land Use Coordination Committee, Interagency
Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or Permitted Federal
Lands Used by the Military (Draft), Sept. 2002.
[22] The Keystone Center is a non-profit public policy and educational
organization that assists organizations, primarily government
agencies, in support of their efforts to obtain consensus input for a
wide range of rules, regulations, and pilot projects designed to
implement new or existing laws, regulations, or institutional
approaches. Keystone services in these efforts have included
facilitation, process design, project management, and logistical
support.
[23] Keystone Center, Department of Defense Biodiversity Management
Strategy (Keystone, Colo.: Jan. 23, 1996).
[24] Forage enhancement plots allow land managers to encourage the
growth of food for the Sonoran pronghorn in conditions in which this
might not occur, such as a drought.
[25] Members of the Midwest Natural Resources Group include U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U. S. Geological Survey,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Office of Surface Mining, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Forest Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Energy,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration.
[26] Members of the Southwest Strategy group include DOD, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Rural
Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice,
Offices of the Governors of Arizona and New Mexico, and the Southwest
Fire Management Board.
[27] Department of the Interior, Draft Revised Strategic Plan for 2003-
2008 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2003).
[28] Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002).
[29] DOD Directive, Natural Resources Management Program, 4770.4
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 1989).
[30] DOD Directive, Environmental Security, 4715.1 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 24, 1996).
[31] DOD Instruction, Regional Environmental Coordination, 4715.2
(Washington, D.C.: May 3, 1996).
[32] DOD Instruction, Environmental Conservation Program, 4715.3
(Washington, D.C.: May 3, 1996).
[33] Ecosystem management is a method for sustaining or restoring
natural systems and their functions and values. Ecosystems cross agency
boundaries, making the need for cooperation, coordination, and
partnerships essential to implement ecosystem management.
[34] DOD Directive, Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas
(OPAREAs), 3200.15 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2003).
[35] Members of the Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council include
the Air Force, Marine Corps, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Bureau
of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services,
National Park Service's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
[36] In August 1993, the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force
was established to carry out Vice President Gore's National Performance
Review mandate, which called for the agencies of the federal government
to adopt a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a
sustainable environment through ecosystem management. The task force
was made up of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture,
Army, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the
Interior, Justice, Labor, State, and Transportation; the Environmental
Protection Agency; Office of Science and Technology Policy; Office of
Management and Budget; and Council on Environmental Quality.
[37] In 1999, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
entered into a memorandum of understanding creating the Interagency
Military Land Use Coordination Committee to maintain a continued
dialogue on issues of interest and to foster cooperation and
communication. Subsequently, the Department of Energy, Department
of Transportation, and General Services Administration joined the
committee. The memorandum expires in October 2004.
[38] Members of the Washington Sage Grouse Working Group include the
Yakima Training Center, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Ecological Services, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Yakama Nation, the Department of Energy, and the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Hanford Reach National Monument. Previous members
include the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service
Agency, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, and the Colville Federated Tribes.
[39] Candidate species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on their biological
status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act, but for which development of a listing
regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.
[40] Beach lanes are training corridors that are comprised of 95
percent water and 5 percent landing (beach) area and are used for
amphibious landing by Marine Corps and Navy personnel.
[41] Army Environmental Policy Institute, Department of Defense
Ecosystem Management Policy Evaluation, AEPI-IFP-0802F (Atlanta, Ga.:
Aug. 2002). The evaluation included information from case studies at
eight military installations.
[42] In responding to a draft of this report, the Department of the
Interior stated that its managers are expected to implement the
Secretary's conservation policy that includes cooperation and
collaboration.
[43] AEPI-IFP-0802F.
[44] AEPI-IFP-0802F.
[45] The Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service to determine the effect that the activities they
conduct, permit, or fund may have on threatened or endangered species.
[46] Army Environmental Policy Institute, Department of Defense
Ecosystem Management Policy Evaluation, AEPI-IFP-0802F (Atlanta, Ga.:
Aug. 2002). The evaluation included information from case studies at
eight military installations.
[47] Interagency Military Land Use Coordination Committee, Interagency
Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn of Permitted Federal
Lands Used by the Military (Draft), Sept. 2002.
[48] U.S. General Accounting Office, Ecosystem Management: Additional
Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach, GAO/RCED-94-111
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 1994).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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. General Accounting 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
