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 
militarys 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 takensuch 
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 crisissuch 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 informationsuch as best practices and land management 
plansbecause 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: