United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters 

September 2003 MILITARY TRAINING 

Implementation 

Strategy Needed to 

Increase Interagency 

Management for 

Endangered Species 

Affecting Training 

Ranges 

GAO-03-976 

Highlights of GAO-03-976, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Military lands provide habitat for 

more than 300 species that must be 

protected under the Endangered 

Species Act and many other 

species that may become 

endangered. In some cases, military 

installations provide some of the 

finest remaining habitat for these 

species. However, Department of 

Defense (DOD) officials stated that 

protection of endangered species 

may result in land-use restrictions 

that reduce the military’s flexibility 

to use land for training. GAO was 

asked to examine the (1) extent to 

which DOD and other nearby 

federal land managers in the region 

are managing cooperatively for 

endangered species affecting 

military training ranges and 

(2) factors that can limit 

cooperative management for 

endangered species on military 

training ranges. 

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. 

September 2003 

MILITARY TRAINING 

Implementation Strategy Needed to 

Increase Interagency Management 

for Endangered Species Affecting 

Training Ranges 

DOD and other federal land managers have taken some steps to implement 

interagency cooperative efforts to manage endangered species on a regional 

basis, but the extent to which they are using this approach for military 

training ranges is limited. Federal land managers recognize that cooperative 

management of endangered species has several benefits, such as sharing 

land-use restrictions and resources and providing better protection for 

species in some cases. The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have 

issued policies, and DOD has issued directives to promote cooperative 

management of natural resources. They have also outlined specific actions 

to be taken—such as identifying geographic regions for species management 

and forming working groups. However, follow-through on these actions has 

been limited, without many of the prescribed actions being implemented. A 

few cooperative management efforts have been taken but were generally in 

response to a crisis—such as a species’ population declining. 

The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture have identified a 

number of factors that can limit cooperative management for endangered 

species on military training ranges. When a species is found on training 

ranges but is not found on other federal land or is not protected under the 

Endangered Species Act, neighboring land managers do not always consider 

management of the species a high priority. Limited interaction among 

agencies and limited resources to employ cooperative programs also inhibit 

cooperative management. Lack of training and expertise has limited federal 

land managers’ ability to identify such opportunities. Moreover, federal 

agencies cannot easily share information—such as best practices and land 

management plans—because there is no centralized source of such 

information. Given that federal agencies have made little progress in 

implementing the various agreements for cooperative management, an 

interagency reporting requirement would provide a basis to hold agencies 

accountable for sharing endangered species management on training ranges. 

Source: Departments of the Air Force (left) and the Army (right). 

Numerous factors contribute to the cooperative management of species among neighboring federal 

land managers. The endangered Sonoran pronghorn (left) is being managed cooperatively between 

DOD and other federal land managers in Arizona, while DOD is managing the western sage grouse, 

a candidate species, (right) in Washington State on its own initiative. 
Contents 


Letter 1 

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

Despite Some Positive Examples, Cooperative Management for 

Endangered Species Affecting Military Training Ranges 

Is Limited 9 

Factors Limiting Cooperative Management for Endangered Species 17 

Conclusions 24 

Recommendations for Executive Action 24 

Matter for Congressional Consideration 25 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25 

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 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page i GAO-03-976 Military Training 

28 

31 

37 

39 

41 
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.

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” issues2

 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 


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. 

Page 1 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Endangered Species Act Sustainable Range Action Plan3 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.4

 In June 2002, we reported on the impact of 

encroachment on military training ranges5

 inside the United States and 

had similar findings to our earlier report.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 2003.7 

At your request, we examined the (1) extent to which DOD and other 

nearby federal land managers8 are managing cooperatively on a regional 

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. 

Page 2 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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. 

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 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 

Page 4 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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. 

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 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.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.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 taking11 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 

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). 

Page 6 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.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.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.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 

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. 

Page 7 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.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.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.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.18 In 

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. 

Page 8 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Despite Some 


Positive Examples, 


Cooperative 


Management for 


Endangered Species 


Affecting Military 


Training Ranges 


Is Limited 


June 2002, we reported on the impact of encroachment on military training 

ranges inside the United States.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.20 

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.) 

19 GAO-02-614. 

20 GAO-02-727T and GAO-03-621T. 

Page 9 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.21 In addition, a 1996 Keystone Center22 

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.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 

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). 

Page 10 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.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.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,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 

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. 

Page 11 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 redcockaded 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. 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.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 

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). 

Page 12 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.29 

• 	 DOD’s environmental security directive30 and regional environmental 

coordination instruction31 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 instruction32 establishes that 

integrated natural resources management plans shall incorporate the 

principles of ecosystem management33 that supports present and future 

mission requirements and is realized through effective partnerships among 

federal interests. 

• 	 DOD’s sustainment of ranges and operating areas directive34 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 

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). 

Page 13 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 Council35—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 

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. 

Page 14 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.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,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 

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. 

Page 15 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 blacktailed prairie dog is currently being staffed for signature. According to a 

knowledgeable Army official, the federal land managers agreed to work 

Page 16 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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. 

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. 

Factors Limiting 

Cooperative 

Management for 

Endangered Species 

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.38 The 

training center manages the sage grouse, a candidate species,39 to prevent 

restrictions on the training range that may occur should the species be 

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. 

Page 17 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 lanes40 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. 

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. 

Page 18 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 

Page 19 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.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 

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. 

Page 20 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
managers.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.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 

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. 

Page 21 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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. 

Page 22 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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.

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. 

44 AEPI-IFP-0802F. 

Page 23 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

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. 

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. 

Page 24 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

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. 

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 

Page 25 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 consultations45 

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/. 

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. 

Page 26 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 


Page 27 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
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 

Page 28 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

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 Evaluation1 and the draft September 2002 

1

 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. 

Page 29 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Interagency Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or 


Permitted Federal Lands Used by the Military2 and our 1994 report 


entitled Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to 


Adequately Test a Promising Approach.

3

 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. 

2

 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. 

3

 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). 

Page 30 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other 

Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives 

That Promote Cooperative Management 

1989 

Jan. 24 

1994 

Jan. 25 

March 24 

April 26 

July 1 

Aug. 8 

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. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, An Ecosystem Approach to Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation, guides the agency’s implementation of 

ecosystem management. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Page 31 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other 

Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives 

That Promote Cooperative Management 

Sept. 28 

1995 

June 

Sept. 

Dec. 15 

1996 

Jan. 23 

elements for ecosystem management, including developing 

coordinated approaches. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Page 32 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other 

Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives 

That Promote Cooperative Management 

Feb. 24 

May 3 

May 3 

July 

1998 

Sept. 

(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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Page 33 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other 

Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives 

That Promote Cooperative Management 

1999 

May 17 

Aug. 18 

2001 

Feb. 22 

Aug. 28 

2002 

April 2 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Page 34 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other 

Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives 

That Promote Cooperative Management 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Oct. 17 

2003 

Jan. 10 

Feb. 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


U.S. Department of the Interior, Draft Revised Strategic Plan for 


FY 2003-2008, defines the Secretary’s vision of conservation through 


Page 35 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other 

Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives 

That Promote Cooperative Management 

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	 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. 

Page 36 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 

Page 37 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report. 

Page 38 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior 

Page 39 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 40 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

(350268) Page 41 GAO-03-976 Military Training 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext 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 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548