Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training Ranges
Published: 2003-09-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. The Endangered Species Act of  1973 provides a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered  species depend are conserved. Under the act, all federal departments and  agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and shall utilize their  authorities in furtherance of this purpose. The Department of Defense  (DOD) and other agency officials have testified that some of the finest  remaining examples of rare wildlife habitats for these species exist on  military installations. However, DOD officials have stated that protection  of endangered species may result in land-use restrictions that reduce the  military’s flexibility to use designated lands for training, a restriction that  can put military missions in jeopardy. Likewise, senior DOD and military  service officials have testified before Congress that they face increasing  difficulty in carrying out realistic training at military installations and have  identified endangered species as one of eight “encroachment” issues that  affect or have the potential to affect military training and readiness. In an  effort to address these encroachment issues, DOD drafted a sustainable  range action plan for each of the encroachment issues in 2001. The draft  Endangered Species Act Sustainable Range Action Plansuggests 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. In June 2002, we reported on the impact of  encroachment on military training ranges inside the United States and  had similar findings to our earlier report. 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.
At your request, we examined the (1) extent to which DOD and other  nearby federal land managers are managing cooperatively on a regional  interagency basis for endangered species affecting military training ranges  and (2) factors that can limit interagency cooperative management for  endangered species affecting military training ranges. In conducting our  work, we interviewed headquarters and field office personnel for  the major land management departments—the Departments of Defense,  the Interior, and Agriculture—to obtain information related to policies,  directives, procedures, interagency agreements, and practices that  advocate or promote cooperative management of natural resources  and, more specifically, endangered species. We also visited three  military installations and two major commands, and toured three training  ranges—Yakima Training Center, Washington; Fort Lewis, Washington;  and the Barry M. Goldwater Training Range, Arizona. In addition, we  met with other federal land managers near the Yakima Training Center  and Barry M. Goldwater Training Range. We also visited several  nongovernmental organizations near the training ranges at the Yakima  Training Center, the Barry M. Goldwater Training Range, and elsewhere  to obtain their observations on interagency cooperative management and  factors that limit their participation. A more thorough description of our  scope and methodology is provided in appendix I. This report focuses  exclusively on issues concerning species that must be protected under  the Endangered Species Act and many other species that may become  endangered affecting military training ranges inside the United States.
We conducted our work from September 2002 through September 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD and other federal land management agencies—including the  Departments of the Interior and Agriculture—manage millions of acres  of land that provide habitat for hundreds of endangered species. Each of  these federal agencies have specific land-use responsibilities that have  to be executed while at the same time conserving the existing natural  resources and complying with the Endangered Species Act. DOD uses its  lands primarily to train military forces and test weapon systems. In doing  so, DOD operates on training ranges that vary in size from a few acres to  more than a million acres. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of  Land Management manages about 264 million acres of public land for a  variety of resources and uses including minerals, timber, forage, and  fish and wildlife habitat; Interior’s National Park Service mission is the  conservation of the scenery and the natural and historic objects and  wildlife in the parks in order to leave them unimpaired for future  generations; Interior’s National Wildlife Refuge System mission is to  administer lands and waters for the conservation, management, and  restoration of fish, wildlife, and their habitat; and the Department of  Agriculture’s Forest Service manages about 192 million acres of national  forest and grasslands for a variety of resources and uses including timber,  forage, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat.
subsections: section_title: The Endangered Species Act
paragraphs: 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. 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. Critical habitat  is defined as the specific areas that are essential for the conservation of  the species and, for areas occupied by the species, may require special  management considerations or protection. Species that are federally listed  are entitled to certain protections under the Endangered Species Act.  Specifically, the taking of a listed animal species without a permit from  the Secretary is prohibited. Further, under the act, each federal agency, in  consultation with the Secretary, is required to ensure that its actions are  not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of protected species or  adversely modify habitat critical to their survival.
Defense and Interior officials have stated that in managing endangered  species affecting training ranges, DOD’s past successful efforts have  resulted in the ranges becoming havens for at-risk species after rapid  urban growth destroyed habitat, leaving military lands as the last refuge  for many species. DOD officials believe that balancing endangered species  management with mission needs can sometimes be problematic. 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.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.
section_title: The Sikes Act
paragraphs: Since 1960, the Sikes Act has required military installations to provide for  the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on their lands. In  1997, the Sikes Act was amended to require that the military services  prepare integrated natural resources management plans in cooperation  with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate state agencies  and established a timeframe for the completion of all plans. The plans are  expected to balance the management of natural resources with mission  requirements and other land-use activities affecting those resources and  should reflect the mutual agreement of the parties concerning  management of fish and wildlife resources.
DOD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials believe that DOD’s  integrated natural resources management plans provide a holistic  approach for natural resources management and for installations where an  approved natural resources management plan is in place, the plan should  be used as a substitute for critical habitat designations. For several years,  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been using these management plans  in lieu of designating critical habitat on military lands. In testimonies in  March and April 2003, Interior Department officials said that a recent  lawsuit that successfully challenged U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s failure  to designate critical habitat casts doubt on the service’s ability to  substitute critical habitat designations on military lands with approved  natural resources management plans. In that lawsuit, which involved a  Forest Service plan, the court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  was incorrect in its interpretation that land may be excluded from critical  habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act when management  or protection of the area is already in place. 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. 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.
section_title: Prior GAO Reports
paragraphs: 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. 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. In  June 2002, we reported on the impact of encroachment on military training  ranges inside the United States. 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.
section_title: Despite Some Positive Examples, Cooperative Management for Endangered Species Affecting Military Training Ranges Is Limited
paragraphs: 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.)
subsections: section_title: Some Positive Examples Show Cooperative Management Has Benefits for DOD and Other Federal Land Managers
paragraphs: 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. In addition, a 1996 Keystone Centerreport 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.
DOD and other federal land managers generally agree that interagency  cooperative management of endangered species has benefits, such as  sharing the costs of recovery efforts, the burden of land-use restrictions,  and expertise and resources, as shown in the following examples:
At the Barry M. Goldwater Range, land managers are sharing the cost of  some recovery efforts to increase the endangered Sonoran pronghorn’s  population, which the managers might not have been able to fund or  undertake, if not done cooperatively. For example, the Marine Corps, the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the  Arizona Game and Fish Department each contributed one-fourth of the  funding for a genetic study of the pronghorn, the results of which are  important for determining the types of recovery actions the land managers  can use to protect the species.
Another effort at the Barry M. Goldwater Range benefits both the species  and the Air Force. According to range operating instructions, if pronghorn  are spotted on the range within a prescribed distance from the target,  training must be cancelled or moved. DOD and nearby federal land  managers in the region agreed to create forage enhancement plots on an  adjacent national wildlife refuge that entices the pronghorn to the plots  and away from the targets.
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. 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, which was created by the Secretaries of  the Interior and Agriculture and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense  for Environmental Security in 1997 to develop and implement a strategy to  more effectively coordinate, among other things, natural resource issues in  Arizona and New Mexico. The group has also eliminated duplicative data  collection and analysis efforts.
In its response to a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior  provided a few other examples of cooperative management. One was  between the Air Force's Dare County Bomb Range, North Carolina, and  the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge where they are managing  cooperatively for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and the  endangered red wolf. It also cited two examples of cooperation between  DOD and the Forest Service. Specifically, the Army at Fort Polk,  Louisiana, is managing cooperatively with the Kisatchie National Forest to  limit land-use restrictions on the range and recover the endangered red­ cockaded woodpecker. At Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, the Air Force is  working with the Conecuh National Forest to cooperatively manage for  the red-cockaded woodpecker. According to agency officials, these efforts  have limited land-use restrictions on the training range and helped recover  the species.
section_title: Departments of the Interior and Agriculture Policies and DOD Directives, Instructions, and an Action Plan Advocate Broad Cooperative Management Approaches
paragraphs: 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. 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. As part of  these policies, the department states that it will strive to manage and  protect America’s public and private lands by working cooperatively with  other federal agencies. In addition, the Forest Service Manual promotes  an interagency cooperative approach to endangered species management.
DOD has issued directives, instructions, and an action plan that  promote an interagency cooperative approach to natural resource  management, which includes endangered species management, as in  the following examples:
DOD’s natural resources management program directive states that DOD  should coordinate its natural resources program with other federal  agencies.
DOD’s environmental security directive and regional environmental  coordination instruction establishes a system of regional environmental  coordinators, which could facilitate DOD’s efforts to manage for  endangered species on its training ranges and identify opportunities to  work with other federal land managers on natural resource issues.
DOD’s environmental conservation program instruction establishes that  integrated natural resources management plans shall incorporate the  principles of ecosystem management that supports present and future  mission requirements and is realized through effective partnerships among  federal interests.
DOD’s sustainment of ranges and operating areas directive establishes  policy and assigns responsibilities for the sustainment of test and training  ranges, and states that DOD should enter into cooperative agreements and  partnerships with other federal agencies to sustain training ranges by,  among other things, managing for endangered species.
In 2001, DOD drafted an action plan for each of the eight encroachment  issues identified as having significant negative impact to its training and  readiness. Specifically, the draft Endangered Species Act Sustainable  Range Action Plan contains a combination of administrative and  legislative initiatives to balance endangered species management with  mission requirements. The plan addresses, among other things, the need  for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services to  build new and expand upon existing partnerships—such as the Barry M.  Goldwater Range Executive Council—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.
section_title: Interagency Agreements for Cooperative Management Have Been Adopted, but Not Fully Implemented
paragraphs: In addition to agency policies, directives, instructions, and an action plan,  DOD and other federal agencies have entered into several agreements  for the purpose of implementing a cooperative approach to endangered  species management. However, many of the specific actions in these  agreements were never fully implemented and most agreements  have expired.
Fourteen federal agencies—including the Departments of Defense,  the Interior, and Agriculture—entered into the 1994 Memorandum of  Understanding on Implementation of the Endangered Species Act.  According to a DOD official, this was in response to two legislative  proposals that could have reduced the scope and authority of the act.  The memorandum stipulated that the participants establish a general  framework for cooperation and establish a national interagency working  group that would coordinate the implementation of the Endangered  Species Act by, among other things, identifying geographic regions for  species management and reporting its accomplishments annually to the  public. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Departments of the  Interior and Agriculture stated that some efforts were undertaken as a  result of this memorandum, and they believe interagency cooperation had  increased. However, we found that some officials at the land management  agencies we visited were unaware of this memorandum. According to two  officials who helped develop the agreement, the legislative proposals  failed, and management support for cooperative management for  endangered species was subsequently reduced. As a result, the national  interagency working group was never formed, and the annual reporting  requirements were never met. The memorandum expired in 1999.
In addition, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture and  other federal agencies signed the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding to  Foster the Ecosystem Approach to implement the recommendations of  the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. 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, drafted a memorandum in 2002 promoting the  coordination of land use activities. The memorandum encourages federal  land managers to work together and regularly discuss military and other  land-use issues with nearby land managers and to consider the effects of  their actions on lands managed by other federal agencies. In addition, the  memorandum stipulates that the committee develop overarching policies  and procedures to ensure that federal land managers implement this  approach. Also, it is expected that federal land managers would develop  agency-specific policies and procedures for engaging other federal land  managers on a routine basis and report to the committee annually on their  progress. To date, the committee has not acted on this memorandum.  According to a cognizant DOD official, once the memorandum is signed,  it is still unclear how the actions outlined in the memorandum would  be implemented or affect agency participation in cooperative management  efforts.
section_title: Cooperative Management Efforts Undertaken Generally in Response to a Crisis
paragraphs: While there are some examples of cooperative management efforts  between DOD and other federal land managers, most of these efforts  have been undertaken in response to a crisis. Such crises can include a  marked decline of a species’ population or land-use restrictions that may  impact the federal land managers’ ability to carry out their missions.  Experience has shown that when there is not a crisis, there is little  incentive to cooperate.
Because of a marked decline in the number of Sonoran pronghorn at the  Barry M. Goldwater Range, federal and other land managers were being  pressured by the public to manage cooperatively in support of the species.  As a result, regional land managers formed the Barry M. Goldwater Range  Executive Council in 1997 to discuss issues of concern, ensure consistent  land management in the region, and identify and coordinate species  recovery efforts. The council identifies and prioritizes pronghorn recovery  efforts and has agreed to a number of initiatives to help preserve the  species, such as establishing forage enhancement plots. As a result,  restrictions on the training range have been minimized through DOD and  other federal land managers’ efforts to cooperate on protective measures  on nonmilitary lands.
Recently, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture  reacted to the potential listing of the black-tailed prairie dog. The U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service received a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog  and according to the Department of the Interior, it is working with 11  states, DOD, the Department of Agriculture, and other stakeholders to  coordinate their conservation and management efforts for the species and  its habitat. A memorandum of understanding among these agencies to  enhance cooperation for the conservation and management of the black- tailed prairie dog is currently being staffed for signature. According to a  knowledgeable Army official, the federal land managers agreed to work  together because of the potential loss of land management flexibility  should the species be listed. For example, the Army is concerned about  land-use restrictions and impacts to training at Fort Carson, Colorado, and  other installations should the black-tailed prairie dog be listed. By working  together, federal land managers believe that they have better managed for  the species and helped avoid the need to list the species, which could  result in land-use restrictions.
section_title: Factors Limiting Cooperative Management for Endangered Species
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Lack of a Shared Crisis among Federal Land Managers Hinders Cooperative Management
paragraphs: 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. The  training center manages the sage grouse, a candidate species, to prevent  restrictions on the training range that may occur should the species be  federally listed. One of the Army’s goals for the working group was to  create a regional conservation plan for the sage grouse that would include  individual conservation management plans from each of the nearby land  managers. Although other land managers attend working group meetings,  they have not completed their plans because they do not place the same  priority on recovering the western sage grouse as the Army, as the species  is not listed and is not found on their lands. Consequently, the Army will  continue to bear the majority of the responsibility of managing for the  western sage grouse.
At Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, California, the Navy has held  numerous meetings with other land managers to encourage regional  management of the least tern and the snowy plover, which are federally  listed species. However, Navy officials told us that, to date, they have not  received commitment from local land managers to share the burden of  species management. The presence of these birds has resulted in the lost  use of the majority of the base’s training beaches. For example, while  there are 14 beach lanes 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.
section_title: Limited Agency Interaction Affects Cooperative Management
paragraphs: Another factor that impacts cooperative management for endangered  species affecting training ranges is limited agency interaction. Various  agency officials stated that the lack of regular exchanges of information  has led to a lack of trust, a lack of a single vision, inefficiencies,  duplication of efforts, and misunderstanding of other agencies’ missions.
For example, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have suggested that  the Army at the Yakima Training Center should relocate its training to  other nearby locations to preserve the western sage grouse habitat.  According to Army officials, this suggestion demonstrates a lack of  understanding of the Army’s training mission at the Yakima Training  Center because these nearby locations are neither large enough to allow  live fire or tank formations nor topographically suited to tank maneuver  training.
DOD and other agency officials have stated that regular coordination and  communication should be addressed at national, regional, and local levels  by establishing interagency working groups and exchanging or colocating  staff among agencies at each of these levels. There is some coordination at  the headquarters level through liaison positions and the Endangered  Species Roundtable, an informal group comprised of members from the  Department of Defense, military services, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, which have enhanced coordination and communications since  1999. This also occurs on a limited basis at the local level, such as the  Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Council. However, it does not occur  regularly at all three levels. For example, DOD created regional  environmental coordinator positions at each of the 10 Environmental  Protection Agency regional offices to address environmentally related  issues in the regions. According to a former Deputy Under Secretary of  Defense, even though these regional coordinators’ current focus is on  compliance issues, that should not preclude them from interacting with  other federal land managers in a broader capacity such as for endangered  species management. DOD and other federal agencies have proposed that  these regional coordinators bring together regional, state, and local  officials to address sustainable range issues including endangered species.
section_title: Resource Constraints Limit Cooperative Management
paragraphs: Defense, Interior, and Agriculture officials said that resource constraints,  such as funding, staff, and a lack of incentives, limit efforts to manage  cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training ranges.
A former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense said that installation  commanders face chronic underfunding issues and mission-related  projects take priority over other projects, such as cooperative  management activities. At Fort Lewis, Army officials stated that based on  discussions with other federal officials, these agencies lack the resources  to participate in endangered species-related projects, such as species  inventories. In addition, knowledgeable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  officials told us that the service is underfunded and understaffed and  spends most of its time on lawsuits and other priorities. Department of the  Interior headquarters officials also said that limited funding and staff is a  significant barrier to better cooperation. They explained that much of  what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does is driven by lawsuits and that  there are not enough funds to cover all endangered species needs. They  also suggested that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strategic planner could  facilitate cooperation and coordination with DOD. Subsequently, DOD and  the military services are now funding a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  liaison position. Similarly, a Forest Service headquarters official said that  limited funding and staffing are barriers to cooperative management  efforts.
A 2002 Army Environmental Policy Institute study concluded that  understaffing is a common problem for both installation environmental  and natural resources programs. At several installations included in  the study, a lack of staff was viewed as a critical issue and, in some  cases, cooperative management implementation was limited due to  understaffing. For example, at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the Army reported  there is a lack of staff to implement cooperative management efforts  and insufficient funding to support cooperative management projects.  Understaffed natural resources offices find they can respond to short-term  initiatives and immediate demands, but longer-term cooperative  management initiatives are conducted piecemeal and only as time permits.  In addition, the study states that partnerships to create a regional vision  require commitment, which in turn requires funding and staff. However,  developing this vision is often not a high priority for an installation, and  therefore there is usually little funding available to implement projects that  support cooperative management efforts. Without enough qualified  environmental professionals on staff, successful cooperative management  is greatly inhibited.
Officials from the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture,  and other federal agencies stated that they lack incentives to manage  cooperatively. For example, Department of the Interior officials stated that  interagency cooperative management is not part of their performance  expectations and they are not rated on their ability to manage  cooperatively for endangered species with DOD and other federal land  managers. 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.
section_title: Lack of Training and Expertise Limits Cooperative Management
paragraphs: 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. For example, according  to the study, field biologists at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu,  California, are critical to managing the ecosystem. However, field  biologists’ salaries are very low and they lack job security, so turnover is  high. As a result, the natural resources manager needs to frequently rehire  and train biologists.
DOD officials noted that staff reductions and the reliance on contractors  to perform some functions have resulted in the loss of institutional  memory and expertise that has adversely affected long-term initiatives,  such as cooperative management for endangered species. This lack of  expertise in natural resources programs limits the abilities of managers to  implement cooperative management efforts. For example, at Robins Air  Force Base, Georgia, installation environmental staff suggested that  cooperative management requires existing staff to have a broader and  more diverse skill set than ever before, and more specialized training is  needed toward that end. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  officials said that high staff turnover at some national wildlife refuges  leads to a loss of expertise, which makes it difficult to establish and  maintain good working relationships with other agencies.
section_title: Lack of Centralized or Otherwise Easily Accessible Source of Information Limits Cooperative Management
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Federal Land Managers Lack a Comprehensive Implementation Strategy to Overcome Limiting Factors
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from the  Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture. They agreed on the  need to improve interagency cooperation in managing for endangered  species.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Acting Assistant Deputy  Under Secretary of Defense for Environment agreed with our  recommendations with some additional observations. Concerning our  recommendation to develop and implement an interagency strategy for  cooperative management efforts, DOD stated that the Interagency Military  Land Use Coordination Committee structure and process could be used to  develop a strategy. While we agree that the committee could be used to  develop the interagency strategy and methodology, the committee has  periods of inactivity and the memorandum of understanding that formed  this group is set to expire in October 2004. Therefore, we believe that a  more formalized effort needs to be undertaken with support from the  Secretary of each department. In commenting on our recommendation  that the departments with land management responsibilities jointly  develop an education program, DOD agreed but suggested a focus on  training rather than education might be more appropriate. We agreed and  have modified the recommendation accordingly. DOD’s comments are  reprinted in appendix III.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior’s  Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget generally agreed  with our findings, noting that its agencies are continually working to  improve and expand interagency coordination and cooperation and stating  that our recommendations could help link conservation efforts among the  departments and produce better information for land managers to address  endangered species issues. The department also stated that it was  concerned the recommendations would likely create increased demands  on already strained resources. However, we believe that if cooperative  management were incorporated into the department’s daily management  practices as stated in the department’s policy of “conserving through  cooperation” and not viewed as a separate effort, the impact on resource  requirements could be limited. At the same time, based on the  department’s concerns about resource requirements and recognizing the  prevalence of Web-based information systems, we modified our second  recommendation to suggest that a centralized or otherwise easily  accessible source of information be developed. In addition, the  department also expressed the view that the level of coordination and  cooperation between the department and DOD is more extensive than the  report’s findings indicated. The department suggested that the report  should include a more comprehensive view of current interagency  cooperation for management of endangered species. While the department  suggested a number of additional instances of interagency cooperation, we  found that many of them were more related to regulatory consultationsthan efforts to achieve increased cooperative management between  federal land managers on a regional basis. Nevertheless, we did include a  few additional examples as appropriate. The Department of the Interior’s  comments are reprinted in appendix IV.
In commenting on the draft of this report, the Department of Agriculture  did not respond directly to our recommendations for executive action, but  indicated that it strongly supports interagency cooperative management  for endangered species. The Department of Agriculture’s comments are  reprinted in appendix V.
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture also provided  various technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
As requested by your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents  of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days  from the date of this report. We will then send copies of this report to  the appropriate congressional committees, as well as the Secretaries of  Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture. We will also make copies available  to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov/.
If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this  report, please contact Barry Holman at (202) 512-8412, or Barry Hill at  (202) 512-9775. Patricia Nichol, Tommy Baril, Michelle K. Treistman,  Byron Galloway, Patricia McClure, Mark Little, and R.K. Wild were major  contributors to this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify the extent to which DOD and nearby federal land managers are  managing cooperatively for endangered species affecting military training  ranges on a regional basis, we met with officials of the Office of the  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment;  Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness; the  Environmental Programs Division, Office of the Civil Engineer,  Headquarters, Air Force; Director of Ranges and Airspace, Air and Space  Operations, Headquarters, Air Force; the Office of the Director for  Environmental Programs, Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation  Management; the Land Use and Military Construction Branch, Installations  and Logistics Department, Headquarters, Marine Corps; Environmental  Readiness Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Department of  the Navy; the Army Forces Command; the Air Force Air Education and  Training Command; Luke Air Force Base, Arizona; Marine Corps Air  Station Yuma, Arizona; and Fort Lewis, Washington. We also met with  headquarters and field officials of the Departments of the Interior and  Agriculture, including the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service and its National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park  Service, and headquarters officials at the Forest Service. In addition, we  interviewed a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and officials with  nongovernmental organizations including the Endangered Species  Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, and the International Association of  Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We also visited three training ranges—Yakima  Training Center, Washington; Fort Lewis, Washington; and the Barry M.  Goldwater Training Range, Arizona—in order to identify the extent to  which the training ranges and the nearby federal land managers are  managing cooperatively for endangered species. Specifically, we visited  the Yakima Training Center based on discussions with Army officials  about their unsuccessful attempts to work with other federal land  managers in the region. We also visited with officials at Fort Lewis, as they  previously managed the Yakima Training Center. We visited the Barry M.  Goldwater Training Range based on discussions with various DOD and  other federal agency officials concerning the successful cooperative  management efforts that have been undertaken in the region. We also  obtained and analyzed information from nearby land managers, state  wildlife agency officials, Native American Tribal representatives, and  nongovernmental organizations in Washington and Arizona on their  views of cooperative management and the extent to which they are  cooperating with the training range in the management of endangered  species. To identify the policies of the major land management  departments—Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture—that  promote a cooperative approach to natural resources and endangered  species management, we reviewed DOD directives, instructions, and an  action plan that promote cooperative approaches to further sustainment  objectives to include training ranges. We also reviewed a DOD-sponsored  tri-service partnering guide for environmental missions of the Army, Navy,  and Air Force. The guide was created for the purpose of encouraging  greater use of partnering at the policy, installation, and project levels of  several DOD programs, including conservation. In addition, we reviewed  the military services implementing instructions for the management of  natural resources. We also reviewed policies, instructions, land-use  planning documents, and manuals for the implementation of the  Endangered Species Act from selected agencies of the Departments of  the Interior and Agriculture and reviewed a number of their memorandum  of understanding to cooperate in the execution of the Endangered  Species Act.
To determine the factors that limit cooperative management of  endangered species affecting military training ranges, we met with officials  of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations  and Environment; Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for  Readiness; the Environmental Programs Division, Office of the Civil  Engineer, Headquarters, Air Force; Director of Ranges and Airspace, Air  and Space Operations, Headquarters, Air Force; the Office of the Director  for Environmental Programs, Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation  Management; the Land Use and Military Construction Branch, Installations  and Logistics Department, Headquarters, Marine Corps; Environmental  Readiness Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy; the  Army Forces Command; and the Air Force Education and Training  Command. In addition, we met with a former Deputy Under Secretary of  Defense. We also met with officials of the Departments of the Interior and  Agriculture, including the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service and its National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park  Service, and the Forest Service. We also analyzed and compared the views  of officials at the Yakima Training Center and Barry M. Goldwater Training  Range to the responses obtained from neighboring land managers, DOD,  and other agency officials cited above, and relevant program officials.  We also reviewed reports that document issues that were identified as  obstacles to achieving cooperative management, including the August 2002  Army Environmental Policy Institute’s Department of Defense Ecosystem  Management Policy Evaluationand the draft September 2002  Interagency Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or  Permitted Federal Lands Used by the Militaryand our 1994 report  entitled Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to  Adequately Test a Promising Approach. 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Timeline of DOD’s and Other Federal Agencies’ Policies and Initiatives That Promote Cooperative Management
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Jan. 25
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: March 24
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: April 26
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: July 1
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Aug. 8
paragraphs: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) policy  statement, Implementation of Ecosystem Management in the DOD, states  that ecosystem management will become the basis for future management  of DOD lands and waters. The policy statement identifies five key  elements for ecosystem management, including developing  coordinated approaches.
section_title: Sept. 28
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: June
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sept.
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Dec. 15
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Jan. 23
paragraphs: Keystone Center, Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on a Department of  Defense Biodiversity Management Strategy, was developed by  representatives from DOD, other government agencies, and  nongovernmental interests to develop policy guidance for enhancing and  protecting DOD lands in a way that is integrated with the military mission.  The report covers three aspects of biodiversity conservation, including  (1) the policy framework for DOD's biodiversity and suggestions for  clarifying and improving current policies and programs, and for integrating  mission planning and biodiversity conservation; (2) principles and steps of  a model process for biodiversity conservation on DOD installations and  describes the regional context in which biodiversity occurs; and (3)  measures of success that can be used to monitor diversity conservation in  the context of military readiness at the installation level to support  decision making at policy levels.
section_title: Feb. 24
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: May 3
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: May 3
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: July
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sept.
paragraphs: Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture memorandum of  understanding, Cooperation and Coordination of the Use and  Management of Lands and Resources, establishes the Interagency Military  Land Use Coordination Committee to improve interagency communication  and coordination on matters of mutual interest. Subsequently, the  Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and General  Services Administration joined the committee.
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.
section_title: May 17
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Aug. 18
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Feb. 22
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Aug. 28
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: April 2
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Aug.
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sept.
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sept.
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Oct. 17
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Jan. 10
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Feb.
paragraphs: U.S. Department of the Interior, Draft Revised Strategic Plan for  FY 2003-2008, defines the Secretary’s vision of conservation through  cooperation, consultation, and communication. The department relies on  three key tools, including partnerships, to meet its strategic goals and  accomplish its mission. Through an increasing number of partnership  efforts, the department will continue to reduce the threat from invasive  species and strive to protect habitat that supports threatened, endangered,  and other native species.
section_title: April 29
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior