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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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.