Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to Increase
Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting Training
Ranges (29-SEP-03, GAO-03-976).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-976
ACCNO: A08603
TITLE: Military Training: Implementation Strategy Needed to
Increase Interagency Management for Endangered Species Affecting
Training Ranges
DATE: 09/29/2003
SUBJECT: Endangered animals
Endangered plants
Endangered species
Federal law
Land management
Military facilities
Military training
Interagency relations
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-976
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 [email protected].
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 17
Species
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.
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. S: 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.
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.
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
to implement the Endangered Species Act in response to legislative
proposals that at the time could have reduced the scope and authority of
the act. However, according to a DOD official, once the legislative
proposals failed, management support for the memorandum was reduced, and
it expired without many of the prescribed actions being implemented. A few
cooperative management efforts have been taken but were generally in
response to a crisis, such as a species' population dramatically
declining. For example, at the Barry M. Goldwater Training Range, military
services and other land managers have worked together to manage the
Sonoran pronghorn-an endangered species that has significantly declined.
Officials of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
identified numerous factors that can limit regional interagency
cooperative management for endangered species affecting military training
ranges, ranging from those instances when there is not a shared crisis
among federal land managers to the current lack of centralized or
otherwise easily accessible information on cooperative management efforts.
More specifically, federal land managers may not consider cooperative
management efforts a high priority when a species does not exist on their
land or is not federally listed as an endangered species and therefore may
not participate in such efforts. At the Yakima Training Center, the Army
is managing for the western sage grouse in an attempt to prevent the
species from being federally listed, an action that could result in
land-use restrictions at the center. The Army's efforts to work with other
federal land managers have been largely unsuccessful because the sage
grouse is not listed by the federal government and populates only the
center's training range and not other nearby federal lands. Another factor
is limited agency interaction. Federal agency officials said that this has
resulted in a lack of a single vision, mistrust, and a misunderstanding
about each other's land-use responsibilities. An additional factor,
according to agency officials, is limited resources. DOD and other federal
land managers stated that they have to finance interagency cooperative
management efforts from already limited funds. Federal agency officials
also identified a lack of training and experience as factors that limit
interagency cooperative management. For instance, a lack of cooperative
management training has limited federal land managers' ability to identify
opportunities for cooperative management as well as the neighboring land
managers needed to implement them. Furthermore, federal land managers lack
a centralized or otherwise easily accessible source of information on
cooperative management efforts. As a result, officials said that they are
unable to easily share information and learn about cooperative management
efforts within and across agencies. While
officials of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
have identified these factors as limiting their ability to manage
cooperatively, they have not developed a comprehensive strategy to address
these factors and increase the use of regional interagency cooperative
management. Such a strategy could include a systematic methodology to
identify opportunities to participate in cooperative management efforts,
funding sources, science and technology sources, and goals and criteria to
measure success. Also, considering that federal agencies have made little
progress in implementing the various agreements to undertake cooperative
management, an interagency reporting requirement to Congress would provide
a basis to improve agency accountability for implementation of interagency
cooperative management for endangered species affecting military training
ranges.
To encourage cooperative management for endangered species affecting
military training ranges, this report recommends that the Secretaries of
Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture jointly develop and implement an
interagency strategy, a comprehensive training program, and a centralized
or otherwise easily accessible source of information for cooperative
management efforts. To hold DOD and other federal land managers
accountable for implementing regional interagency cooperative efforts,
this report also suggests that Congress may wish to consider requiring
that the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture jointly
report each year on their efforts to manage cooperatively for endangered
species affecting military training ranges. In commenting on a draft of
the report, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
concurred on the need to improve interagency cooperation in managing for
endangered species.
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
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. S: 1538(a)(1)(B).
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.
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.
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.
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:
o 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.
o 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).
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
o 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.
o 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.
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).
management, which includes endangered species management, as in the
following examples:
o DOD's natural resources management program directive states that DOD
should coordinate its natural resources program with other federal
agencies.29
o 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.
o 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.
o 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).
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.
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.
memorandum stipulates that the committee develop overarching policies and
procedures to ensure that federal land managers implement this approach.
Also, it is expected that federal land managers would develop
agency-specific policies and procedures for engaging other federal land
managers on a routine basis and report to the committee annually on their
progress. To date, the committee has not acted on this memorandum.
According to a cognizant DOD official, once the memorandum is signed, it
is still unclear how the actions outlined in the memorandum would be
implemented or affect agency participation in cooperative management
efforts.
Cooperative Management Efforts Undertaken Generally in Response to a Crisis
While there are some examples of cooperative management efforts between
DOD and other federal land managers, most of these efforts have been
undertaken in response to a crisis. Such crises can include a marked
decline of a species' population or land-use restrictions that may impact
the federal land managers' ability to carry out their missions. Experience
has shown that when there is not a crisis, there is little incentive to
cooperate.
Because of a marked decline in the number of Sonoran pronghorn at the
Barry M. Goldwater Range, federal and other land managers were being
pressured by the public to manage cooperatively in support of the species.
As a result, regional land managers formed the Barry M. Goldwater Range
Executive Council in 1997 to discuss issues of concern, ensure consistent
land management in the region, and identify and coordinate species
recovery efforts. The council identifies and prioritizes pronghorn
recovery efforts and has agreed to a number of initiatives to help
preserve the species, such as establishing forage enhancement plots. As a
result, restrictions on the training range have been minimized through DOD
and other federal land managers' efforts to cooperate on protective
measures on nonmilitary lands.
Recently, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture
reacted to the potential listing of the black-tailed prairie dog. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition to list the black-tailed
prairie dog and according to the Department of the Interior, it is working
with 11 states, DOD, the Department of Agriculture, and other stakeholders
to coordinate their conservation and management efforts for the species
and its habitat. A memorandum of understanding among these agencies to
enhance cooperation for the conservation and management of the
black-tailed prairie dog is currently being staffed for signature.
According to a knowledgeable Army official, the federal land managers
agreed to work
together because of the potential loss of land management flexibility
should the species be listed. For example, the Army is concerned about
land-use restrictions and impacts to training at Fort Carson, Colorado,
and other installations should the black-tailed prairie dog be listed. By
working together, federal land managers believe that they have better
managed for the species and helped avoid the need to list the species,
which could result in land-use restrictions.
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:
o 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.
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.
o 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.
For example, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have suggested that
the Army at the Yakima Training Center should relocate its training to
other nearby locations to preserve the western sage grouse habitat.
According to Army officials, this suggestion demonstrates a lack of
understanding of the Army's training mission at the Yakima Training Center
because these nearby locations are neither large enough to allow live fire
or tank formations nor topographically suited to tank maneuver training.
DOD and other agency officials have stated that regular coordination and
communication should be addressed at national, regional, and local levels
by establishing interagency working groups and exchanging or colocating
staff among agencies at each of these levels. There is some coordination
at the headquarters level through liaison positions and the Endangered
Species Roundtable, an informal group comprised of members from the
Department of Defense, military services, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, which have enhanced coordination and communications since 1999.
This also occurs on a limited basis at the local level, such as the Barry
M. Goldwater Range Executive Council. However, it does not occur regularly
at all three levels. For example, DOD created regional environmental
coordinator positions at each of the 10 Environmental Protection Agency
regional offices to address environmentally related issues in the regions.
According to a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, even though these
regional coordinators' current focus is on compliance issues, that should
not preclude them from interacting with other federal land managers in a
broader capacity such as for endangered species management. DOD and other
federal agencies have proposed that these regional coordinators bring
together regional, state, and local officials to address sustainable range
issues including endangered species.
Resource Constraints Limit Cooperative Management
Defense, Interior, and Agriculture officials said that resource
constraints, such as funding, staff, and a lack of incentives, limit
efforts to manage cooperatively for endangered species affecting military
training ranges.
A former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense said that installation
commanders face chronic underfunding issues and mission-related projects
take priority over other projects, such as cooperative management
activities. At Fort Lewis, Army officials stated that based on discussions
with other federal officials, these agencies lack the resources to
participate in endangered species-related projects, such as species
inventories. In addition, knowledgeable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
officials told us that the service is underfunded and understaffed and
spends most of its time on lawsuits and other priorities. Department of
the Interior headquarters officials also said that limited funding and
staff is a significant barrier to better cooperation. They explained that
much of what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does is driven by lawsuits
and that there are not enough funds to cover all endangered species needs.
They also suggested that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strategic
planner could facilitate cooperation and coordination with DOD.
Subsequently, DOD and the military services are now funding a U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service liaison position. Similarly, a Forest Service
headquarters official said that limited funding and staffing are barriers
to cooperative management efforts.
A 2002 Army Environmental Policy Institute study concluded that
understaffing is a common problem for both installation environmental and
natural resources programs.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.
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.
more diverse skill set than ever before, and more specialized training is
needed toward that end. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
officials said that high staff turnover at some national wildlife refuges
leads to a loss of expertise, which makes it difficult to establish and
maintain good working relationships with other agencies.
Lack of Centralized or Otherwise Easily Accessible Source of Information
Limits Cooperative Management
The Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture and other
federal agencies lack a centralized or otherwise easily accessible source
of information, which could facilitate the exchange of reliable, current,
and consistent information among and between federal land managers.
Officials with The Nature Conservancy, a nongovernmental organization that
works cooperatively with DOD and other federal land managers, noted that
the federal agencies lack a simple, comprehensive, and reliable way to
learn from each other's successes and failures in conservation planning
and action, and of ongoing conservation plans and actions being conducted
within the region. The officials added that information related to
cooperative management efforts is often incomplete, outdated, difficult to
access, and not widely available. For example, while DOD's Defense
Environmental Network and Information Exchange is centralized and fairly
good, the network is not widely available, does not contain comprehensive
data on lessons learned or best practices of interagency cooperative
management, and contains mostly information related to policies or
regulations. In addition, according to DOD officials, federal agencies
have no established method to share and integrate endangered species
research, development, monitoring actions, priorities, and results. They
identified this as being a serious impediment to developing the science
needed for interagency cooperative management of endangered species.
DOD and other federal land managers suggest that information such as
agency points of contact, land management and conservation plans,
description of agency missions, training opportunities, and interagency
meetings and conferences is needed to encourage more cooperative
management efforts. Such information, which could be provided through
agency Web sites, should be readily accessible to all land managers and
could facilitate cooperative efforts.
Federal Land Managers Lack a Comprehensive Implementation Strategy to
Overcome Limiting Factors
While the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture and other
federal land managers have identified several factors discussed above as
limiting their ability to manage cooperatively, they have not developed a
comprehensive strategy to address them. The Army Environmental Policy
Institute study concluded that using the current project-by-project
approach to cooperative management would guarantee its ultimate failure as
an overall implementation strategy.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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior
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 full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***