Natural Resources: Defense and Interior Can Better Manage Land Withdrawn
for Military Use (Letter Report, 04/26/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-87).

The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 removes from public use until
the year 2001 more than 7 million acres and makes them available to the
military for training and weapons and equipment testing.  GAO reviewed
the experiences at the six sites named in the act, which are located in
Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, and found that resource
management results have been mixed. Military operations have not been
hampered, but military commanders have changed some training exercises
to accommodate concerns for wildlife.  Five of the six sites had
resource management plans, but only about half of the planned actions
had been started as of November 1993.  Three sites had access
restrictions that made it hard for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
to carry out resource management activities.  These restrictions and the
military presence led BLM to assign a low priority to resource
management on military land.  At three sites, BLM allocated considerably
less money to manage lands used for military training than for other
property under its care.  All six sites had opportunities to improve
resource management by strengthening cooperation between BLM and the
military and by beefing up monitoring of progress on planned resource
management actions.  This report includes photographs of the terrain at
the six sites.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-94-87
     TITLE:  Natural Resources: Defense and Interior Can Better Manage 
             Land Withdrawn for Military Use
      DATE:  04/26/94
   SUBJECT:  Environmental policies
             Interagency relations
             Environmental monitoring
             Military operations
             Natural resources
             Conservation
             Military training
             Combat readiness
             Testing
             Land management
IDENTIFIER:  Bravo-20 Bombing Range (NV)
             McGregor Range (NM)
             Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (AZ)
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1994

NATURAL RESOURCES - DEFENSE AND
INTERIOR CAN BETTER MANAGE LAND
WITHDRAWN FOR MILITARY USE

GAO/NSIAD-94-87

Natural Resources


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BLM - Bureau of Land Management
  DOD - Department of Defense
  FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
  NAS - Naval Air Station

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-254114

April 26, 1994

The Honorable John Glenn
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Readiness and
 Defense Infrastructure
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Dave McCurdy
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 removes from public use
until the year 2001 more than 7 million acres of land and devotes
them to the military services for training and weapons and equipment
testing purposes.\1 The Chairman of the former Environmental
Restoration Panel, House Committee on Armed Services, requested that
we review the experiences of Department of Defense (DOD) and federal
resource agencies in jointly managing the withdrawn lands.  As agreed
with your offices, we examined the experiences at all six sites named
in the act to determine whether (1) resource management activities
have constrained military operations, (2) military operations have
constrained resource management activities, and (3) there are
opportunities to improve resource management programs at the six
locations. 


--------------------
\1 If the military wants to continue using withdrawn lands after
2001, it must (1) prepare an environmental impact statement
consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.  4321 et.  seq.) and (2) apply for an
extension of the withdrawal in accordance with the Department of the
Interior regulations. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The withdrawn lands, which have been under military control since the
1940s and 1950s, include six sites:  (1) Fort Greely Maneuver Area
and Air Drop Zone and (2) Fort Wainwright's Yukon Maneuver Area, both
in Alaska; (3) Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona; (4) Nellis Air
Force Range and (5) Bravo-20 Bombing Range, both in Nevada; and (6)
McGregor Range in New Mexico.  Military training at the sites
includes air activities, such as pilot training in air-to-air combat,
and bombing and ground activities, such as troop and vehicle
maneuvers.  Air activities occur above the sites and some contiguous
public and private lands while ground maneuvers and bombing occur
within site borders.  (Appendixes I to V further describe these
sites.)

The law defines how DOD and the Department of the Interior agencies
are to operate in managing the resources of lands controlled by the
military.\2

Military needs have priority over resource management.  DOD is
authorized to establish military uses on the lands without consulting
with Interior, and Interior's resource management activities require
DOD concurrence.  The law requires Interior to develop a resource
management plan after consultation with DOD.  It also requires both
Interior and DOD to enter into an agreement to implement the resource
management plans.  Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
primary resource management responsibilities at all six sites.\3
Another Interior agency, the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
manages two national wildlife refuges that have airspace under
military control (Goldwater Range in Arizona and the Nellis Range
complex in Nevada).\4


--------------------
\2 Resource management includes activities such as wildlife and
habitat protection, recreation and hunting programs, evaluation and
protection of historic and prehistoric properties, and granting of
grazing and mineral leases. 

\3 BLM manages the lands' resources pursuant to the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 and other applicable laws. 

\4 Withdrawn lands within a National Wildlife Refuge unit are to be
managed according to the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.  668dd et.  seq.). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The results of resource management at the six military training sites
have been mixed.  Military operations have not been hampered, but
military commanders at five of the sites said that they changed some
training activities to accommodate concerns for wildlife.  At one
site, however, officials expressed concern about meeting future
training needs because of the environmental constraints the Army must
meet. 

Although military operations have not been hampered, those operations
have constrained resource management activities, but lack of
information on resource conditions prevents an overall assessment of
the impacts.  Five of the six sites we visited had resource
management plans, but only about half of the planned actions had been
initiated as of November 1993.  Three sites had access restrictions
that made it difficult for BLM to carry out resource management
activities.  These restrictions and the overall military presence led
BLM to assign a low priority to resource management on military
lands.  At three sites, BLM allocated considerably less money to
manage lands used for military training than other lands BLM is
responsible for. 

All six sites have opportunities to improve resource management by
enhancing cooperation between BLM and the military or by
strengthening mechanisms to monitor the progress of planned resource
management actions.  Resource management at the Goldwater
Range--where well over half of the actions in the site's approved
resource management plan were either completed or under
development--is an example of effective cooperation between a BLM
office and the military.  BLM monitoring of planned actions at the
Nellis Range provided a record of accomplishments and areas requiring
further effort. 


   RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
   DID NOT CONSTRAIN MILITARY
   OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Officials at each site--including officials responsible for training,
operations, airspace, and environmental management--expressed no
concerns about the effects of resource management activities on
current military operations.  Military officials said that all
current training objectives were being met and training missions had
not been adversely affected by adjustments to accommodate resource
management. 

A primary reason why military operations were not constrained by
resource management activities is that the act allows the military to
restrict public access without the concurrence of the Department of
the Interior or local land-managing agencies.  Such restrictions are
based on a determination by the Secretary of the Army, Navy, or Air
Force that military operations, public safety, or national security
require restricted access. 

Although military operations have priority over resource management
activities, military officials in charge of training operations said
they had adjusted operations to enhance or protect resources at most
locations.  For example, some sites had established special flight
altitude restrictions to reduce wildlife and habitat disturbances. 
In addition, aircraft routes had been developed to avoid sensitive
areas, such as wildlife habitat.  At the Alaska sites, the number of
training flights had been reduced during prime moose calving and
hunting seasons.  At the Goldwater Range, where military airspace
overlies the Cabeza Prieta Refuge, Marine Corps pilots flew specific
low-level routes, but the refuge manager authorized them to fly at
low altitudes only during a twice-annual training course.  The refuge
manager said efforts to eliminate these flights altogether were
overruled by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Current military operations notwithstanding, officials at the
McGregor Range in New Mexico expressed concern about meeting future
training needs.  For example, McGregor officials were considering
expanding training in a grassland area of the McGregor Range, called
Otera Mesa, which contains sensitive habitat for plants and wildlife. 
However, the Army's assessment of the possible environmental impacts
from a 1993 training exercise involving wheeled vehicles on the mesa
received substantial negative public comment primarily because of the
lack of data on the cumulative environmental effects of military
operations. 


   MILITARY OPERATIONS HAVE
   CONSTRAINED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
   ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The military presence at the sites strongly affects BLM's strategy
for resource management.  BLM efforts in planning and implementing
projects to enhance protection and use of site resources for
non-military uses such as recreation, grazing, and mining were often
restricted by the military.  For example, BLM area managers said
that, among all lands they managed, the sites had a relatively low
funding priority because of BLM's lower expectations for resource
management in those areas.  The military programs coordinator at BLM
headquarters told us that because of the complications brought about
by the military presence, BLM has preferred that the military
services, rather than BLM, manage the sites' resources. 

Resource management was limited by access restrictions, which varied
in degree from site to site.  For example, the entire 41,000-acre
Bravo-20 Range was off limits to BLM staff due to hazardous
unexploded ordnance.  At the 3-million acre Nellis Range, BLM
officials cited several difficulties in visiting areas crucial to
management of a wild horse and burro program.  To enter the area
without an Air Force escort, managers were required to obtain DOD
security clearances.  Even with those clearances, their access
generally was limited to weekends and excluded certain site areas. 
Although access at other sites was less restrictive, BLM managers
were not permitted in target areas or in areas outside of target
zones during military operations.  Resource management activities
constrained by military operations included both the planning and
implementation of resource management actions. 


      DEVELOPING RESOURCE PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

BLM prepared the required resource plans for five of the six sites. 
The agency did not prepare a plan for the Bravo-20 Bombing Range
because military restrictions on access and the quantity of
unexploded ordnance on the site made resource management activities
inappropriate.  Goldwater, Nellis, and McGregor ranges have resource
plans in place with agreements between the military and BLM offices
on plan implementation.  The plans for the Fort Greely and Yukon
Maneuver Areas were in draft form as of November 1993. 

BLM's resource plans generally addressed between 8 and 16 resources
and included "decisions" for each resource to be accomplished over a
15-year period.  Decisions generally (1) stated a policy or described
a general goal that required no specific BLM action or (2) identified
specific actions to accomplish.  For example, the plan for the Nellis
Range named 16 resources, including visual resources (scenery) and
wild horses and burros.  BLM's plan for visual resources calls for no
specific management actions because visual resources are not
currently affected by other activities or operations.  In contrast,
the decisions for wild horses and burros set forth seven actions,
such as creating a wild horse inventory, developing water sources,
and conducting wild horse gathers. 


      IMPLEMENTING RESOURCE PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The resource plans for the 5 sites contained a total of 225
decisions.  Table 1 shows that 100 decisions (44 percent) did not
require further BLM action, while 125 (56 percent) did. 



                           Table 1
           
            Summary of BLM Resource Decisions and
              Required Actions at Five Military
                        Training Areas


                                           Started
                      No             Not   but not
                  action  Action  starte  complete  Complete
Military range  needed\a  needed       d         d         d
--------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Greely                18       7       5         1         1
Yukon                 13       5       4         1         0
Goldwater             23      36      14        11        11
Nellis                21      26      14         9         3
McGregor              25      51      25        12        14
============================================================
Total                100     125      62        34        29
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  BLM did not develop a resource management plan for the
Bravo-20 Bombing Range. 

\a Represents a policy decision or general goal requiring no BLM
action under the present conditions. 

Of the 125 decisions requiring further action, 63 had been started or
completed, and 62 had not--due to access restrictions and a lack of
available funding, according to BLM managers.  Examples of decisions
that BLM had deferred are wildlife surveys on the Alaska ranges,
development and implementation of habitat management plans on
portions of the McGregor Range, and taking inventory of water
resources on the Goldwater Range.  Implementation was underway for
decisions, such as updating a vegetation map for a portion of the
Goldwater Range, resolving issues regarding a historical cabin on an
Alaska range, and monitoring riparian areas on the Nellis Range
complex. 

Decisions involving completed actions included both continuations of
past practices and new actions.  For example: 

  On the McGregor Range, BLM continued past practices to monitor its
     grazing program. 

  On the Nellis Range, BLM designated a landmark as an Area of
     Critical Environmental Concern, providing additional protection
     from damage or use. 

  On the Alaska ranges, BLM established fire management areas and
     designated fire suppression sites. 

  On the Goldwater Range, BLM surveyed cultural sites and constructed
     fencing to protect ancient designs called petroglyphs on the
     desert floor.  Figure 1 is an aerial photograph showing vehicle
     damage to the petroglyphs that occurred before the fence was
     erected. 

   Figure 1:  Petroglyphs on the
   Goldwater Range Fenced to
   Prevent Further Vehicle Damage

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

BLM officials said the military presence on the sites affected BLM
decisions to fund resource projects.  They said that due to military
restrictions on site activities, BLM has been reluctant to devote
funding to the sites.  Although comparable data were not available at
all sites, we found that BLM spent a relatively small portion of its
funds on some military sites.\5 For example, the Alaska sites
accounted for almost 12 percent of the land managed by the
Steese/White Mountains District Office, but BLM allocated those sites
only about 1 percent of the fiscal year 1992 area budget, according
to estimates of the area manager.  At the McGregor Range, BLM
spending on withdrawn lands was proportional to its spending on other
federal lands.  McGregor Range represents about 23 percent of the
land managed by the Caballo Resource Area Office, and BLM allocated
it about 21 percent of the area office's funding in fiscal year 1992. 
The military also funded resource management activities on the sites,
in part to meet the requirements of environmental laws such as the
National Environmental Policy Act. 


--------------------
\5 BLM does not always account for resource management expenses on
the withdrawn lands separately from its other lands.  For example,
local BLM officials in Phoenix said they could not estimate their
fiscal year 1992 resource management expenses on the Goldwater Range. 


   IMPACT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
   ON RESOURCE CONDITIONS IS
   UNKNOWN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Military operations can affect the physical condition of the sites'
natural and cultural resources.  However, the limited data on the
effect of military operations fall short of baseline data required to
measure changes in resource conditions.  The largely anecdotal
information on resource conditions at the six sites indicates that
military operations benefited some resources, harmed others, and had
unknown effects in other cases. 

BLM and military officials said that certain resources benefited from
the military's presence.  For example, BLM officials said that
reduced public access on Goldwater Range and other restrictions on
off-road vehicles resulted in less vandalism and damage to sensitive
soils than would have occurred otherwise.  Figure 2 shows a typical
view of the Sonoran Desert on the Goldwater Range. 

   Figure 2:  View of Sonoran
   Desert on Goldwater Range

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In contrast, soils and vegetation were clearly adversely affected in
the sites' various bombing range impact areas that contain unexploded
ordnance and are generally not available for recreation or other
secondary uses.  The most extreme case was Bravo-20, considered so
hazardous due to unexploded Navy ordnance that virtually no resource
management has occurred.  Figure 3 shows a prominent rock outcrop on
Bravo-20 called Lone Rock, a primary bombing target. 

   Figure 3:  View of Lone Rock
   Bombing Target and Surrounding
   Terrain on Bravo-20

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The unknown impact of military operations pertains to certain
threatened or endangered wildlife species.  For example, the Sonoran
Pronghorn Antelope and the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat, both endangered
species, are present on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge,
which underlies the Goldwater Range's airspace.  Concern about the
effects of aircraft noise from overflights on these species' habitat
areas has prompted assessment studies by FWS and the Air Force, but
as of November 1993, the studies had not shown harm.\6

Figure 4, which shows the location of cultural artifact sightings,
such as pottery and tool fragments, in and around McGregor Range
illustrates the potential risks to cultural artifacts at that site. 
A Fort Bliss archaeologist said the large number of identified
cultural artifacts outside the site reflects extensive surveys in
those areas.  He said little survey work has occurred on McGregor
Range, but he expects the same density of cultural artifacts within
McGregor site boundaries. 

   Figure 4:  Map of McGregor
   Range and Surrounding Area
   Showing High Density of
   Cultural Artifact Sites in
   Areas Surveyed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\6 According to FWS, assessments of the effects of aircraft noise on
the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat and the Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope occurred
in order to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 


   OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING
   INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND
   AGENCY SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6


      INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The requirement of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act that DOD and
Interior agencies consult and agree on plans to manage resources
necessitates close cooperation between those agencies, a cooperation
that would be consistent with DOD goals articulated in May 1993 by
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security).\7
However, we found little evidence that top managers of military
services and Interior agencies had taken steps to ensure effective
cooperation in managing resources at the six sites. 

We found many instances of interagency difficulties in implementing
resource management plans.  Although the McGregor Range plan calls
for BLM to manage eight different resources such as wildlife,
vegetation, and cultural resources, the Chief of Fort Bliss'
Directorate of Environment said Fort Bliss officials viewed BLM's
role as limited to managing the cattle grazing program, assisting
with fire suppression if requested, and helping to administer
recreation activities.  The range planner at Fort Bliss said the Army
is reluctant to share authority with BLM because of concerns that
BLM's plans could restrict future military training activities at the
McGregor Range. 

FWS officials at Nellis Range said that the military was generally
uncooperative in resource management.  They said that the Air Force
constructed military roads, targets, and facilities on the refuge
without informing the Refuge Manager.  FWS officials also said that
Air Force bombing outside of approved areas--which had occurred three
times since 1979--damaged a rainwater catchment for bighorn sheep. 
In addition, they said that, without consulting with FWS managers,
the Air Force had stored on the refuge some tank targets contaminated
by depleted uranium.\8 Air Force officials at Nellis said they had no
record of coordinating with FWS regarding these matters and they were
uncertain whether or not coordination had occurred. 

We found very little interaction or cooperation between the military
and BLM at the Alaska sites.  For example, an Army Range Manager said
that he had a good working relationship with BLM, but this
relationship was based on only two telephone calls with BLM in 6
years.  BLM officials said they saw little reason to work closely
with the military since the ranges did not represent unique resource
values, considering the abundant resources in Alaska and low public
use at the sites. 

The most cooperative relationship between the military and BLM
occurred on the Eastern section of the Goldwater Air Force Range,
where BLM Lower Gila Resource Area and Air Force officials worked
together on several projects, sharing both funds and expertise.  BLM
conducted archaeological projects with Air Force financial support. 
BLM's archaeologist said that archaeological surveys on the range
outnumbered those off range because of the Air Force's financial
support.  Together, the Air Force and BLM also put up visitor
information signs on the state highway crossing the site and fences
along the range boundary to control livestock.  Air Force and BLM
managers used a videotape to publicly promote their "partnership in
the desert."

BLM and Air Force environmental managers said that their joint work
took more time than working independently.  Air Force officials said
that the public would be more likely to accept resource management
strategies on military ranges if agencies like BLM were involved. 


--------------------
\7 At hearings before the Subcommittee on Military Installations and
Facilities, House Committee on Armed Services, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) said that DOD wanted to
create environmental partnerships to help ensure responsible
environmental performance in defense operations. 

\8 For a discussion of issues associated with handling depleted
uranium during the Persian Gulf War, see Operation Desert Storm: 
Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium
Contamination (GAO/NSIAD-93-90, Jan.  29, 1993). 


      INDIVIDUAL AGENCY EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2


         EFFORTS TO DEVELOP
         INFORMATION ON RESOURCE
         CONDITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2.1

None of the sites we visited had comprehensive information about
resource conditions and the effects of military operations on those
conditions.  Although the National Environmental Policy Act requires
agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their major
operations, the site environmental impact statements and assessments
we reviewed discussed resource conditions in only general terms. 
Military officials at three sites (Nellis, Goldwater, and McGregor)
agreed that more information on resource conditions was needed.  At
most of the six sites, however, officials said that developing more
comprehensive information was either too costly or had not been a
priority. 

The Army has known of the importance of developing information on
resource conditions since before the Military Lands Withdrawal Act
was passed in 1986.  For example, the Army's environmental impact
statement prepared in 1977 for the eventual withdrawal of the
McGregor Range acknowledged the need to develop information on
resource conditions.  However, not until 1993 did officials at the
site begin planning for the development of baseline data on McGregor
Range.  In May 1993, Army officials met with several agencies to
reach agreement on what baseline data should be developed on McGregor
Range.  Their goal is to have essential data available for future
McGregor Range environmental impact statements.\9

Developing information on resource conditions is consistent with a
recent Interior initiative to inventory plant and wildlife species in
the United States.  The National Biological Survey will inventory
plants and animals to better understand the ecological health of all
ecosystems. 


--------------------
\9 The Military Lands Withdrawal Act requires that an environmental
impact statement be prepared by November 1998 if the secretary of the
military department concerned intends to seek renewal of the
withdrawal when it expires in 2001. 


         CONTROLS OVER
         IMPLEMENTING RESOURCE
         PLANS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2.2

Several BLM offices lacked formal mechanisms to monitor the progress
of planned resource management actions.  Although lack of formal
monitoring does not preclude BLM offices from making progress, such
monitoring can provide greater assurance of successful resource
management.  At the Goldwater, Greely, and Yukon sites, BLM staff had
no formal mechanism to monitor work.  Alaska site BLM officials said
that they are awaiting approval of the sites' resource management
plans before implementing a formal monitoring system at Greely and
Yukon.  At Goldwater, BLM officials said they did not see a current
need for an implementation schedule or tracking system. 

More formal controls existed at Nellis and McGregor sites, including
the use of priorities for implementing actions and preparing funding
requests and periodically summarizing resource management
accomplishments.  For example, the Nellis implementation schedule
allowed managers to track accomplishments and included, for many
actions, a measuring system defining units of accomplishment, such as
miles of fence built or number of wild horses removed.  These
approaches appeared to recognize accomplishments and areas requiring
greater effort. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To better achieve the objectives of the Military Lands Withdrawal
Act, DOD and Interior need to cooperate more fully to plan and
implement resource management projects at the sites.  To develop a
more cooperative relationship and strengthen DOD's resource
management, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to

  improve liaison activities with Interior agencies to ensure that
     local BLM and FWS officials have reasonable access to withdrawn
     lands and military managers and

  develop improved baseline data to assess the cumulative effects of
     current and proposed military operations on range natural
     resource conditions. 

To strengthen Interior's management under the act, we recommend the
Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of BLM to improve
internal controls over military range programs by

  establishing schedules and milestones for implementing actions
     called for in resource management plans and

  more closely monitoring implementation milestones and actions
     accomplished. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

DOD fully agreed with our report and recommendations.  DOD plans to
improve BLM and FWS access to the sites and to maintain open
communication with BLM and FWS officials to ensure that natural
resource management requirements are carried out.  DOD also will
develop baseline data by 1998 that could be used to assess the
cumulative effects of military operations at the sites. 

Interior generally agreed with our report and recommendations. 
Interior added clarifying comments concerning cooperative efforts
with DOD, baseline data, and BLM funding priorities at military
sites.  In addition, Interior said that BLM will issue improved
guidance concerning the implementation and monitoring of resource
management plans. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

The scope and methodology for our review are discussed in appendix
VIII.  Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no
further distribution of the report until 30 days after its issue
date.  At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force, and the Interior, and the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget.  We also will make copies available to others upon
request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staffs have any
questions concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IX. 

Donna Heivilin, Director
Defense Management and NASA Issues


FORT GREELY MANEUVER AREA AND
YUKON MANEUVER AREA, ALASKA
=========================================================== Appendix I


   BACKGROUND
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The Fort Greely Maneuver Area and Air Drop Zone and the Fort
Wainwright Yukon Maneuver Area are separate sites located near
Fairbanks in interior Alaska (see fig.  I.1).  Together, the two
comprise about 872,000 acres.  The two sites were withdrawn from
public use for military purposes in 1961. 

   Figure I.1:  Location of Greely
   and Yukon Range Land Areas,
   Alaska

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The areas are characterized by low hills in the Yukon site and by
lake dotted, rolling country and rugged mountainous terrain in the
Fort Greely site (see fig.  I.2). 

   Figure I.2:  The Range at Yukon
   Maneuver Area

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The two sites, and the military airspace above them, are administered
principally by the Army through three Alaska installations--Forts
Wainwright, Greely, and Richardson.  However, both sites are used by
two military branches--the Army and the Air Force.  Army training
officials said they primarily use the ranges for light infantry
operations\1 and for glacier and mountaineering training.  The Army
also tests the effect of cold weather on military equipment (winter
temperatures drop as low as -63 degrees Fahrenheit.) The Air Force
uses the sites for such training as air-to-ground bombing and
strafing exercises in designated target areas.  In addition to using
the areas for their separate activities, the Army and the Air Force
also use the sites for joint combat training. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials of the Steese/White
Mountains District Office in Fairbanks said they direct BLM
activities within the sites, with planning assistance provided by
BLM's Alaska State Office in Anchorage.  Except for locations
specifically designated for bombing and strafing, they said the sites
are generally open to the public for recreational and subsistence
fishing and hunting. 


--------------------
\1 According to Army officials, "light" designates that operations
are conducted primarily by infantry troops and vehicles, without the
use of tanks, tracked vehicles, and other heavy equipment. 


   STATUS OF ACTIONS UNDER THE
   MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

As of November 1993, neither site had a resource management plan that
had been signed by BLM and the Army.  According to BLM's planning
team leader in Alaska, BLM's resource management plans had been
completed but not formally adopted. 

Although the plans were not adopted, officials said all parties had
been proceeding as if the plans were in place.  The plan for Fort
Wainwright's Yukon Maneuver Area contains 18 management decisions in
12 resource categories, including fish and wildlife, cultural
resources, minerals, and fire management (see table I.1).  More than
two-thirds of the decisions were statements of policy.  Statements of
policy require no additional actions to be implemented by BLM in
their management of the site.  The plan called for specific actions
in five areas--access, fire management, forestry, cultural resources,
and fish and wildlife.  Actions were not completed in any of the five
areas. 



                          Table I.1
           
            Status of Decisions in Yukon Maneuver
             Area Resource Management Plan as of
                       November 1, 1993


                                           Started
                      No             Not   but not
                  action  Action  starte  complete  Complete
Resource        needed\a  needed       d         d         d
--------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Lands                  1       0       0         0         0
Minerals               2       0       0         0         0
Vegetation             1       0       0         0         0
Fish and               0       1       1         0         0
 wildlife
Recreation             2       0       0         0         0
Cultural               1       1       1         0         0
 resources
Visual                 1       0       0         0         0
 resources
Forestry               0       1       1         0         0
Trespass               1       0       0         0         0
Rights of way          1       0       0         0         0
Access                 3       1       1         0         0
Fire                   0       1       0         1         0
 management
============================================================
Total                 13       5       4         1         0
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Represents a policy decision or general goal requiring no BLM
action under the present conditions. 

The draft plan for the Fort Greely Area covered the same resource
categories (see table I.2).  It calls for a total of seven actions to
be taken.  One of the seven actions (a fire management plan) had been
completed, and another (resolution of issues regarding an historical
cabin) was under way.  The remaining five actions, including
monitoring of caribou calving and development of a wildlife habitat
management plan, had not been started. 



                          Table I.2
           
            Status of Decisions in Greely Maneuver
             Area Resource Management Plan as of
                       November 1, 1993


                                           Started
                      No             Not   but not
                  action  Action  starte  complete  Complete
Resource        needed\a  needed       d         d         d
--------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Lands                  1       0       0         0         0
Minerals               2       0       0         0         0
Vegetation             1       0       0         0         0
Fish and               0       2       2         0         0
 wildlife
Recreation             2       1       1         0         0
Cultural               0       2       1         1         0
 resources
Visual                 1       0       0         0         0
 resources
Forestry               0       1       1         0         0
Trespass               1       0       0         0         0
Rights of way          1       0       0         0         0
Access                 9       0       0         0         0
Fire                   0       1       0         0         1
 management
============================================================
Total                 18       7       5         1         1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Represents a policy decision or general goal requiring no BLM
action under the present conditions. 

The BLM planning team leader said that while ongoing BLM and Army
management of the lands will reflect the policy decisions made in the
plans, there is little likelihood that all of the actions will be
completed soon because BLM does not give the military withdrawals a
high funding priority.  For example, in fiscal year 1992, BLM
allocated less than 1 percent of the district's staff years and less
than 1 percent of district funding to the withdrawn lands, which
account for almost 12 percent of the land the district manages. 
District officials said that actions in the plans were of low
priority because (1) the sites had low levels of non-military use and
(2) their resources were not unique in Alaska. 

The Steese/White Mountains District Office did not have a formal
system to track annual implementation of the resource management
plans, according to BLM officials.  They said they are awaiting
approval of the resource management plans before tracking
implementation. 

The Army also conducts resource management activities on the two
Alaska sites.  Officials at Fort Greely and Fort Wainwright said most
of these efforts are related to environmental cleanup. 


   EFFECT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
   ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Overall, resource management had not affected military operations on
the two sites, according to military officials.  They said they had
adjusted their operations to accommodate some resource concerns--for
example, reducing operations during moose calving seasons and
canceling operations during annual moose hunts.  However, military
officials including training directors and range operations officials
said resource management activities had not constrained military
operations or prevented the achievement of training objectives. 


   EFFECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
   ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

The overall effect of military operations on the sites' resources is
unknown, because of a lack of available data.  BLM officials said
they believed that military operations had no significant effects on
natural resources or resource management, and none of the BLM
officials we interviewed expressed concerns about resource conditions
at the sites.  However, neither the BLM nor the Army had formlly
assessed resource conditions or the effect of military activities on
resources. 

BLM's district manager said that for all practical purposes, resource
management at the sites was Army-managed, since so little BLM staff
time and funds were allocated to the sites.  BLM district managers
said that they would favor transferring resource management at the
sites to military control if BLM's staffing and funding levels are
not increased to more adequately address the resource issues on the
lands.  The Chief of the Training Division for the U.S.  Army
Garrison, Alaska, said that the management arrangement with BLM today
was no different from the arrangement before 1986, when BLM
involvement was required by the act. 


BARRY M.  GOLDWATER AIR FORCE
RANGE, ARIZONA
========================================================== Appendix II


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

The Barry M.  Goldwater Air Force Range, the second-largest
land-based military range in the U.S., occupies about 2.7 million
acres of Sonoran desert in the southwestern corner of Arizona (see
fig.  II.1).  Since 1941, this training facility has been used for
air-to-air combat practice and bombing mock airfields and other
targets.  Approximately one-third of the range lies within the Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in 1939 to
protect the Desert Bighorn Sheep.  The Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument area adjoins the southeast corner of the site. 

   Figure II.1:  Location of
   Goldwater Air Force Range Land
   Area, Arizona

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The range is divided into three distinct administrative sections
--Eastern, Western, and the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge--with military administration divided between the Air Force
and the Marine Corps.  The Air Force is the overall military
administrator of the site through Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, and
schedules military use and controls public access in the site's
Eastern section.  According to the Air Force, in 1992, the Eastern
section hosted about 45,000 sorties (takeoffs and landings) and was
utilized about 75 percent of the time.  The Marine Corps controls
public access in the Western section.  According to the Marine Corps,
the section hosted over 11,000 sorties and was in use 352 days in
1992. 

The range is characterized by rugged mountain ranges and broad
valleys (see fig.  II.2).  Natural resource management is divided
between BLM, which manages the Eastern and Western sections, and the
U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which manages the wildlife
refuge.  BLM manages the Eastern section from its Phoenix district
office and the Western section through its Yuma district office.  FWS
management of the refuge is carried out by a manager and staff in
Ajo, Arizona. 

   Figure II.2:  The Goldwater Air
   Force Range

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   STATUS OF ACTIONS UNDER THE
   MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

BLM issued a resource management plan for the Goldwater Range in
1989.\1 BLM's plan was based on a 1986 plan developed by the
University of Arizona under a contract with the Air Force.  A BLM
official said the plan was modified to reflect BLM's regulations,
address specific land use management requirements mandated by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Public Law 99-606,
and generate specific management actions for resources assigned to
BLM's jurisdiction.  BLM's plan describes specific management steps
for 12 resource categories, including water, soils, wildlife,
cultural resources, and recreation (see table II.1).  The plan calls
for 36 specific actions, such as managing desert tortoise habitat,
monitoring water table levels, and developing visitor use maps. 



                          Table II.1
           
            Status of Decisions in Goldwater Range
           Resource Management Plan as of November
                           1, 1993


                                           Started
                      No             Not   but not
                  action  Action  starte  complete  Complete
Resource        needed\a  needed       d         d         d
--------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Land uses              4       1       0         0         1
Soils                  1       2       1         0         1
Water                  2       3       2         1         0
Botanical              1       2       0         2         0
 resources
 (vegetation)
Wildlife               1       5       0         3         2
Recreation             7       7       5         2         0
Cultural               0       2       0         0         2
 resources
Visual                 2       1       0         0         1
 resources
Roads and              4       3       1         1         1
 vehicle use
Areas of               0       7       2         2         3
 critical
 environmental
 concern/
 other
Wild horses            0       3       3         0         0
 and burros
Fire                   1       0       0         0         0
 management
============================================================
Total                 23      36      14        11        11
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Represents a policy decision or general goal requiring no BLM
action under present conditions. 

Of the 36 actions called for in the resource plan, BLM had completed
11 and started an additional 11.  For example, BLM had completed
actions to create a cultural resources plan, assess cultural resource
sites, and designate the Tinajas Altas Mountains and the Mohawk
Mountains and Sand Dunes as areas of critical environmental concern. 
BLM had started but not completed efforts to inventory endangered
plants and update a vegetation map of the site. 

Some of the actions involved activities conducted jointly by BLM and
the military services.  For example, the Air Force helped fund
archaeological projects, allowing BLM to complete more archeological
surveys within the range than on similar BLM land off site, according
to a BLM archaeologist.  The Air Force and BLM also developed
interagency agreements for joint construction of visitor information
signs on the state highway crossing the site and for fencing that
prevents trespassing livestock from entering prescribed areas of the
range.  These joint efforts are promoted as a "partnership in the
desert" by BLM and Air Force officials in a videotape shown to site
visitors.  BLM officials told us they had also undertaken some joint
management efforts with the Marine Corps, including fencing ancient
Native American petroglyphs to protect these cultural resources from
damage by wheeled military vehicles, placing public information signs
at site entrances, creating visitor access permit procedures, and
conducting joint surveys of bighorn sheep and water holes.  BLM had
not started 14 actions called for in the plan.  These include, for
example, creating an inventory of water resources, inventorying the
burro population, and preparing a burro capture-and-removal plan. 

In addition to providing assistance with items in BLM's plan, the Air
Force and the Marine Corps conduct additional natural
resource-related work through military environmental management
programs at Luke Air Force Base and Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma. 
Actions undertaken by the military include a study of plant life. 

Neither the Phoenix nor Yuma BLM offices had a formal system to track
annual implementation of the resource management plan, according to
BLM officials.  Officials at Phoenix and Yuma said they saw no need
for such a system, since there is a BLM review of management plans
every 5 years. 


--------------------
\1 The Military Lands Withdrawal Act requires Interior to develop and
implement resource management plans.  At Goldwater Range, BLM
developed the plan for the withdrawn lands.  The FWS manages Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge lands, which were not withdrawn by
Public Law 99-606, under an overall refuge management plan. 


   EFFECT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
   ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Overall, resource management had little effect on military operations
at the range.  Air Force officials said they knew of no significant
effect, and they had been able to accomplish training objectives
within constraints of environmental programs.  Similarly, a Marine
Corps range official said that resource management programs had not
caused any significant delays or mission cancellations.  He said the
Marine Corps had also made some adjustments to accommodate natural
resource requirements, such as not flying below a certain minimum
altitude over the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, or not flying along
specific routes, but these adjustments had not precluded meeting
training requirements successfully. 

BLM and Air Force officials said that their joint management of
natural resources was more time-consuming than single-agency
management.  While the Air Force funds most of the natural and
cultural resources projects on the range, Air Force officials said
that joint management benefited the military because the public was
more likely to accept range management strategies with the
involvement of agencies like BLM and FWS.  According to the manager
of BLM's Lower Gila Resource Area, joint management has significantly
changed the way the military has done business.  Under the joint
management arrangement, he said, military actions on the Goldwater
Range are conducted in a more open public forum and are therefore
subject to agency and public oversight. 


   EFFECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
   ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

The effect of military operations on resource management is unclear,
primarily because of limited data.  Neither Air Force nor BLM
officials had comprehensive information on the condition of site
resources or the effects of military operations on those resources. 
A primary concern about negative effects of military operations
centered on the issue of aircraft noise.  However, military officials
at both Luke Air Force Base and the Noise and Sonic Boom Impact
Technology Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base said that
without baseline data on animal populations, no conclusions could be
drawn about the long-term effects of aircraft noise.  Officials
indicated that the Air Force, BLM, and contractors are still
assessing the effects on wildlife of noise from military operations. 

The manager of the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge said that although
he did not have conclusive data, he believed aircraft overflight was
a "harmful" use of the refuge due to wildlife disturbance and
displacement.  During 1993, under the terms of an agreement between
the Marine Corps and the refuge that certain refuge uses would
require the manager's approval, the manager said he decided not to
allow Marine Corps use of low-level refuge airspace during a military
training exercise.  However, he said he was overruled by the
Secretary of the Interior.  The refuge manager said another concern
was that jets sometimes flew below the established minimum altitudes
over the refuge.  Air Force officials said their radar system could
track aircraft altitude in airspace over the refuge if needed, but
that they had received very few complaints from the refuge and there
are gaps in radar coverage. 

On the other hand, BLM officials and the refuge manager said that
military use of the Goldwater Range may have benefited some natural
resources, in that restricted public access may have reduced
detrimental public-use effects.  For example, BLM officials said the
reduction of off-road vehicle use had resulted in less disturbance of
soils and vegetation than would have occurred without military
restrictions. 

While the effect of military operations on natural resources was
unclear, military operations had not adversely affected resource
management routines.  BLM and FWS officials said that although their
work on the site is restricted to breaks in military operations, this
had not prevented them from accomplishing needed activities.  For
example, BLM officials told us that most of the site is not used for
active targeting by the military, and as a result, is largely open
for resource managers' use.  In addition, BLM officials said that
joint military/BLM resource management--including sharing expertise
and funding--enabled BLM to make good progress implementing resource
plan activities.  BLM officials said that under this joint
arrangement, BLM primarily provided staff and the Air Force or Marine
Corps provided the funding.  However, neither the Phoenix or Yuma
District offices could provide data to compare expenditures for
resource management on the Goldwater Range site with expenditures for
non-military areas. 


NELLIS AIR FORCE RANGE, NEVADA
========================================================= Appendix III


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

The Nellis Air Force Range, established in 1940, is the largest
land-based military range in the United States, occupying about 3
million acres of high Nevada desert near Las Vegas, Nevada (see fig. 
III.1).  Over one-fourth of the site lies within the Desert National
Wildlife Refuge, established in 1936 to protect the Desert Bighorn
Sheep.  Air and ground-based military activities, including pilot
training, combat exercises involving units from several countries,
and various test and evaluation activities, occur on both the refuge
and on the remaining three-fourths of the site.  In fiscal year 1989,
approximately 60,000 takeoffs and landings occurred on the Nellis Air
Force Range.  The site is bordered by other federal lands, including
the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain site, which is for
potential storage of high-level nuclear waste, and the Energy
Department's Nevada Test Site, which is used for nuclear program
testing and development. 

   Figure III.1:  Location of
   Nellis Air Force Range Land
   Area, Nevada

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The site's terrain is characterized by mesas, lake basins, and
rugged, isolated mountain ranges (see fig.  III.2). 

   Figure III.2:  The Nellis Air
   Force Range

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Air Force, the overall administrator for the range, schedules Air
Force use and controls public access to the site.  In addition to the
Air Force, the Sandia National Laboratory uses portions of the site
to test and develop weapons, and Energy Department's Yucca Mountain
site and Nevada Test Site use portions of the site in conjunction
with their activities. 

Natural resource management activity is divided between BLM and FWS,
with BLM managing natural resources on all lands other than the
Desert National Wildlife Refuge and FWS managing natural resources on
the refuge.  BLM's management is done through its Las Vegas District
and Caliente Resource Area Offices; FWS' through a refuge manager and
staff in Corn Creek, Nevada, and a project leader in Las Vegas. 


   STATUS OF ACTIONS UNDER THE
   MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

In February 1992, BLM issued a resource plan describing specific
decisions for 16 resource categories, such as management of wildlife
habitat, areas of critical environmental concern, and wild horses
(see table III.1).\1 At the time of our review, BLM and the Air Force
had agreed formally on their respective roles in implementing the
plan.  BLM had also developed an implementation schedule for the
actions with a mechanism enabling managers to track accomplishments
and, for many actions, a measuring system defining "units of
accomplishment."



                         Table III.1
           
             Status of Decisions in Nellis Range
           Resource Management Plan as of November
                           1, 1993


                                           Started
                      No             Not   but not
                  action  Action  starte  complete  Complete
Resource        needed\a  needed       d         d         d
--------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Lands                  4       0       0         0         0
Minerals               0       1       0         0         1
Vegetation             0       5       3         2         0
Wildlife               0       8       4         4         0
Recreation             1       0       0         0         0
Cultural               3       0       0         0         0
 resources
Visual                 3       0       0         0         0
 resources
Forestry               1       0       0         0         0
Access                 1       0       0         0         0
Wild horse and         0       8       4         3         1
 burro
Areas of               1       1       0         0         1
 critical
 environmental
 concern
Natural area           1       0       0         0         0
Livestock              1       3       3         0         0
 grazing
Soil, water,           3       0       0         0         0
 air
Wilderness             1       0       0         0         0
Fire                   1       0       0         0         0
 management
============================================================
Total                 21      26      14         9         3
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Represents a policy decision or general goal requiring no specific
BLM actions under the present conditions. 

BLM's plan calls for 26 specific actions, such as constructing
fencing, removing burros, and developing water sources for wild
horses.  As of November 1993, BLM had completed its work on three of
these actions.  It had removed over 1,400 wild horses and had
designated a portion of the Timber Mountain Caldera National Monument
as an area of critical environmental concern, which BLM's Resource
Area Manager said provided the monument additional protection from
damage or misuse.  BLM had started work on nine other actions,
including preliminary surveys and monitoring of riparian areas,
initiating project proposals and designs for water sources, and
designing grazing-related water development, pipelines, and corrals
for livestock management of the Bald Mountain allotment.  BLM had not
started the remaining 14 actions, which include conducting an
inventory of wildlife habitat and monitoring livestock grazing use
levels for the Bald Mountain allotment. 

In addition to BLM's resource management on the site, Nellis Air
Force Base conducts its own natural resource-related activities
through its environmental management unit.  The unit spent over $1
million for range environmental management activities in fiscal year
1992, including wildlife studies, remediation of prior range
contamination, and compliance with environmental laws. 


--------------------
\1 The Military Lands Withdrawal Act requires Interior to develop and
implement resource management plans.  At the Nellis Range complex,
BLM developed the plan for the withdrawn lands.  The FWS manages
Desert National Wildlife Refuge lands, which were not withdrawn under
Public Law 99-606, under an overall refuge management plan. 


   EFFECT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
   ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Overall, the level of resource management occurring to date had no
substantive effect on military operations on the site, according to
Air Force officials.  They said no resource management activities,
including those conducted by BLM or FWS had caused significant delays
or mission cancellations. 

However, the Air Force had adjusted some of its operations to
accommodate resource protection.  Air Force officials said they
established training air routes and altitude restrictions partly to
avoid sensitive resource areas and located target areas away from
sensitive areas, primarily placing targets on the desert floor in dry
lake basins. 


   EFFECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
   ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

Available data indicate that military operations are having some
negative effects on resources, but the data are too limited to draw
overall conclusions, according to Air Force officials.  The
information on negative effects is contained in the Special Nevada
Report, a contractor-prepared document assessing military land use in
Nevada for the Air Force, Navy, and Interior Departments.  The
report, which is a compilation of existing literature, concludes that
while military activities on the site could affect the survival of
species such as the threatened Desert Tortoise, the overall effects
of military operations on natural resources cannot be determined
based on available information.  The report also cites negative
effects on cultural resources caused by heavy ordnance contamination,
training activities, and construction of roads and military
facilities. 

BLM officials said they had conducted very few resource management
activities on the range.  They said that although the management
actions are to be implemented over a 20-year period, progress even on
this timetable has been slow.  BLM managers cited limited funding and
access restrictions as two reasons for the slow progress. 

  BLM's manager of the Caliente Resource Area said the lands within
     the range generally have a lower funding priority than other
     lands the area office manages.  This is the case, he said,
     because the military presence leaves the land largely
     inaccessible and, in some locations, contaminated with
     unexploded bombs and other military equipment.  As a result, the
     public-use options are limited, and BLM's expectations for the
     future use and management of the lands are lower than its
     expectations for using land outside the military withdrawal. 
     Available cost data support this statement, in that BLM lands
     within the site account for about 41 percent of the lands
     managed by the Area office but received only about 28 percent of
     the Area office's expenditures ($159,296 out of $574,356 in
     fiscal year 1992).  BLM's Nevada State office provided most of
     that funding ($148,666) specifically allocated for wild horse
     gathering. 

  BLM officials told us it is more difficult to visit the BLM-managed
     lands on the range than similar BLM lands not under Air Force
     control.  For example, BLM employees must obtain the Department
     of Defense (DOD) security clearances to enter range areas
     crucial to BLM's management of its horse and burro program
     without an Air Force escort.  Even with proper clearances, BLM
     officials said they were generally restricted to weekend access
     on some portions of the range.  They had no access to other
     range areas, even on weekends and holidays. 

The FWS refuge officials cited the same limitations of funding and
access and also provided us with a list of incidents and general
conduct of the Air Force and Energy that they believed impeded
resource management and, in some cases, violated the terms of their
working agreement.  These incidents included the following: 

  The Air Force constructed and relocated military roads, targets,
     and facilities on the refuge without coordinating with the
     refuge manager or obtaining FWS approval, as required by their
     agreement. 

  The Air Force conducted air-to-ground bombing outside of approved
     areas.  On three occasions since 1979, this bombing in
     unapproved areas involved a catchment for drinking water for
     sheep. 

  The Air Force left tank targets on the refuge that were
     contaminated by depleted uranium shells.  Although the Nuclear
     Regulatory Commission issued the Air Force a permit for the use
     of depleted uranium, according to FWS, it was never consulted
     about storing the contaminated tank targets on the refuge. 

  Energy's use of some portions of the refuge resulted in FWS
     personnel being denied access to some refuge areas, including a
     23,680-acre Research Natural Area.  This area is legally
     protected from all disturbances.  Because of the access
     restrictions, refuge staff were not able to monitor the area or
     ensure that it remains undisturbed. 


BRAVO-20 BOMBING RANGE, NEVADA
========================================================== Appendix IV


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

The Bravo-20 Bombing Range comprises about 41,000 acres in western
Nevada about 80 miles northeast of Reno (see fig.  IV.1).  It is used
for a variety of bombing and gunnery training.  The range lies within
the 3-million acre Lahontan Resource Area and about 7 miles north of
the 200,000-acre Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, which includes
the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge and the wetland areas around
it. 

   Figure IV.1:  Location of
   Bravo-20 Bombing Range Land
   Area, Nevada

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The site is primarily a dry lake bed with sandy, alkali soil and
little vegetation (see fig.  IV.2).  About half of the land is
withdrawn public land, and the remaining half, previously leased, was
obtained by the Navy in 1982 through condemnation procedures. 

   Figure IV.2:  The Bravo-20
   Bombing Range

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Navy administers the range through Naval Air Station (NAS)
Fallon, located near Fallon, Nevada, which also administers other
ranges in the area.  The Navy uses Bravo-20 for live ordnance and
gunnery training, laser target practice, and to jettison unsafe
ordnance.  The Navy conducts about 650 training flights per month on
the range. 

According to BLM's Lahontan Resource Area manager, BLM is responsible
for resource management on the range as well as other lands it
manages within the Lahontan Resource Area.  He manages the area from
the Carson City District Office.  FWS manages the Stillwater Wildlife
Refuge through a refuge manager and staff in Fallon. 


   STATUS OF ACTIONS UNDER THE
   MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

BLM has not developed a resource management plan for the range.  On
May 27, 1988, the director of BLM's Nevada office issued a decision
that a resource management plan was unnecessary because the range is
used for live ordnance practice, is closed to the public, and is
therefore not available for the resource management purposes
identified in the Military Lands Withdrawal Act.  Also cited in this
decision was the amount of unexploded ordnance on the range.  A 1980
Environmental Assessment Report on Bravo-20 stated that 60-75
unexploded bombs may have escaped detection each year since 1950. 
Many of these unexploded bombs lie below the surface.  BLM managers
told us they also consider the range too dangerous for BLM employees
or the public to enter. 

Because no resource plan exists, officials at NAS Fallon have not
developed agreements with BLM that address how to conduct resource
management on the range.  However, they have eight agreements in
place with BLM, FWS, and other organizations to address issues such
as overflight of public lands by training aircraft and procedures for
removing ordnance dropped outside Navy ranges. 

NAS Fallon has its own natural resource management plan for the areas
it manages.  However, the natural resource director at NAS Fallon
said that resource management activities will not be conducted on
Bravo-20.  The 1991 plan took into account NAS Fallon and all four of
NAS Fallon's ranges.  The plan contains 72 proposed actions in 4
resource areas--land management, including cultural and historical,
fish and wildlife, urban forestry and outdoor recreation.  According
to NAS Fallon's natural resource director, none of the proposed
actions are to be implemented on Bravo-20.  However, he said the Navy
does conduct environmental evaluations of proposed activities on
Bravo-20 in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
except within the high impact area. 

Although the Navy has excluded Bravo-20 from natural resources
actions, it is planning for cultural resource surveys on portions of
the range.  The Navy and FWS are collaborating to develop a model
that would allow them to predict where cultural resources may be
found throughout all of NAS Fallon's ranges.  The natural resource
director at NAS Fallon said that as part of this model, the Navy will
survey 5 percent of the lands within Bravo-20 in 1994, excluding the
high impact areas. 


   EFFECT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
   ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Military operations on Bravo-20 have not been affected by resource
management activities, because BLM and the Navy are not managing
resources on Bravo-20.  In addition, according to the NAS Fallon
assistant range manager and range operations planning officer,
current training programs have not been modified or affected due to
any resource management concerns. 


   EFFECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
   ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4

As can already be seen from the explanation above, military
operations have a significant effect on the extent to which resource
management can occur on the site.  The type of training and the
existence of unexploded ordnance have caused both BLM and the Navy to
conclude that resource management activities are too dangerous to
conduct on the site. 

Aircraft flying to Bravo-20 from NAS Fallon also affect resource
management on nearby FWS areas.  In a 1990 report to the Director on
the effects of secondary uses on its refuges, FWS officials listed
military air exercises as "harmful" at the Stillwater refuge because
the exercises created major wildlife disturbances from noise as well
as air and fuel pollution.  The manager of the Stillwater Wildlife
Management Area said that in the past Navy planes had dumped fuel
within refuge boundaries.  However, he said that fuel dumping has not
been a problem since he met with NAS Fallon and Nevada officials in
the late 1980s.  He also said the Navy has been responsive to
limiting low overflights over the refuge. 


MCGREGOR RANGE, NEW MEXICO
=========================================================== Appendix V


   BACKGROUND
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

The McGregor Range is located in south-central New Mexico, northeast
of El Paso, Texas (see fig.  V.1).  Originally withdrawn from public
domain in 1957 for Army use as an artillery and missile firing range,
the range is now a site where U.S.  and Allied personnel train in the
use of air defense weapon systems, including missiles and
conventional air defense weapons.  The range is also used for
gunnery, bombing, and tactical training for helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft and for troop and vehicle ground maneuvers.  Its
southwest corner is a maneuver area used by tanks and other vehicles. 

   Figure V.1:  Location of
   McGregor Range Land Area, New
   Mexico

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The range includes about 700,000 acres that vary from flat valley
floor to foothills and from rolling grasslands to steep mountainous
terrain.  Most of the acreage is withdrawn public land, but about
72,000 acres is Army fee-owned land and about 18,000 acres is U.S. 
Forest Service land.  The range contains a rich assortment of
wildlife and other natural and cultural resources, including mule
deer and antelope herds, a large area of rare black grama grass, and
prehistoric cultural sites.  The Otera Mesa area of the range, in
particular, has been identified by environmental groups as a location
with potentially sensitive habitat areas for plants and wildlife (see
fig V.2). 

   Figure V.2:  The Otera Mesa on
   the McGregor Range

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Army administers military operations on the McGregor Range
through Fort Bliss, Texas.  Personnel at the Fort Bliss coordinate
training operations and control access to the range. 

BLM is the land management agency with responsibility for withdrawn
public lands on the McGregor Range.  It carries out its work on the
McGregor Range through the Caballo Resource Area of the Las Cruces
District Office.  BLM also manages lands adjacent to the McGregor
Range, as does the U.S.  Forest Service. 


   STATUS OF ACTIONS UNDER THE
   MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

BLM issued a resource management plan for McGregor Range in September
1990.  The plan, designed to cover a 15-year period, included 51
specific action items for 8 categories of resources, including
wildlife, livestock grazing, recreation, and cultural resources (see
table V.1).  BLM's state director and the Fort Bliss chief of staff
also signed an agreement setting out the policies, procedures, and
responsibilities for implementing the resource management plan.  The
plan includes an implementation and monitoring strategy in which BLM
staff are to annually identify funding priorities, document completed
activities, and prepare a report summarizing results. 



                          Table V.1
           
             Status of Decisions in the McGregor
             Range Resource Management Plan as of
                       November 1, 1993


                                           Started
                      No             Not   but not
                  action  Action  starte  complete  Complete
Resource        needed\a  needed       d         d         d
--------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Lands, realty,         0       2       0         0         2
 access
Minerals               9       4       0         0         4
Soil, water,           0       8       5         2         1
 air
Vegetation             0       5       2         2         1
Livestock             11       6       1         3         2
 grazing
Wildlife               2      19      13         5         1
Recreation             2       3       1         0         2
Cultural               1       4       3         0         1
 resources
============================================================
Total                 25      51      25        12        14
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Represents a policy decision or general goal requiring no specific
BLM actions under the present conditions. 

Of the 51 specific actions called for in the plan, BLM had
implemented 14 as of November 1993.  For example, with regard to
minerals, BLM completed steps that would open a portion of the range
for mineral and geothermal leases.  The Caballo Area manager said BLM
offered leases adjacent to McGregor Range to test the level of
interest, but because they did not find interested bidders, they have
no current plans to offer the McGregor leases.  In addition, the Fort
Bliss range planner said the Army is concerned that oil and gas
exploration would be in conflict with training activities.  For the
grazing program, which BLM administers on portions of the range, BLM
conducted annual monitoring studies of the condition of the
vegetation to help ensure that overgrazing does not occur. 

For the other resource categories included in the plan, BLM's actions
have been more limited.  For example, although BLM's plan calls for
substantial activity to inventory and monitor wildlife and to develop
and implement habitat management plans, less progress has been made
in this area.  The manager of BLM's Caballo Resource Area said that
his office was beginning to prepare plans, starting with the
foothills area of the range, that would tie together the management
of several resources, including soil, water, habitat, and vegetation. 
He said that this planning approach will allow BLM to look at present
and future range uses and make better management decisions about the
entire ecosystem.  He added that implementing the resource management
plan is usually based on more current resource assessments, and some
decisions may not be implemented exactly as described in the plan. 

Army staff at Fort Bliss are also involved in resource management
activities.  For example, the Army has completed a master plan for
the range and, according to the range planner, is developing natural
resource and cultural resource management plans for Fort Bliss, both
of which are expected to include the range.  The range planner at
Fort Bliss said these plans are being done to ensure compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act and in preparation for the
draft environmental impact statement, required by November 1998 for
continued withdrawal of the range beyond the period specified in the
1986 act. 


   EFFECT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
   ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

Overall, resource management has not adversely affected military
activities on McGregor Range.  Discussions with scheduling officials,
the range planner, staff responsible for natural and cultural
resource issues at Fort Bliss, Army officials who conduct training on
the range, and BLM's area manager indicated that training objectives
are accomplished.  None suggested that a training objective was not
met due to resource management constraints. 

Several officials expressed concerns, however, about meeting future
training needs because of the environmental constraints the Army must
meet.  For example, Fort Bliss officials are considering expanding
training activities on the Otera Mesa area of the range.  According
to the range planner, the Commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment asked Fort Bliss to develop this area for tank maneuvers to
provide more realistic long-range tank engagement scenarios. 
Although Fort Bliss' current strategy is not to allow tracked
vehicles on the mesa, it is considering the area for increased truck
and troop maneuvers.  However, there has been strong public concern
about protecting Otera Mesa.  For example, the Army's assessment of
the possible environmental impacts from a 1993 training exercise
involving Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine personnel received
substantial negative public comment primarily because of the lack of
data on the cumulative environmental effects of military operations
on the mesa.  Fort Bliss officials said they will prepare an
environmental impact statement to address potential future uses of
the mesa, but they are unsure what training activities ultimately
will be allowed. 


   EFFECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
   ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4

The effect of military operations on resource management is unclear,
primarily because of limited data.  According to Fort Bliss and BLM
officials, they have no baseline data on the condition of natural and
cultural resources on McGregor, nor have they studied the cumulative
effects of military operations on those resources.  Although Fort
Bliss acknowledged the need to develop baseline data in 1977 as part
of an environmental impact statement for withdrawing the land, Fort
Bliss officials said the information was never developed.  Officials
at Fort Bliss are now planning to develop this baseline data as part
of the natural resource management plan currently under development. 
Additionally, the baseline data is expected to be part of the 1998
environmental impact statement the Army must complete in order to
seek an extension of the withdrawal from Interior. 

In the absence of comprehensive data on resource conditions,
officials are of the opinion that military operations both benefit
and adversely affect resources.  Benefits occur, they said, because
military activity restricts public access and thus provides less
opportunity for vandalism, damage to soils, and similar effects.  In
addition, the water rights acquired by Fort Bliss provide water for
wildlife that would not otherwise be available on the range, and both
mule deer and antelope have flourished.  Potential harmful effects
cited by those we spoke with included hazards to wildlife, plants,
and soils from missiles and other debris falling in the impact area
of the range; vehicle maneuvers which impact soils, damage plants,
and disturb wildlife; and increased frequency of range fires. 

While the effect of military operations on natural and cultural
resources was unclear, military operations had a definite effect on
the level of resource management activities.  The Chief of Fort
Bliss' Directorate of Environment said Fort Bliss officials viewed
BLM's role on the range as limited to managing the grazing program,
assisting with fire suppression if requested, and possibly helping to
administer recreation activities.  The range planner at Fort Bliss
said the Army does not share authority with BLM because of a
widespread feeling that BLM wants to implement multiple-use
activities without regard to the Army's training needs.  BLM's
Caballo Area manager said he recognizes the Army's authority to limit
multiple uses on McGregor, but the Withdrawal Act requires him to
develop and implement appropriate resource uses and protections. 

BLM expenditures for resource management indicate that the McGregor
Range is receiving a proportionate share of BLM funds.  According to
data provided by BLM, the McGregor Range represents about 23 percent
of the land managed by the Caballo Area and in fiscal year 1992
received about 21 percent of the area's funding. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
=========================================================== Appendix V



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
=========================================================== Appendix V



(See figure in printed edition.)


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
======================================================== Appendix VIII

To develop information on DOD activities at each range, we obtained
available documentation on military operations, resource conditions,
and resource management activities.  We interviewed military
officials responsible for planning and scheduling activities on the
ranges and those responsible for natural and cultural resource
programs.  We also interviewed selected officers from operational
units that were using the sites to train troops.  We visited or
observed conditions at all the sites except Bravo-20, where
substantial photographic evidence on site conditions was available. 

To determine Interior's resource management activities, we
interviewed and obtained available documentation from BLM District
Office officials with direct responsibilities for resource management
at each site.  We also interviewed and obtained documentation from
FWS officials at the two National Wildlife Refuges which have
airspace under military control. 

Our work was conducted at the locations listed in table VIII.1. 



                         Table VIII.1
           
             Withdrawn Lands Under Military Lands
           Withdrawal Act and Responsible Managers

            Responsible     Responsible     Responsible FWS
Range       military base   BLM office(s)   office
----------  --------------  --------------  ----------------
Greely      Fort Greely,    Steese/White    __
            Alaska          Mountains
                            District
                            Office, Alaska

Yukon       Fort            Steese/White    __
            Wainwright,     Mountains
            Alaska          District
                            Office, Alaska

Goldwater   Luke Air Force  Phoenix and     Cabeza Prieta
            Base, Arizona   Yuma District   National
            Marine Corps    Offices,        Wildlife Refuge,
            Air Station     Arizona         Arizona
            Yuma, Arizona

Nellis      Nellis Air      Las Vegas       Desert National
            Force Base,     District        Wildlife Refuge,
            Nevada          Office, Nevada  Nevada

Bravo-20    Naval Air       Carson City     __
            Station         District
            Fallon, Nevada  Office, Nevada

McGregor    Fort Bliss,     Las Cruces      __
            Texas           District
                            Office, New
                            Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we conducted work in Washington, D.C., at the office of
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security
(formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment) and the
headquarters offices for the Air Force, Army, Navy, BLM, and FWS.  We
conducted our work from December 1992 through November 1993 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IX

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

David R.  Warren
Uldis Adamsons

SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE

William R.  Swick
Drummond E.  Kahn
Brent L.  Hutchison
Stanley G.  Stenersen
Desiree W.  Whipple
