The military is justifiably proud of its tradition of natural resource stewardship. The armed forces have been called upon to oversee or manage public lands and natural resources since 1823, when timber and forest products used in shipbuilding were strategic resources (Siehl 1991). Before there was a U.S. Forest Service or a National Park Service, the cavalry and engineers of the U.S. Army managed the lands set aside as national parks. Over the past several decades the military has strengthened its commitment to natural resource management, responding to new challenges and incorporating new scientific and technological advances. This has led to, among other things, adopting the principles of ecosystem-based management and adaptive management, and most recently the practice of climate change adaptation and resilience.
With the outbreak of World War II, millions of acres were acquired by the military to house, train, and prepare troops for combat. Construction practices, training exercises, and tank traffic lead to serious environmental problems at many sites, including dust, mud, and erosion. In those years, the military largely attempted to address these issues through cooperative agreements with the Soil Conservation
Service11 and transfers of agronomists and foresters to military installations. Following the war, natural resource management progressed to include planting of ground cover crops and trees, while timber production, agricultural leasing, and hunting programs were put in place at many installations.
By the 1960s, there was a general shift in public policy toward “multiple use” of public lands and management for “sustained yield.” This trend, in conjunction with declining military funding and increasing public pressure for access to military lands for recreation and commercial purposes, shaped natural resource management on military lands. Passage of the Sikes Act in 1960 provided the legal basis for wildlife conservation and public access for recreation on military land and authorized the collection of fees and the development of cooperative plans by the military, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state fish and game agencies. During this period, however, policies generally encouraged consumptive uses of natural resources, and the revenues generated from forestry and fish and wildlife programs became the major source of funding for installation natural resource management programs (Lillie and Ripley 1998).
The 1970s and 1980s were decades of increasing pressure on natural resource management programs. The National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a host of other environmental protection statutes added demanding new requirements. The development of new weapons systems, which involved heavier vehicles and longer-range weapons, intensified damage and increased the military’s need for additional and diversified training lands. With federal and state regulatory agencies emphasizing environmental cleanup and waste management, there was little institutional incentive to increase either staffing or funding for natural and cultural resources programs (Lang and Lillie 1995). Natural resource management programs continued to focus on game and revenue generating programs, such as agriculture, grazing, timber, and recreational hunting and fishing. It became increasingly clear, though, that the military was facing natural resource management challenges it was not well equipped to address. Poor management was leading to the loss of training lands, while compliance with environmental statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Act was becoming an increasing burden on military operations.
In 1982 the scope of the Sikes Act was expanded beyond fish and game to include ESA-listed threatened and endangered species, while in 1986 a requirement was added to employ professionally trained natural resource professionals and to have cooperatively developed fish and wildlife plans reviewed at least every five years. In 1997 the Sikes Act was amended to require that each installation with significant natural resources prepare and implement an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) reflecting the mutual agreement of DoD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the relevant state wildlife agencies. These plans, which are required on about 340 installations, are intended to help balance competing interests in the management of land, forest, wetlands, and wildlife habitat, and to the extent practicable provide for no net loss in the capability of installation lands to support the military mission. In recognition of the federal and state coordination requirements embodied in INRMPs, in 2003 Congress exempted DoD lands from critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act, provided that the lands are covered by an INRMP that offers a conservation benefit to the listed species.
11Now known as the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Next Page: A Shift Toward Ecosystem Management and Biodiversity Conservation
Author
Bruce Stein, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and Associate Vice President
National Wildlife Federation