Where the Tanks Meet the Woodpeckers

Within the past months, California and federal officials have spent hundreds of hours negotiating land deals to save vital resources in the Mojave Desert and the state’s redwood forests. The role of federal land in preserving the nation’s biological heritage is one of the most intensely debated questions of our time. Congress worries about virtually every speck of dirt comprising roughly 30% of the United States. But it rarely discusses federal land under military control. Similarly, the classic books about federal lands never mention the military holdings. Robert McFarlane’s beautiful chronicle of the red-cockaded woodpecker’s decline, “A Stillness in the Pines,” is particularly still about the miliary bases that dot the birds’ once expansive habitat. Why get excited about a few scarred and scattered plots?

These parcels are among the most biologically diverse in the nation. The U.S. military depends on them for training in diverse combat conditions. But management of these lands is highly vulnerable to the downsizing and reinventing of government. And while the Clinton administration has improved many aspects of military land management, only special attention to the effect of downsizing will avoid erosion of a vital ecological and military resource.

The military manages only 25 million of the 650 million acres of federal land. The Bureau of Land Management has 270 million, the Forest Service 190 and even the obscure Fish and Wildlife Service wallops Defense with 90 million. But numbers are deceiving. Military training is less ecologically damaging than timber harvesting, grazing or subdividing. The relatively tiny military holdings contain as many different endangered species as any of the monster land agencies. In some regions, the military is the only holdout against suburban sprawl. The survival of the red-cockaded woodpecker depends on land management at Ft. Bragg, N.C. Eleven endangered species live with the Marines at Camp Pendleton. Neither the Marines nor the critters have anywhere else to go.

Fortunately the management of these lands is improving. As a byproduct of citizen concern about military toxic waste, the military has improved all aspects of its environmental effort. But the closing of overseas military bases has increased the level of military activities at home. Modern weapons systems have greater impact on the land. As suburbs sprawl toward the edges of military bases, those not-so-damaging military activities have an increasingly destructive ecological effect.

All of this means that military lands must be managed with even greater skill and precision. And while funding is not the critical problem, more attention is needed on the human factor. Much is owed to a sometimes self-righteous group of civilians employed by the military to manage these lands. Many have worked on individual bases for years and have developed a sense of ownership and pride. To meet a growing challenge, this team should be supplemented by younger wildlife biologists trained with the most modern techniques and by a few uniformed officers with expertise in both wildlife biology and military tactics.

Unfortunately, the broad brush of reinventing government works against this. Contractors and part-time employees are replacing permanent civil servants. While this may work for some government functions, it makes little sense for ecological processes that unfold over many years. It also is inconsistent with a military culture that demands dedication. Only by sleeping in the troop tents can a natural resource professional tell a commanding general to modify an ecologically damaging exercise. Will a temporary employee undergo heat exhaustion fighting an Oklahoma prairie fire? Who will explain to the public that the newest military exercise does in fact comply with natural resource law?

The 25 million acres of military land are a little known national treasure. Current Pentagon leaders understand this value and should continue explaining it both in and out of the Defense Department. The greatest need, however, is for a detailed review of personnel issues at the bases, the bottom of the defense organization, where the tanks meet the woodpeckers.