Within the United States, over 26 million acres have become militarized by the Department of Defense (DoD) as sites of preparation for conflict where soldiers are trained and housed, and weapons are tested and stored. In addition to the military occupants, these landscapes are inhabited by nearly 500 federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species. Working to fulfill the DoD's responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), natural resource managers—at the center of the relationship between the DoD and its lands—manage these species and the habitats upon which they depend, often in distinctly militarized ways (i.e., tanks to control invasive species; designing habitats for sightlines and cover from enemy fire). Through examples of military environmentalism, this paper describes how on-the-ground managers perceive the bureaucratic landscape of managing T&E species in a military context focusing on how the ESA is understood through a lens of conflict (between legal requirements and military needs) that is reframed as a motivation towards producing conservation outcomes through proactive management and policy innovation. We demonstrate how conflict does not necessarily lead to noncompliance but rather a complex process of aligning conservation goals in service of military ones and a renegotiation of the agency's responsibilities.
BentonNRipleyJDPowledgeF (2008) Conserving biodiversity on military lands: A guide for natural resources managers. NatureServe. Available at: http://www.dodbiodiversity.org
2.
BoiceLP (2006) Defense and conservation: Compatible missions. Endangered Species Bulletin31(2): 4–7.
CoatesPColeTDudleyM, et al. (2011) Defending nation, defending nature? Militarized landscapes and military environmentalism in Britain, France, and the United States. Environmental History16(3): 456–491.
5.
CrawfordNC (2022) The Pentagon, climate change, and war: Charting the rise and fall of U.S military emissions. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
6.
DavisJS (2007) Introduction: Military natures: Militarism and the environment. GeoJournal69(3): 131–134.
DurantRF (2007) The greening of the U.S. military: Environmental policy, national security, and organizational change. DC: Georgetown University Press.
9.
EdgingtonR (2014) Range wars: The environmental contest for White Sands Missile Range. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
10.
EmersonRMFretzRIShawLL (2011) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes, 2nd ed.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
Endangered SpeciesAct (1973) Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884.
12.
Fish and Wildlife Service (2022) Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2023.
13.
HavlickDG (2018) Bombs away: Militarization, conservation, and ecological restoration. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
HavlickDGPerramondE (2015) Militarized spaces and open range: Piñon Canyon and (counter)cartographies of rural resistance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space33(1): 169–184.
15.
JenniGDLPetersonMNCubbageFW, et al. (2012) Assessing biodiversity conservation conflict on military installations. Biological Conservation153: 127–133.
16.
KeirnsKM (2015) A wildlife insurgency: The endangered species act, citizen-initiated lawsuits, and the department of defense at the end of the cold war. In: MartiniEA (eds) Proving Grounds: Militarized Landscapes, Weapons Testing, and the Environmental Impact of U.S. Bases. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 239–263.
17.
KimE (2022) Making peace with nature: Ecological encounters along the Korean DMZ. Durham: Duke University Press.
18.
LookingbillTRSmallwoodPD (2019) Collateral values: The natural capital created by landscapes of war. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland.
PearsonC (2012) Researching militarized landscapes: A literature review on war and the militarization of the environment. Landscape Research37(1): 115–133.
24.
RabungETomanE (2022) Soldiers in the garden: Managing the US military training landscape. Landscape Research47(5): 598–610.
25.
RubensonDAroestryJThompsenC (1992) Two shades of Green: Environmental protection and combat training. R-4220-A. Santa Monica: RAND.
26.
RubensonDWeisslerRWongC, et al. (1999) Does the army have a national land use strategy?Santa Monica: RAND.
27.
RubinRJRubinIS (2005) Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (Second. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
28.
RusselE (2010) Afterward: Militarized landscapes. In: PearsonCCoatesPColeT (eds) Militarized Landscapes: From Gettysburg to Salisbury Plains. London: Continuum, 229–237.
29.
SaldanaJ (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
30.
Sikes Act Improvement Act (1997) Sikes Act Improvement Act Public Law 105-85 11 Stat. 2017.
31.
SinH (2021) California Least Tern Breeding Survey: 2017 Season. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
32.
SteinBAScottCBentonN (2008) Federal lands and endangered species: The role of military and other federal lands in sustaining biodiversity. BioScience58(4): 339–347.
WellsJC (2006) National security and the endangered species act: A fresh look at the exemption process and the evolution of army environmental policy. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review31: 255–290.
35.
WoodwardR (2001) Khaki conservation: An examination of military environmentalist discourses in the British Army. Journal of Rural Studies17(2): 201–217.
