Natural Resource Management
Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions Gao ID: GAO-08-262 February 12, 2008Conflict over the use of our nation's natural resources, along with increased ecological problems, has led land managers to seek cooperative means to resolve natural resource conflicts and problems. Collaborative resource management is one such approach that communities began using in the 1980s and 1990s. A 2004 Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation encourages such efforts. GAO was asked to determine (1) experts' views on collaborative resource management, (2) how selected collaborative efforts have addressed conflicts and improved resources, and (3) challenges that agencies face as they participate in such efforts and how the Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed them. GAO reviewed experts' journal articles, studied seven collaborative groups, and interviewed group members and federal and other public officials.
Experts generally view collaborative resource management that involves public and private stakeholders in natural resource decisions as an effective approach for managing natural resources. Several benefits can result from using collaborative resource management, including reduced conflict and litigation and improved natural resource conditions, according to the experts. A number of collaborative practices, such as seeking inclusive representation, establishing leadership, and identifying a common goal among the participants have been central to successful collaborative management efforts. The success of these groups is often judged by whether they increase participation and cooperation or improve natural resource conditions. Many experts also note that there are limitations to the approach, such as the time and resources it takes to bring people together to work on a problem and reach a decision. Most of the seven collaborative resource management efforts GAO studied in several states across the country were successful in achieving participation and cooperation among their members and improving natural resource conditions. In six of the cases, those involved were able to reduce or avoid the kinds of conflicts that can arise when dealing with contentious natural resource problems. All the efforts, particularly those that effectively reduced or avoided conflict, used at least several of the collaborative practices described by the experts. For example, one effort obtained broad community representation and successfully identified a common goal of using fire, after decades of suppression, to restore the health of a large grasslands area surrounding the community. Also, members of almost all the efforts studied said they have been able to achieve many of their goals for sustaining or improving the condition of specific natural resources. However, for most of these efforts no data were collected on a broad scale to show the effect of their work on overall resource conditions across a large area or landscape. Federal land and resource management agencies--the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service--face key challenges to participating in collaborative resource management efforts, according to the experts, federal officials, and participants in the efforts GAO studied. For example, the agencies face challenges in determining whether to participate in a collaborative effort, measuring participation and monitoring results, and sharing agency and group experiences. As a part of the interagency Cooperative Conservation initiative led by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the federal government has made progress in addressing these challenges. Yet, additional opportunities exist to develop and disseminate tools, examples, and guidance that further address the challenges, as well as to better structure and direct the initiative to achieve the vision of Cooperative Conservation, which involves a number of actions by multiple agencies over the long term. Failure to pursue such opportunities and to create a long-term plan to achieve the vision may limit the effectiveness of the federal government's initiative and collaborative efforts.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-262, Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-262
entitled 'Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance
Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and
Improve Natural Resource Conditions' which was released on March 13,
2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-262, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Conflict over the use of our nation‘s natural resources, along with
increased ecological problems, has led land managers to seek
cooperative means to resolve natural resource conflicts and problems.
Collaborative resource management is one such approach that communities
began using in the 1980s and 1990s. A 2004 Executive Order on
Cooperative Conservation encourages such efforts.
GAO was asked to determine (1) experts‘ views on collaborative resource
management, (2) how selected collaborative efforts have addressed
conflicts and improved resources, and (3) challenges that agencies face
as they participate in such efforts and how the Cooperative
Conservation initiative has addressed them. GAO reviewed experts‘
journal articles, studied seven collaborative groups, and interviewed
group members and federal and other public officials.
What GAO Found:
Experts generally view collaborative resource management that involves
public and private stakeholders in natural resource decisions as an
effective approach for managing natural resources. Several benefits can
result from using collaborative resource management, including reduced
conflict and litigation and improved natural resource conditions,
according to the experts. A number of collaborative practices, such as
seeking inclusive representation, establishing leadership, and
identifying a common goal among the participants have been central to
successful collaborative management efforts. The success of these
groups is often judged by whether they increase participation and
cooperation or improve natural resource conditions. Many experts also
note that there are limitations to the approach, such as the time and
resources it takes to bring people together to work on a problem and
reach a decision.
Most of the seven collaborative resource management efforts GAO studied
in several states across the country were successful in achieving
participation and cooperation among their members and improving natural
resource conditions. In six of the cases, those involved were able to
reduce or avoid the kinds of conflicts that can arise when dealing with
contentious natural resource problems. All the efforts, particularly
those that effectively reduced or avoided conflict, used at least
several of the collaborative practices described by the experts. For
example, one effort obtained broad community representation and
successfully identified a common goal of using fire, after decades of
suppression, to restore the health of a large grasslands area
surrounding the community. Also, members of almost all the efforts
studied said they have been able to achieve many of their goals for
sustaining or improving the condition of specific natural resources.
However, for most of these efforts no data were collected on a broad
scale to show the effect of their work on overall resource conditions
across a large area or landscape.
Federal land and resource management agencies”the Department of the
Interior‘s Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and National Park Service, and the Department of Agriculture‘s Forest
Service”face key challenges to participating in collaborative resource
management efforts, according to the experts, federal officials, and
participants in the efforts GAO studied. For example, the agencies face
challenges in determining whether to participate in a collaborative
effort, measuring participation and monitoring results, and sharing
agency and group experiences. As a part of the interagency Cooperative
Conservation initiative led by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), the federal government has made progress in addressing these
challenges. Yet, additional opportunities exist to develop and
disseminate tools, examples, and guidance that further address the
challenges, as well as to better structure and direct the initiative to
achieve the vision of Cooperative Conservation, which involves a number
of actions by multiple agencies over the long term. Failure to pursue
such opportunities and to create a long-term plan to achieve the vision
may limit the effectiveness of the federal government‘s initiative and
collaborative efforts.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that CEQ and the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture take several actions to develop a long-term plan, guidance,
and tools that could enhance their management and support of
collaborative efforts.
GAO provided a draft report for comment to CEQ, Interior, and
Agriculture. Interior and Agriculture generally concurred with the
conclusions and recommendations. CEQ did not provide comments.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-262]. For more information, contact Robin
M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
February 2008:
Natural Resource Management:
Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative
Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions:
GAO-08-262:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Experts Generally View Collaborative Resource Management as an
Effective Approach for Improving the Management of Natural Resources,
but a Few Question Collaboration Involving Federally Managed Lands:
Most Collaborative Efforts We Studied Reduced or Averted Resource
Conflicts, Completed Projects, and Improved Natural Resource Conditions
to an Extent That Could Not Be Determined:
Cooperative Conservation Policies and Actions Address Some of the
Challenges Faced by Federal Agencies Participating in Collaborative
Efforts, but Opportunities Exist for Further Action:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Collaborative Resource Management Groups and Successful
Collaboration Practices:
Blackfoot Challenge:
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative:
Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management:
Malpai Borderlands Group:
Onslow Bight Conservation Forum:
Steens Mountain Advisory Council:
Uncompahgre Plateau Project:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Bibliography:
Tables Tables:
Table 1: Natural Resource Problems and Common Interest Solutions of
Seven Collaborative Resource Management Efforts:
Table 2: Natural Resource Accomplishments, Improvements, and Monitoring
by Seven Collaborative Resource Management Efforts:
Table 3: Cooperative Conservation Actions, Proposed and Initiated, That
Can Address Challenges Federal Agencies Face in Collaborating:
Table 4: Description of the Benefits, Limitations, and Critiques of
Collaboration:
Table 5: Number of Statements in the Components of Each Category:
Table 6: Collaborative Resource Management Groups Selected as Case
Examples:
Table 7: Description of the Challenges Associated with Collaboration
Identified by the Experts:
Table 8: Number of Statements in the Challenges:
Figures:
Figure 1: Location of the Seven Collaborative Efforts We Studied:
Figure 2: Land Ownership and Management in the United States:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
CDOW: Colorado Division of Wildlife:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
Challenge: Blackfoot Challenge:
Council: Steens Mountain Advisory Council:
CMPA: Cooperative Management and Protection Area:
Day 2 report: White House Conference report, Supplemental Analysis of
Day Two Facilitated Discussion Sessions:
Forum: Onslow Bight Conservation Forum:
GIS: Geographic Information System:
Initiative: Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative:
Interior: Department of the Interior:
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Steens Act: Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
February 12, 2008:
The Honorable Ron Wyden:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests: Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources: United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
For decades, the consumption and use of our nation's natural resources
has been a source of controversy and contention among many diverse
public and private interests. These interests range from using the
resources for various economic purposes, such as agricultural,
residential, or commercial development, mining, ranching, and logging,
to recreational uses, such as hiking, hunting, and off-road vehicle
use. At the same time as groups with these interests compete with one
another to use the resources, other groups have interests in preserving
the resources in their natural state. Demographic and economic changes
across the country have caused these competing interests to grow
increasingly divergent, resulting in controversy and sometimes
litigation. Further complicating the groups' use of these resources are
ecological problems, such as invasive species, loss of wildlife and
plant diversity, and wildland fires. These problems often cover a
landscape, or a large area of land with a physical environment that
supports distinct communities of plants, animals, and other organisms;
transcend ownership boundaries; and threaten the various groups'
ability to use the resources, or the overall loss of these resources.
A current situation, involving 11 western states, illustrates the kind
of conflicts that can occur.[Footnote 1] A surge in development for
such uses as housing, oil and gas resources, as well as continued
livestock grazing, is degrading vast areas of an important western
ecosystem--the sagebrush range--which supports a wide variety of
wildlife species. This has led some groups to litigate in favor of
additional protection under federal law for two bird species, the
greater sage grouse and the Gunnison sage grouse. Similarly, the
effects of development in wildlife migration corridors within the
sagebrush habitat have led hunters and wildlife advocates to seek
controls on such activities in undeveloped corridors. On the other
hand, some developers, ranchers, and oil and gas companies fear that
additional protection would severely limit their activities. More
specifically, greater protection would increase the scrutiny of
activities that occur in sagebrush that have effects on species and
possibly curtail development of housing areas, limit livestock grazing,
or restrict oil and gas development activities.
From past experience, some groups have realized that litigation to
resolve competing interests over natural resource use has undesirable
consequences and may not produce the best results for the parties
involved. Some fear that the initial lawsuit and subsequent appeals can
result in impasse and delay projects or regulations from taking effect.
Moreover, some landowners have realized that, although their land
management objectives may differ from those of other landowners, they
face common ecological problems that can only be solved by working with
other landowners, either public or private. For example, landowners in
an area with an outbreak of a particular invasive species cannot
eradicate or control the species on their land without coordinating
with adjacent landowners because the species may spread from adjacent
lands that a landowner does not treat.
To develop proactive solutions to common land and natural resource
management problems and avoid the potentially adverse consequences of
litigation, many land managers and interested parties have sought
approaches for more cooperatively resolving natural resource problems
and conflicts. One such approach described by academic, public, and
nonprofit experts is collaborative resource management. This approach
involves multiple parties--including federal land and resource
management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior's
(Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Forest Service--joining together voluntarily to identify
environmental and natural resource problems and goals, such as
improving natural resource conditions, and to design management
activities and projects to achieve these goals.[Footnote 2]
The collaborative resource management approach--which is also called
collaborative conservation, community-based conservation, community-
based initiatives, watershed management, and grassroots ecosystem
management--evolved in the 1980s and 1990s when many grassroots groups
of diverse stakeholders, including federal land and resource management
agencies, organized to focus on local environmental and natural
resource problems. These grassroots initiatives coincided with an
effort by federal agencies to adopt an ecosystem management policy, an
approach that recognized that plant and animal communities are
interdependent and interact with their physical environments to form
ecosystems spanning federal and nonfederal lands. We reported on
ecosystem management as a promising approach for managing federal lands
in 1994 and identified constraints on collaboration among federal and
nonfederal parties as one of the key barriers impeding implementation
of that approach.[Footnote 3]
In 2004, to encourage federal agencies to use collaboration and other
types of cooperative management efforts, such as partnerships, in
carrying out environmental and natural resource laws, the President
issued an Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation and designated
the Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
to gather reports on implementation of the initiative. The order also
directed the Chair of CEQ to hold a White House Conference on
Cooperative Conservation. The conference, held in August 2005,
highlighted many voluntary, collaborative groups involved in
conservation activities. As a result of the Executive Order, an
interagency policy team and task force were created; these groups
helped organize the conference and respond to suggested actions for the
agencies to take related to partnering and collaboration.
In this context, you asked us to determine (1) experts' views of
collaborative resource management as an approach for addressing complex
natural resource management problems; (2) the extent to which selected
collaborative resource management efforts have addressed land use
conflicts and improved natural resource conditions; and (3) what
challenges, if any, federal land and resource management agencies face
in participating in collaborative resource management efforts and how
the Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed the challenges.
To determine experts' views of collaborative resource management as an
approach for addressing natural resource problems, we interviewed
experts and reviewed a series of journal articles on the subject and
conducted a content analysis of statements taken from the articles on
benefits, practices, and limitations associated with collaboration. To
determine the extent to which selected efforts have addressed land use
conflicts and improved natural resource conditions, we identified seven
examples of collaborative resource management efforts with different
membership, organizational structure, geographic location, and other
attributes and conducted field visits and semistructured, detailed
interviews with multiple members of the groups to gain an understanding
of each group's efforts and results. We considered conflicts to exist
if two or more participants had different interests to achieve and
considered conflicts to be reduced or averted if the group implemented
a common interest solution. The seven examples and their geographic
locations are shown in figure 1. We also obtained and reviewed any
related documentation of each group's activities and results, but did
not independently verify these data.
Finally, we identified challenges associated with the collaborative
resource management approach from our literature review and interviews
with members of the collaborative resource management groups we
studied. To determine how efforts under the Cooperative Conservation
initiative address challenges associated with federal land and resource
management agencies' participation in collaborative resource
management, we analyzed reports summarizing the White House Conference
and interviewed federal officials, including CEQ and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) officials. We conducted this performance
audit from October 2006 through February 2008, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides further details
about the scope and methodology for our review, appendix II describes
the seven collaborative resource management efforts we studied in
detail, and the bibliography lists the journal articles that we
reviewed.
Figure 1: Location of the Seven Collaborative Efforts We Studied:
This figure is a map of location of the seven collaborative efforts we
studied.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis; Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Results in Brief:
The experts whose work we reviewed generally consider collaborative
resource management as an effective approach for managing natural
resources, although they identify a few limitations to its use.
According to the experts, collaborative resource management can be
effective in reducing and averting conflict and litigation, while at
the same time producing better natural resource conditions and
strengthening community relationships. The experts noted that
successful collaborative efforts use similar practices such as (1)
developing open and transparent decision-making processes among the
participants, (2) finding leaders of the group, (3) identifying a
common goal, and (4) leveraging resources, including funds. Overall,
experts considered collaborative efforts successful if they broadened
participation and increased cooperation in managing natural resources,
or improved natural resource conditions. However, according to many
experts, collaboration does have some limitations, such as the fact
that building relationships and reaching consensus take time and
resources. While many experts see collaboration as an effective
approach, a few of the experts question federal agencies' involvement
in such efforts, arguing that it can favor local over national
interests, allow particular interests to dominate over others, result
in a "least common denominator" decision that inadequately protects
natural resources, or inappropriately transfer federal authority to
local groups.
Of the seven collaborative efforts we studied, most have reduced or
averted conflicts in managing natural resource problems and several
have achieved site-specific resource results. Specifically, through
participants' cooperation, most of these groups were able to avert
conflicts that arose--or that might have arisen--from efforts to solve
such natural resource problems as threatened and endangered species,
lack of wildland fire, invasive species, and degraded wildlife habitat.
The efforts that reduced or averted conflicts used many of the
collaborative practices identified by the experts, including finding a
common goal, using incentives to carry out activities, leveraging
available funding, and gathering and using common information. For
example, after decades of fire suppression, the Malpai Borderlands
Group in southern Arizona and New Mexico successfully reintroduced fire
to help regenerate grasses and reduce shrubs in its grassland
ecosystem, and dealt with concerns about endangered species surviving
such fires. The group worked together to develop a common vision and
goal for restoring fire and then sought funding for research to
demonstrate that the effects of fire on such species as the lesser long-
nose bat and its food source, the agave plant, were not detrimental.
Furthermore, several of the collaborative efforts we studied said that
they are monitoring different natural resources and are achieving their
goals for improving natural resource conditions. However, the extent of
the resource improvements and progress toward solving overall landscape-
level problems was difficult to assess because some efforts have not
yet initiated management activities, while others lack sufficient
landscape-level data. For example, the Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners
in Ecosystem Management group in Michigan created ecological maps for
its planning area but has not monitored any changes in ecological
conditions at a landscape level since it has been working together. The
participants said that, because the group's primary purpose is to share
information to help participants plan their own work, the group does
not need to conduct landscape-level monitoring.
Federal land and resource management agencies face several challenges
in participating in collaborative resource management efforts,
according to the experts, federal officials, and participants in
collaborative efforts whom we interviewed. Key challenges that the
agencies face fall within the following major areas:
* Improving employees' collaborative skills. Often, federal employees
are technical experts and may not have the skills and experience to
collaborate. Collaborative skills include the ability to conduct
meetings, involve relevant stakeholders, resolve disputes, and share
technical information to make it accessible to groups. Federal
participants in collaborative groups we studied said that federal staff
need to have such skills, in addition to their technical skills, to
work effectively with such groups. Improving federal employees'
collaborative skills can enable them to work more effectively with a
collaborative group.
* Determining whether to participate in a particular collaborative
effort. Collaborative resource management efforts often begin with
local communities, and federal agencies can determine what role they
can have in the effort. External factors, such as a community's
collaborative capacity and the amount of controversy involved, often
affect whether a group may succeed. Federal participants we interviewed
said that opportunities to collaborate continually emerge as community
members initiate efforts. However, without understanding the external
factors that may affect success, federal land and resource management
agencies may become involved and invest resources in a collaborative
effort that has little chance of succeeding.
* Sustaining federal employees' participation over time. According to
some groups and federal participants we interviewed, federal
participation in collaborative efforts is critical to getting work
accomplished. In particular, the agency employees can contribute
scientific and technical expertise, such as habitat identification and
mapping skills, to help plan and focus the group's work. However,
federal land and resource management agency field offices that we
visited have downsized in the last several years, leaving fewer staff
available for collaborative efforts. Federal participants in
collaborative efforts we interviewed stated that with fewer staff, less
time and effort can be spent on collaboration. Limited participation by
federal agencies may constrain the amount of work that can be planned
and therefore accomplished by both the agency and the group.
* Measuring participation and monitoring results to ensure
accountability. Participation in and natural resource results of
collaborative efforts are difficult to measure and collaborative
efforts often lack a systematic approach for monitoring the results.
Federal participants we interviewed noted that there are no effective
methods available to measure and account for participation in
collaborative efforts, making it difficult for them to show the results
of the time and resources expended working with collaborative groups. A
lack of measuring or monitoring data may make it difficult for agencies
and their partners to demonstrate and be accountable for their results
and justify their continued participation.
* Sharing agency and group experiences with collaboration.
Collaborative groups are unique in their makeup, organization,
circumstances, and abilities, but can face similar problems working
together and with federal agencies. Groups are scattered throughout the
United States, and do not have many opportunities to meet and share
experiences. Although Web sites and guidebooks exist to share
information, without venues to bring collaborative groups together, it
is more difficult for group members to learn and benefit directly from
each other's experience.
* Working within the framework of federal statutes and agency policies
to support collaboration. Experts and collaborative groups have
identified some federal laws and agency policies as being inconsistent
with collaboration. For example, USDA and Interior have implemented
federal ethics rules differently in determining whether their staff
could be members of the nonprofit board managing the Blackfoot
Challenge group in Montana, causing some confusion and concerns among
the partners. Others identified federal advisory committee rules, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act as
being inconsistent with collaboration. These authorities and policies
reflect processes established to support good government practices,
such as transparency and accountability. Without evaluating the laws
and policies involved, the federal agencies cannot determine the
changes needed to better balance collaboration with good government
practices.
Through the federal interagency task force charged with pursuing
proposed actions raised by participants at the 2005 White House
Conference on Cooperative Conservation, the federal government has
developed policies and taken actions that have made progress in
addressing several of these challenges. For example, to enhance federal
employees' collaborative skills, the agencies recently identified
personnel competencies that encourage collaborative behavior and
experience-based training that includes collaboration. In addition, to
address difficult and time-consuming aspects of the federal law that
directs how federal agencies work with advisory groups--the Federal
Advisory Committee Act--agencies are considering ways to simplify the
implementation of its requirements. While the policies and actions
implemented so far help address several of the challenges that agencies
face, the task force has yet to develop and disseminate guidance,
tools, and examples that will further address the challenges, such as
sharing agency and group experiences with collaboration. Furthermore,
the CEQ officials responsible for the Cooperative Conservation
initiative recognized that it is a long-term effort that will require
the coordinated actions of several interagency teams, departments, and
agencies to achieve the vision of cooperative conservation. Yet, the
task force is a temporary, voluntary group that has not developed a
plan to lay out long-term goals for cooperative conservation and
determine how the actions taken to date and in the future will help
reach these goals and support collaborative resource management as an
approach for managing federal natural resources.
We are making recommendations to the Chairman of CEQ and the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to take several actions
that can enhance federal agencies' participation in and support of
ongoing and future collaborative efforts, as well as help structure and
direct the interagency effort for the long term. The actions that we
are recommending include, among others, disseminating tools for
assessing collaborative opportunities; developing criteria for others
to use in monitoring collaborative efforts particularly at the
landscape level; and developing a long-term plan for carrying out
cooperative conservation activities including collaborative resource
management. In commenting on a draft of this report, Interior and USDA
concurred with our conclusions and five of six recommendations. The
departments neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation that
they should develop a joint policy to consistently implement ethics
rules governing employee participation in nonprofit boards. USDA's
Office of General Counsel noted that while such a policy might be
desirable, it may not be feasible. CEQ did not provide comments on the
draft report.
Background:
Federal efforts to use collaboration, broadly, and collaborative
resource management more specifically have their roots in natural
resource and environmental law, litigation, and alternative efforts to
resolve environmental conflicts. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s as
environmental concerns over species, wilderness preservation, and air
and water pollution heightened and legislation to protect different
resources followed, litigation over land and resource use became more
common. In the 1980s and 1990s, a number of factors, including court
decisions and regulatory and economic changes, resulted in decreased
timber harvests and increased scrutiny of grazing on public lands. In
the 1990s, concerns over pollution and resource problems that cross
property lines--such as water quality or endangered species--increased,
and sometimes resulted in litigation. Also during this time,
development of private lands posed increased threats to habitat, water
quality, rural lifestyles, and wildlife, including threatened and
endangered species.
Over the same time frame beginning in the 1970s, environmental conflict
resolution began to evolve as an alternative way of dealing with
environmental disputes outside of the courts. This approach uses
facilitation, mediation, and other methods to negotiate solutions among
disputing parties. It also involves collaborative efforts to solve
problems and conflicts before they have a chance to fully develop. In
the 1990s, as these alternatives to litigation became more established,
two laws were enacted authorizing their use by federal agencies and the
U.S. District Courts--the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996
and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998. Also in 1998,
legislation created the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution, a federal institute to assess, and assist in resolving,
conflicts related to federal land, natural resource, or environmental
management.
Throughout the 1990s, some communities facing natural resource problems
decided to use alternative approaches to solving associated conflicts,
forming grassroots groups of diverse stakeholders to discuss the
problems and develop solutions. The collaborative groups that formed
often included federal land and resource management agency
representatives as participants. Recognizing the value of these groups,
the federal land and resource management agencies began developing
programs in support of such efforts. The agencies have been working
collaboratively with communities for a long while, but placed increased
emphasis on collaboration in the 1990s. Specifically, in 1997, the
Forest Service began a partnership program to gather guidance and
information on how best to work with local communities. In 2003,
Interior began an effort to focus on working cooperatively with local
communities on conservation activities, both on public and private
lands. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a program,
called Partners for Fish and Wildlife, to work with private landowners
to provide technical and financial assistance in protecting threatened
and endangered species on their lands. More recently, the federal land
and natural resource agencies have been authorized by specific
legislation to collaborate with nonfederal parties on specific resource
problems. For example, both BLM and the Forest Service received
authority to use stewardship contracts--which allow them, for example,
to use the value of products sold, such as timber, to offset the cost
of contracted services such as removing small trees and brush from the
forest--to achieve national forest land management goals that meet
local and rural community needs.[Footnote 4]
In 2004, the President signed Executive Order 13352 introducing the
Cooperative Conservation initiative to increase the use of
collaboration and other processes for managing land, natural resource,
and environmental issues. The order directed the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and the Interior, and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out natural resource
and environmental laws in a manner that facilitates "cooperative
conservation." The order defined this as "actions that relate to the
use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the
environment, or both, and involve collaborative activity among Federal,
State, local, and tribal governments, private for-profit and nonprofit
institutions, other nongovernmental entities and individuals." The
Executive Order is being carried out by CEQ, in its role coordinating
federal environmental efforts and working with agencies in the
development of environmental policies and initiatives. Also involved is
OMB, in its role overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and
supervising executive branch agencies. OMB evaluates the effectiveness
of agency programs, policies, and procedures, as well as ensuring that
agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are
consistent with the President's budget and with administration
policies. In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the
administration's procurement, financial management, information, and
regulatory policies.
While collaboration refers broadly to the way different groups work
together to achieve a common goal, collaborative resource management
efforts involve multiple parties joining together voluntarily to
identify environmental and natural resource problems and goals and to
design activities and projects to resolve the problems and achieve
their goals. The federal agencies work with collaborative resource
management groups using partnership tools, which are cooperative or
voluntary agreements among the federal and nonfederal groups to share
resources and achieve the objectives of all parties.[Footnote 5] Each
of the four major federal land and resource management agencies--BLM,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service within Interior
and USDA's Forest Service--has a complex mix of legislative authorities
that allow it to create and fund partnerships. In the simplest form, a
partnership can exist without any exchange of funds or items of value
from the federal agency to a nonfederal group and a memorandum of
agreement or understanding is used to describe the details of the
arrangements. In cases when federal funds or property are provided to
nonfederal entities as part of a partnership, the agencies use
different instruments such as grants or cooperative agreements to
document the agreement and work to be done.[Footnote 6]
Collaborative resource management efforts can involve any mix of the
nation's 2.3 billion acres of federal, state, local, private, or tribal
land. Historical settlement and development of the nation resulted in
the intermingling of lands among these different entities. As shown in
figure 2, about 60 percent of the nation's land, or almost 1.4 billion
acres, is privately owned and managed, while more than 27 percent, or
about 628 million acres, is managed by the four federal land and
resource management agencies. More than 43 million acres, representing
almost 2 percent of the nation's land, are owned and managed by the
federal government for purposes such as military installations and
water infrastructure. About 8 percent of the nation's land, or 195
million acres, is owned and managed by state and local governments and
more than 2 percent, or about 56 million acres, is held in trust by the
federal government for Native American tribes.
Figure 2: Land Ownership and Management in the United States:
This figure is a pie chart showing land ownership and management in the
United States.
Private landowners: 60%;
Four major federal land and resource management agencies: 27%; State
and local governments: 8%;
Native American trust: 2%;
Other federal agencies (including Department of Defense): 2%.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service and USDA data.
Note: Percentages do not add due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Collaborative efforts are governed by a framework of federal, state,
and local laws, as well as federal Indian law and tribal law, that
determine how management activities, including collaborative management
activities, are carried out. These efforts often involve coordinated
decision making for management activities that the collaborative groups
undertake. Each land and resource manager or landowner, including
federal agencies, retains decision-making authority for the activities
that occur on their respective lands and follow applicable requirements
to implement them, although the federal agencies may work with other
group members to develop and consider plans and gather information and
community input. When collaborative activities occur on private lands,
individual landowners make decisions about the activities that occur
subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws, and decide
whether and how to share information related to their lands with
members of the group.
Laws Governing Collaborative Efforts on Federal Lands:
Collaborative management activities on federal lands are governed by
federal resource and environmental laws. Overall, the four federal land
management agencies manage their lands for a variety of purposes,
although each agency has unique authorities that give it particular
responsibilities. Specifically, both BLM and the Forest Service manage
lands under their control for multiple uses and to provide a sustained
yield of renewable resources such as timber, fish and wildlife, forage
for livestock, and recreation. On the other hand, the National Park
Service's mission is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic
objects, and wildlife of the national park system so that they will
remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under its authorities, manages
refuges for the conservation, management--and where appropriate--
restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States, for the benefit of present and future
generations.
Other federal agencies--including the military services in the
Department of Defense and the power marketing administrations in the
Department of Energy--have land and resource management
responsibilities that may cause them to become involved in
collaborative efforts. The military services--the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force--use their lands primarily to train military
forces and test weapon systems, but are required under the Sikes Act of
1960 to provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural
resources on military lands. The power marketing administrations--which
include the Western Area Power Administration, Bonneville Power
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and Southeastern
Power Administration--sell and deliver power within the United States
on hundreds of miles of transmission lines across public and private
land using rights-of-way. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
transmission owners, including the power administrations, must maintain
the reliability of their transmission systems, which includes
establishing and maintaining the vegetation on these rights-of-way so
that power lines are not compromised. Lines may be at risk from trees
falling on them, electrical arcing from a power line to a tree or other
objects in the right-of-way, or forest fires. Other agencies, such as
the Department of Transportation and state transportation agencies,
conduct activities that affect land and resources, and collaborate with
agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the
effects on wildlife and habitat.
Management activities that occur on federal lands, including those
developed by a collaborative group are subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. NEPA requires that federal agencies evaluate the likely
environmental effects of proposed projects and plans using an
environmental assessment or, if the action would be likely to
significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental
impact statement. The scope of actions being analyzed under NEPA may
encompass a broad area, such as an entire national forest, or a
specific project such as treatment of invasive species on several acres
of land. The federal agencies are mandated to include the public in the
NEPA process through efforts such as providing public notice of
meetings, making related environmental documents available to the
public, and considering public comments. Under the Endangered Species
Act, federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure that any activities they carry out do not
jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered
species or destroy or harm any habitat that is critical for the
conservation of the species.[Footnote 7]
Laws Governing Collaborative Efforts on State, Local, Private, and
Tribal Lands:
Collaborative activities that occur on state, local, and private lands
are subject to state and local laws that provide authority for numerous
agencies to manage state and local lands and programs to protect and
conserve natural resources, as well as generate revenue from these
resources. Many states have trust lands that were granted to them at
statehood by the federal government. These lands, which constitute 46
million acres of the continental United States, are typically managed
to produce revenue for beneficiaries such as schools and other public
institutions. As a result, the primary uses of these state lands are
activities that may generate revenue such as livestock grazing, oil and
gas leasing, hard rock mining, and timber. In addition, states regulate
land and natural resource use through a variety of programs, such as
wildlife management or forestry programs. Each state manages fish and
wildlife through various programs, and these state wildlife programs
typically manage certain species of wildlife as game for recreation
purposes. These programs may also own and manage land with habitat
particularly suited for game species, and sometimes provide protection
for particular species of concern. State forestry agencies, which are
also in every state, can manage their state forests for uses such as
timber or recreation.
Private landowners determine how, or whether, to implement
collaborative activities on their lands, consistent with applicable
federal, state, and local laws and zoning restrictions that regulate
the types of activities that can occur on particular areas of land
including open space, agricultural, residential, commercial, and
industrial lands. For example, a nonprofit organization, such as The
Nature Conservancy, can own land solely for conservation purposes,
while a timber company uses its lands to harvest timber for profit.
Private activities must also be consistent with applicable federal
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act. Under the act,
private landowners are not required to consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on activities they conduct on their land, but the act
prohibits them from "taking" a threatened or endangered
species.[Footnote 8] In certain cases, private landowners may obtain
permits for taking species if the taking is incidental to a lawful
activity. To obtain such a permit, a landowner must submit a habitat
conservation plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that specifies
the likely effect of the landowner's activities on a listed species and
mitigation measures that the landowner will implement. Landowners may
also enter into voluntary safe harbor agreements with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in which landowners manage habitat for endangered
species in return for assurances that no additional restrictions will
be imposed as a result of their conservation actions.
Land use activities, such as harvesting trees for timber, applying
fertilizer and pesticides for agriculture, and diverting water for
irrigation or other use, can degrade air and water quality and habitat
for wildlife. However, undeveloped lands used for forestry, livestock
grazing, and agriculture--in addition to producing the nation's food
and fiber--are vital to the protection of the nation's environment and
natural resources. To encourage conservation on private lands used for
agricultural and natural resource production, USDA operates
approximately 20 voluntary conservation programs that are designed to
address a range of environmental concerns--soil erosion, surface and
ground water quantity and quality, air quality, loss of wildlife
habitat and native species, and:
others--by compensating landowners for taking certain lands out of
production or using certain conservation practices on lands in
production.[Footnote 9] Among these programs, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service manages the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, which promotes agricultural production and environmental
quality as compatible national goals and provides technical and
financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to address soil, water,
air, and related natural resource concerns and to comply with
environmental laws, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, which authorizes
technical and financial assistance to eligible landowners to restore,
enhance, and protect wetlands. Since its beginning as the Soil
Conservation Service more than 70 years ago, the service has delivered
its assistance to farmers and ranchers through partnerships with
locally led conservation districts.
Resource and land use decisions on Indian lands are governed by federal
Indian law and tribal law. Federal Indian law includes relevant
provisions of the Constitution, treaties with Indian tribes, federal
statutes and regulations, executive orders, and judicial opinions that
collectively regulate the relationships among Indian nations, the
United States, and individual state governments. Tribal law includes
the constitutions, statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, and
tradition and customs of individual tribes.
Experts Generally View Collaborative Resource Management as an
Effective Approach for Improving the Management of Natural Resources,
but a Few Question Collaboration Involving Federally Managed Lands:
Experts whose literature we reviewed consider collaborative resource
management to be effective in managing natural resources because it can
reduce or avert conflict and litigation, while at the same time
improving natural resource conditions and strengthening community
relationships. The experts note that successful groups that are able to
achieve these benefits use various collaborative practices. In
addition, many experts cite limitations to collaboration and others
question collaborative resource management efforts involving federally
managed land, arguing that collaborative efforts can favor local
interests over national interests, be dominated by particular interests
over others, result in a "least common denominator" decision that
inadequately protects natural resources, or inappropriately transfer
federal authority to local groups.
Experts View Collaboration as an Effective Approach for Improving
Natural Resource Management:
Experts view collaborative resource management as an effective approach
for addressing natural resource problems compared with more traditional
approaches, such as independent and uncoordinated decision making or
litigation. They note, based on their research of many collaborative
efforts, that collaborative resource management offers several
benefits, including (1) reduced conflict and litigation; (2) better
natural resource results; (3) shared ownership and authority; (4)
increased trust, communication, and understanding among members of a
group; and (5) increased community capacity, such as fostering the
ability for community members to engage in respectful dialogue. In
addition, experts say that effective collaboration can have different
structures and processes, but use similar practices.
According to the experts, collaboration can reduce conflict and
litigation because it provides a way for people to become directly
involved in resolving issues through face-to-face discussions and move
beyond the impasse associated with more adversarial approaches. Experts
say that the lawsuits, administrative appeals, and lobbying campaigns
that have been associated with natural resource management in the past
can be expensive and divisive and lead to delays in getting land
management activities and projects accomplished. Such was the case in
the Applegate watershed in northern California and southwestern Oregon
in the early 1990s when years of adversarial conflict between
environmentalists, the timber industry, and government agencies over
forest management issues and litigation related to these issues had
resulted in policy gridlock, with neither side able to effectively
achieve its goals. In this case and in many others cited by the
experts, stakeholders were driven to try collaboration because they
were frustrated with a lack of progress through other means. Through
face-to-face discussions, parties may be able to define solutions that
meet their mutual interests and avert potentially costly litigation
that requires winners and losers and, in some cases, results in delays.
For example, according to one of the participants of the Blackfoot
Challenge, one of the collaborative efforts we studied, the group was
able to prevent litigation by an environmental group over water flows
in the Blackfoot River in Montana by implementing conservation programs
during drought that increased water levels in the river for fish.
Figure: Blackfoot Challenge:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of Blackfoot Challenge data.
The Blackfoot Challenge collaborative effort was built around the 1.5
million acre Blackfoot River watershed in west-central Montana. The
group, which formally joined together in 1993, is working to preserve
wildlife habitat and maintain a rural way of life. This watershed has
intermingled lands, 57 percent of which are public lands, 27 percent
are private lands, and 16 percent are owned by a timber company. To
carry out their efforts, the members formed a nonprofit group that
includes federal agencies, state and local agencies, and private
landowners.
[End of figure]
The experts noted that, in addition to reducing conflict, collaboration
can lead to better natural resource results than traditional
approaches. A collaborative process, with a range of stakeholders--from
local citizens to agency technical specialists, and from
environmentalists to industry representatives--incorporates a broad
array of knowledge, which may include specialized local knowledge or
technical expertise that would not be available to particular
stakeholders or agencies if they were working alone. With input from a
wide variety of stakeholders, collaborative efforts are often able to
identify creative solutions to natural resource problems and make
better, more-informed decisions about natural resource management.
Because these decisions are made collaboratively and have concurrence
from multiple affected stakeholders, solutions are frequently easier to
implement with less opposition. A second collaborative effort we
studied, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, started in 2006 to
involve multiple stakeholders in developing and implementing solutions
to conserve sagebrush habitat.
Another benefit noted by experts is that collaborative resource
management creates shared ownership of natural resource problems among
the stakeholders. The experts recognize that many of the nation's
natural resource problems that cross ownership boundaries are not
amenable to traditional centralized government solutions through
regulation and cannot be solved by single organizations. For example,
problems such as the spread of invasive species, the decline of
threatened and endangered species, the loss of open space from
development and urban sprawl across agricultural landscapes, and non-
point-source water pollution--pollution from diffuse sources--are just
a few of the numerous challenges resulting from the independent actions
of countless individuals. Collaborative efforts bring many of these
individuals together, making progress toward resolving the problems
possible. In addition, through collaboration, federal and state
programs can be made locally relevant and decision making and progress
are able to transcend political boundaries. Consequently, local
stakeholders feel consulted and may view federal agencies as partners,
and programs encourage joint stewardship of public lands.
Figure: Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Geological Survey data.
The Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative is a collaborative group that
began in 2006 to focus on enhancing the sagebrush range, which spans 11
western states. The Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative incorporated into
a nonprofit organization in 2007. Participants in the effort include
representatives from federal agencies such as BLM, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service; nonprofit groups such as the Sand County
Foundation and the North American Grouse Partnership; energy
companies such as Encana Oil and Gas, Peabody Energy, and Shell Oil;
and private landowners.
[End of figure]
Experts also noted that collaborative resource management can increase
communication, trust, and understanding among different stakeholders.
The collaborative process can bring together stakeholders with
divergent interests who may have no prior direct experience working
together or have an adversarial relationship. As they work together to
address a particular common natural resource problem, these
stakeholders often begin to develop trust and increase communication.
Furthermore, through such communication, stakeholders can become more
informed about each other and the natural resource problem and develop
an enhanced understanding of its complexities. For example,
environmental and industry groups with divergent opinions about natural
resource use may be represented in a particular collaborative effort.
Through working together in collaborative groups and opening lines of
communication, these stakeholders may learn to appreciate each other's
perspective by focusing on interests that they have in common. Experts
have noted examples in which environmentalists learned to appreciate
ranchers' needs to earn a living through grazing livestock, timber
companies acknowledge the value of healthy ecosystems, and federal
agency technical experts recognized the importance of using traditional
knowledge in land management practices. One of the collaborative
efforts we studied, the Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem
Management, has shared information to improve forested habitat,
including on private timber lands.
In addition to improving relationships within a collaborative group,
experts identify collaboration more broadly as a means to increase the
social capacity of a community. Increased community capacity can
include developing networks between the public and private sectors and
enhancing the public's engagement in issues affecting the community.
The experts note that through increasing community capacity,
collaborative groups may enable the community to deal better with
future problems that arise.
Collaborative groups that are able to achieve these benefits can be
organized differently and have different decision making and
organizational processes, but use similar practices that distinguish
them from more traditional groups and make their efforts more effective
and potentially more successful. A collaborative group can be organized
formally--such as a legislatively mandated advisory group or an
incorporated nonprofit organization--or less formally, with loosely
organized members and simple written agreements. Collaborative groups
may also employ a variety of processes to manage their meetings and
organizations and may strive to achieve different desired outcomes,
such as sharing information on what each member is doing, partnering on
particular management activities, or seeking agreement on how to manage
natural resource problems.
While group structure and process may differ, many experts identified
collaborative practices that groups share and that can contribute to
effective collaboration.[Footnote 10] The experts primarily identified
the following practices through studying various existing collaborative
resource management efforts:
Figure: Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management
collaborative group formed in 1992 with the idea of managing
neighboring lands in Michigan‘s eastern Upper Peninsula in a
complementary way by sharing information. The eastern Upper Peninsula
includes forests that have historically been managed for timber. The
group focuses on about 4 million acres that span the Hiawatha National
Forest, the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, state land, and privately-owned land. The partners include
the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, The Nature
Conservancy, and companies owning private forest land.
[End of figure]
* Seek inclusive representation. Most of the experts who wrote about
collaborative practices noted that all stakeholders--individuals and
organizations whose interests are affected by the process or its
outcome--should be included in the process by participating or being
represented. One expert suggested that such stakeholders may include
those affected by any sort of agreement that could be reached, those
needed to successfully implement an agreement, and those who could
undermine an agreement if not included in the process. Some experts
added that participation should be voluntary.
* Develop a collaborative process. Many experts noted that a
collaborative process should be designed by the participants to fit the
needs and circumstances of their situation. Some experts recommended
that groups employ the assistance of a neutral facilitator with
experience in building collaborative processes. According to some
experts, the process should include decision and process rules to
govern how the group operates. For example, collaborative groups may
use consensus to make decisions, described by several experts as a
process in which discussion proceeds until all viewpoints are heard and
the stakeholders, or most of the stakeholders, are willing to agree to
a conclusion or course of action. When using consensus, some experts
note that a group should agree on what consensus means and what the
responsibilities are for parties who disagree, such as providing an
alternative. In addition to establishing decision rules, one expert
noted that participants need to identify the roles and responsibilities
for implementing an agreement and obtain commitment from the
participants that an agreement will be implemented.
* Pursue flexibility, openness, and respect. According to many experts,
flexibility, transparency, and respect should be built into the
collaborative process. Flexibility is important in the process in order
to accommodate changing timetables, issues, data needs, interests, and
knowledge. Transparency and open communication are essential for
maintaining trust and can be achieved through maintaining a written
record of proceedings and decisions and ensuring that all parties have
equal access to relevant information. Having a respectful process is
also necessary to attain civil discourse in which participants listen
to one another, take each participant's perspectives seriously, and
attempt to address the concerns of each participant. Building respect
and openness involves accepting the diverse values, interests, and
knowledge--including local knowledge--of the parties involved.
* Find leadership. Several experts identified the need for
collaborative groups to find a credible leader who is capable of
articulating a strong vision. According to the experts, a leader should
have good communication skills, be able to work on all sides of an
issue, and ensure that the collaborative process established by the
group is followed. Experts noted that neutral facilitators can also
function as leaders for a group. In addition, experts said that it is
important to build leadership skills within the organizations
participating in a group so that these leaders can effectively
represent the interests of their organizations.
* Identify or develop a common goal. Most of the experts who wrote
about collaborative practices noted the importance of groups having
clear goals. In a collaborative process, the participants may not have
the same overall interests--in fact they may have conflicting
interests. However, by establishing a goal based on what the group
shares in common--a sense of place or community, mutual goals, or
mutual fears--rather than on where there is disagreement among missions
or philosophies, a collaborative group can shape its own vision and
define its own purpose. When articulated and understood by the members
of a group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to
participate in the process.
* Develop a process for obtaining information. Some experts noted that
effective collaborative processes incorporate high-quality information,
including both scientific information and local knowledge, accessible
to and understandable by all participants. As one expert noted,
conflict over issues of fact is capable of incapacitating a
collaborative process. Therefore, it is important to develop a common
factual base, which can be accomplished by all participants jointly
gathering and developing a common understanding of relevant data. This
process allows the stakeholders to accept the facts themselves, rather
than having the facts disseminated to them through experts.
* Leverage available resources. Many of the experts emphasized that
collaboration can take time and resources in order to accomplish such
activities as building trust among the participants, setting up the
ground rules for the process, attending meetings, conducting project
work, and monitoring and evaluating the results of work performed.
Consequently, it is important for groups to ensure that they identify
and leverage sufficient funding to get the group started and to
accomplish the objectives. One expert noted that many collaborative
groups are successful in attracting sufficient funding for restoration
projects but have difficulty in securing funding for administration of
the group.
* Provide incentives. Some experts note that economic incentives can
help collaborative efforts achieve their goals. For example, by
purchasing conservation easements, a group can give landowners
incentives to help achieve the goal of preserving open space. A
conservation easement is a restriction placed on a parcel of land that
limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place
in order to protect the resources associated with the land. By
purchasing easements and thus creating an incentive for a landowner to
keep the land in its current land use, the groups are able to keep the
land from being developed, preserving open space and providing other
ecological benefits.
* Monitor results for accountability. According to many experts, to be
effective, the participants in groups need to be accountable to their
constituencies and to the process that they have established. In
addition, organizations supporting the process expect accountability
for the time, effort, money, or patience they invested in the group. As
a result, experts note the importance of designing protocols to monitor
and evaluate progress toward a collaborative group's goals, from both
an environmental and a social perspective. Some experts recommend that
collaborative groups use monitoring as a part of an adaptive management
approach that involves modifying management strategies or project
implementation based on the results of initial activities.
While experts noted that these practices are commonly shared by
successful collaborative groups, one expert said that the use of the
collaborative practices does not guarantee a group's success. To
measure whether groups are successful, experts noted that two criteria
can be used: (1) whether the groups were able to increase participation
and cooperation and (2) whether they improved natural resource
conditions. The first criterion measures success based on
organizational factors and social outcomes, such as improved relations
and trust among stakeholders. In many instances, the groups studied by
one expert identified factors such as improved communication and
understanding as their greatest success. Factors used by some experts
to evaluate success in this respect include the perceived effects of
the collaborative effort in building relationships, the extent of
agreement reached, and educating and outreaching to members of the
community. The second criterion for success is based on whether groups
have been able to improve natural resource conditions as measured by
specific indicators, such as water quality, ecosystem health, or
species recovery. Some experts note that to evaluate progress toward
improving resource conditions, monitoring needs to be performed over a
period long enough for change to occur and focus on indicators that are
associated with a group's natural resource goals.
Many Experts Identified Limitations of Collaboration and a Few Raise
Questions about Using It on Federally Managed Lands:
Although collaborative resource management is generally viewed by the
experts as an effective approach for addressing natural resource
problems, many experts discussed two limitations to its use. First, the
process of collaboration, which involves bringing people together to
work on a problem and moving the group forward to reach a decision, can
be difficult and time-consuming, particularly in the initial stages
when the group is getting started, and thus require large amounts of
resources, including staff and money. Even after a group has been
working together for a period of time, there may be inefficiencies with
the process as new group members need to be brought up to speed.
Second, collaboration does not always work in providing the solution to
all natural resource problems. In some instances, for example when
there are irreconcilable differences among group members, agreement may
not be possible. In other instances, one particular stakeholder may
derail the process by refusing to cooperate. As a result, collaborative
resource management is not applicable everywhere, and collaborative
efforts may not be replicable. For example, collaboration may not work
in a community deeply divided over a particular natural resource issue
that has generated a long history of controversy and litigation even
though a collaborative effort dealing with the same issue was
successful in another community.
Furthermore, some experts question whether collaborative resource
management groups are equitable; have balanced power; produce solutions
that are protective of the environment; and are accountable to the
public, particularly in circumstances where federally managed lands are
involved. A number of experts raised concern over the equity of
collaboration, noting that it can remove discussions from the public
arena and empower those who are involved in the group at the expense of
those who cannot, or choose not to, participate even though they have a
legitimate interest. By their nature, collaborative groups tend to be
primarily made up of local stakeholders. Yet, others who may not live
in the community but have an interest in the lands because they
recreate there, use water originating there, or value endangered
species living there are sometimes left out of the process because they
are unaware it is occurring or do not have the means or the resources
to participate. For example, national environmental organizations
cannot always participate in local efforts because they may not have
people at these locations or be able to bear the expense of traveling
there.
Some experts also question collaboration on the grounds that public
processes may be co-opted by parties with particular interests who
manage to control the agenda of the group. Many experts raising this
question were concerned about local economic interests taking over a
process and, because of their influence, overriding other interests.
Yet, one expert noted concerns that the process could also be co-opted
by environmental interests. Furthermore, some experts critical of
collaborative resource management raised concerns about the efforts
focusing on reaching a consensus decision. By trying to reach
consensus, they argued, compromises are made that can result in a
"least common denominator" solution, which some may view as less
protective of the natural resources.
Finally, a few experts criticize collaborative efforts designed to make
decisions about management activities on federal lands because they
believe collaboration reduces federal agencies' accountability to the
broader public. Specifically, some of these experts say that
collaboration effectively transfers the authority to make land
management decisions from the federal land management agencies to local
citizens. Consequently, these experts argue that when collaborative
groups make decisions related to federal land, the land and resource
management agencies do not carry out their legal responsibilities to
manage the public land and are not accountable to the public.
In response to such questions raised about collaboration, other experts
note that a well-designed and implemented collaborative process can
avoid some of the outcomes with which the critics of collaboration are
concerned. For example, a process that is inclusive will incorporate
both local and national interests, and a process that uses the
leadership of a neutral facilitator can help to ensure that all
viewpoints are considered and prevent any one group from taking over
the process. Furthermore, one expert notes that a well-designed
collaborative process that includes debate over the facts of an issue
can avoid a "least common denominator" solution. Finally, according to
an expert, when participating in collaborative groups that are
transparent, federal agencies can show that they are not improperly
transferring authority to local communities.
Most Collaborative Efforts We Studied Reduced or Averted Resource
Conflicts, Completed Projects, and Improved Natural Resource Conditions
to an Extent That Could Not Be Determined:
Overall, the collaborative resource management efforts that we studied
were successful in achieving participation and cooperation among their
members and sustaining or improving natural resource conditions, the
two criteria the experts identified to gauge the success of
collaborative groups. Six of the seven collaborative efforts we studied
have reduced or averted the kinds of conflicts that often arise when
dealing with contentious natural resource problems, particularly those
that cross property boundaries, such as threatened and endangered
species, lack of wildland fire, invasive species, degraded wildlife
habitat, or similar problems. However, the extent of resource
improvement across broader landscapes that the efforts were working in
was difficult to determine because the landscape-level data needed to
make such determinations were not always gathered.
Most Collaborative Resource Management Efforts Reduced or Averted
Conflicts through Cooperation among Participants:
The seven efforts we studied managed natural resource problems that can
often cause conflict and controversy, and sometimes litigation. As
shown in table 1, the natural resource problems undertaken by the seven
efforts we studied ranged widely from fragmented riparian habitat for
fish and lack of wildland fire in rangeland ecosystems to predator
interactions with livestock, travel access in wilderness areas, and
nature-related outdoor activities.
Table 1: Natural Resource Problems and Common Interest Solutions of
Seven Collaborative Resource Management Efforts:
Collaborative resource management effort: Blackfoot Challenge;
Natural resource problem:
* Runoff from sawmill into Blackfoot River;
* Development of private ranches and timberland;
* Fragmented riparian habitat for fish;
* Grizzly bear and wolf interaction with livestock;
* Drought conditions;
Common interest solution:
* Negotiated to keep sawmill in business and to take measures to stop
runoff;
* Purchased conservation easements to keep land open. Some are managed
by state and federal agencies, some by The Nature Conservancy;
* Worked with Trout Unlimited to develop a watershed plan for restoring
habitat and reconnecting tributaries across private land;
* Developed carcass removal program and fencing program for spring
calving season;
* Wrote water-sharing plan for drought conditions.
Collaborative resource management effort: Cooperative Sagebrush
Initiative;
Natural resource problem:
* Managing sagebrush habitat for species at risk, including sage
grouse;
* Expanding the planning scale of sagebrush habitat conservation to
address critical habitat areas of key species being affected by
permitted development activities;
Common interest solution:
* Developed conceptual plan for sagebrush restoration credits market;
* Identified policy assurances that are needed for private landowners
to provide habitat for potentially threatened and endangered species;
* Solicited pilot projects for restoration of sagebrush habitat.
Collaborative resource management effort: Eastern Upper Peninsula
Partners in Ecosystem Management;
Natural resource problem:
* Sustainable ecological management at the landscape scale hindered by
lack of cooperation across ownership boundaries;
* Homogenous (same age and size) forest across landscape that does not
provide for wildlife such as neotropical birds;
Common interest solution:
* Developed a common system to classify ecosystem forest types across
the eastern Upper Peninsula;
* Shared information on ongoing work and projects. As members find
common projects, they work on them together.
Collaborative resource management effort: Malpai Borderlands Group;
Natural resource problem:
* Lack of wildland fire to regenerate grasslands;
* Effects of fire on threatened and endangered species;
* Development of open land;
* Potential overuse of range during drought;
* Threatened and endangered species habitat on private land;
Common interest solution:
* Developed fire plans with federal agencies to allow wildland fire to
be used to manage range vegetation;
* Resolved threatened and endangered species issues to allow several
burns to occur. Developing habitat conservation plan to allow more
burning and protection of species;
* Purchased conservation easements to protect ranches from development;
* Developed a grassbank to allow ranchers to graze livestock during
drought;
* Protected the habitat of threatened frogs through drought by trucking
in water. Used safe harbor agreement with Fish and Wildlife Service to
document habitat requirements on private and nonfederal land.
Collaborative resource management effort: Onslow Bight Forum;
Natural resource problem:
* Development of forest lands and wetlands;
* Lack of wildland fire to restore habitat and ecosystem processes;
* Increase in vehicle/wildlife accidents due to improvements and
expansion of transportation system;
Common interest solution:
* Developed plan to identify key areas and habitats for acquisition,
restoration, and protection;
* Held workshops to discuss using wildland fire to manage native
vegetative communities and to identify areas in which to use fire;
* Identified opportunities to use wildlife-friendly underpasses during
construction of new or improved highways.
Collaborative resource management effort: Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Area (CMPA) Advisory Council;
Natural resource problem:
* Multiple different management requirements in Steens Mountain CMPA,
including travel access in wilderness areas;
* Juniper encroachment into sagebrush and grasslands;
Common interest solution:
* Provided input on a Cooperative Management Plan to BLM. The plan does
not deal with travel access in the area[A];
* Provided recommendations for recreation and juniper management in the
area.
Collaborative resource management effort: Uncompahgre Plateau Project;
Natural resource problem:
* Homogenous vegetation and lack of understory affecting habitat for
mule deer and other species;
* Power transmission lines and public/private structures threatened by
possible wildland fires;
* Lack of native species for large-scale restoration, rehabilitation,
and enhancement projects;
* Invasive species alter ecology and crowd out native species;
Common interest solution:
* Assessed the condition of vegetation across the Plateau. Identified
areas where vegetation could be treated and enhanced and the cumulative
effects of such projects, which can be used to assess overall ecosystem
conditions;
* Identified ways to incorporate vegetation treatments within areas
such as utility corridors;
* Developed a program to gather and propagate native plants. Developed
methods for propagation to transfer to nurseries;
* Developed a program to map, monitor, control, and prevent invasive
species.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] BLM completed a travel management plan for the area in November
2007.
[End of table]
Each of the natural resource problems the efforts managed, or are
managing, involves many different interests that can potentially lead
to conflict among the different members of the group. For example, in
the Blackfoot Challenge case, federal agencies are required to protect
threatened and endangered species such as the grizzly bear and the gray
wolf, yet ranchers fear these large predators because of the harm they
can cause to livestock. Or, in the Uncompahgre Plateau example, as a
result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, transmission line operators
must ensure that their power lines remain reliable, which traditionally
involved clear cutting the rights-of-ways involved, even on public
lands. Meanwhile, natural resource managers seek to provide habitat for
lynx and deer and to prevent large openings in the forest that may come
with utility corridors. The natural resource problems and potential or
actual conflicts managed by each of the groups are described in more
detail in appendix II.
As table 1 shows, six of the seven efforts were able to identify
solutions to their natural resource problems that met their common
interests. For example, by developing the concept of a credit system,
the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative has identified a way to encourage-
-and pay for--preservation and restoration of sagebrush habitat while
also allowing for the development of sagebrush in areas that are
economically or otherwise important. In another example, the Onslow
Bight Forum identified lands that were important to preserve and
restore as habitat for different species and purchased these from
willing landowners. Because the groups can pool their funds, they are
able to purchase more properties and more expensive properties, and by
purchasing the land on the free market from willing owners, the group
provides the landowners with the value of their property, thereby not
harming their economic interests. While the seventh group--the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council--was able to provide advice on a cooperative
management plan and vegetation treatment plans, it did not provide
input on a travel management plan for the area, a key management issue.
All seven efforts we studied used several of the collaborative
practices identified by the experts--such as seeking inclusive
participation; using collaborative processes; pursuing flexibility,
openness, and respect; and finding leadership--and six of the efforts
were successful in reducing or averting conflicts. These six groups
were able to cooperate and focus on their common interests and goals,
despite different perspectives and interests among the members. In
addition to identifying common goals, several of the successful efforts
were able to use other practices, such as obtaining scientific and
other information to inform their decisions, leveraging funds, and
providing incentives. The one effort that has been less successful in
dealing with conflict used several of the collaborative practices, but
does not have a common goal and does not have funding to gather
information, leverage resources, or provide incentives.
Figure: Steens Mountain Advisory Count:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
The Steens Mountain collaborative effort is located in southeastern
Oregon. The effort is focused on about 496,000 acres of high
desert mountain area that has great ecological diversity and varied
wildlife. The primary resource concerns at Steens Mountain include
issues related to livestock grazing, wilderness, travel access, and
management of junipers that have encroached into sagebrush and grassland
areas. In 2000, the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act established the area and tasked the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council with providing innovative and creative suggestions to
the BLM on how to manage the natural resources on Steens Mountain in a
manner that would alleviate conflict. The Steens Mountain Advisory
Council includes local ranchers, recreationists, and environmental
representatives.
[End of figure]
Seek Inclusive Participation. The seven groups each have members that
have multiple different perspectives such as private landowners,
conservation groups, natural resource land management agencies, and
wildlife agencies. Most of the groups include representatives from
federal agencies such as BLM, the Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and several include USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service. All but one of the groups we studied were
primarily organized around landowners and managers who can make
decisions about their respective lands, including members of
conservation-oriented groups such as The Nature Conservancy and local
conservation groups such as the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust and
North Carolina Coastal Federation. Two groups, the Blackfoot Challenge
and the Malpai Borderlands Group, focus primarily on private lands and
the surrounding public lands. On the other hand, the Uncompahgre
Plateau, Onslow Bight Forum, and the Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners
in Ecosystem Management include large areas of public lands, with the
exception of lands owned by the land conservancy groups in North
Carolina and several forest companies in Michigan. While the groups are
open to other participants such as environmental groups, according to
several participants, they may not seek them out or the environmental
groups may not participate. All but one of the groups have self-
selected membership, which means that they attract members who are
interested in working on the problems identified by the group and are
willing to find solutions to these problems, which may not be the case
with certain organizations. Only one group, the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council, is required by law to include certain members,
including representatives of the ranching and environmental
communities, including one local and one national representative from
each.
Develop a Collaborative Process. The seven groups we studied are
organized differently but are each organized to collaborate. Three of
the groups--the Blackfoot Challenge, the Cooperative Sagebrush
Initiative, and the Malpai Borderlands Group--have incorporated as
nonprofit organizations, each with a board of directors, and one--the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project--has a separate nonprofit financial
management group. According to members of one group, being incorporated
allows the group the autonomy to raise funds and complete management
projects on its own, without relying on the federal or state agencies.
Also, incorporating puts the groups on equal footing with the agencies
as they identify projects with mutual benefits. Of the remaining three
groups, two are less formally organized and one is more formally
organized. The Onslow Bight Forum and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group
function as information-sharing groups that allow the individual
members to determine what actions they will take independently. The
Onslow Bight Forum uses a memorandum of understanding to identify the
role of each member and the group, while the Eastern Upper Peninsula
group does not have any organization documents and operates informally.
Finally, the last group--the Steens Mountain Advisory Committee--is a
legislatively organized advisory group for BLM and has written
protocols to describe its organization and processes.
All but one of these groups uses a consensus process to make decisions.
This process involves all participants, focuses on solutions, and
proceeds until agreement is reached. For example, participants of one
group, the Blackfoot Challenge, said that its members followed the 80-
20 rule--they worked on 80 percent of the items they could agree on and
left the 20 percent they could not agree on at the door. The
participants said that as they worked together longer, the 20 percent
of items that cause disagreement have been reduced as well. Two groups-
-the Onslow Bight Forum and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group--do not
make formal decisions, but use a consensus process in discussing and
agreeing on a plan of action that members can decide to take or not.
One group, the Steens Mountain Advisory Council, uses a voting process
to make certain decisions rather than a consensus process. To make a
recommendation to BLM, the advisory council is required to have 9 of
its 12 members vote in favor of it. According to the members, unfilled
positions and poor attendance at council meetings have made it
difficult to achieve the number of votes needed to make recommendations
to BLM.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect. All but one of the groups
have flexible and open processes that allow the members to discuss
their positions. Two of the groups--the Onslow Bight Forum and the
Eastern Upper Peninsula group--would not likely exist without the
openness that allowed the members to retain their own missions and land
management goals rather than the group subsuming them. Several of the
groups, such as the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, use Web sites and
plans to communicate with each other and the community. On the other
hand, the Steens Mountain Advisory Council is different from the other
groups in that it was legislatively created, and the act that created
both the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area
(CMPA) and the council resulted from lengthy negotiations among several
parties, some of whom are, or have been, represented on the council.
The group has used facilitators to overcome some of the conflict that
developed through the negotiations, but some acknowledge that the
council established by the act has not yet resolved key conflicts over
management of the area. Yet, some of the members we interviewed were
hopeful that a change in members that occurred recently might help to
invigorate the group.
Figure: Onslow Bight Conservation Forum:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of the Nature Conservancy data.
The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum is a collaborative group focused on
the long-leaf pine forests, estuaries, wetlands, and
pocosins (wetlands on a hill that form because of accumulated peat) in
coastal North Carolina. The group formed in 2001 around issues such as
increasing development and its effects on wildlife habitat,
particularly that of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, and water
quality. The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum is an information-sharing
partnership of federal and state agencies and nonprofit groups who
have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to identify opportunities to
work together to conserve the natural resources of the Onslow Bight
landscape. The members include the Marine Corps, Forest Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, The
Nature Conservancy, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, and the
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust.
[End of figure]
Find Leadership. All of the groups have benefited from the availability
of community leaders or agency employees who could lead the group.
Several of the groups were started by local community leaders who
energized and engaged others to work with them, although the federal
agency staff were working alongside the community leaders to support
the efforts. In particular, the Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands
Group, and Uncompahgre Plateau projects were started and sustained by
community leaders, but they recognize the important contribution of the
federal agency employees who were involved as well. On the other hand,
federal and state agency employees took the lead in starting the
Eastern Upper Peninsula group and were also important in the
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, and federal agency staff worked with
staff from The Nature Conservancy to start the Onslow Bight Forum. One
community leader on the Steens advisory council has attempted to focus
the group on its role and keep it on track for making recommendations
to BLM.
Identify a Common Goal. Of the seven groups we studied, six identified
and shared a common goal. For example, the Onslow Bight Forum brought
together diverse members with similar interests in preserving open
space and habitat--the U.S. Marine Corps has an interest in preserving
open space around its installations for safety reasons and to help save
endangered species, and land conservation groups seek to preserve
habitat corridors and prevent development of the rural landscape.
Similarly, the Eastern Upper Peninsula group focused on the need to
facilitate complementary management of public and private lands, for
all appropriate land uses, and to sustain and enhance representative
ecosystems in the Eastern Upper Peninsula. On the other hand, the
Steens Mountain Advisory Council does not share a common goal for
management of the Steens Mountain area, with some members advocating
motor vehicle access through wilderness areas for historical uses such
as livestock grazing and others advocating for more wilderness areas to
be set aside in the planning area and greater conservation requirements
instituted in those wilderness areas already existing. The Steens
Mountain act established a cooperative management area, the purpose of
which is to conserve, protect, and manage the long-term ecological
integrity of Steens Mountain for present and future generations. To
further this purpose, the act directed BLM to manage the area to
achieve five objectives.[Footnote 11] Several participants indicated
that the issue will need to be litigated to clarify the act's
requirements.
Figure: Uncompahgre Plateau Project:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of Uncompahgre Plateau Project data.
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project collaborative group is located in
southwestern Colorado. The group focuses its efforts on the Uncompahgre
Plateau, which spans 1.5 million acres, 75 percent of which is public
land. The plateau is home to abundant wildlife species, including
populations of mule deer. The group formed in 2001 to protect and
restore the ecosystem health of the plateau. In addition, key
electrical transmission lines that connect the eastern and western
United States cross the plateau, creating the need for vegetation
management near these lines. The partners in the Uncompahgre Plateau
Project include the Forest Service, BLM, Public Lands Partnership,
Colorado Division of Widlife, Western Area Power Administration, and
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. The partners
signed a Memorandum of Understanding and established an Executive
Committee to guide its overall direction; a Technical Committee and
contract employees, to carry out its activities; and a nonprofit
organization to handle its finances.
[End of figure]
Develop a Process for Obtaining Common Information. Each of the seven
collaborative groups has established a group or process to jointly
develop and use scientific information as part of their decision
making, although some groups have done so more than others. For
example, the Malpai Borderlands Group has a scientific advisory board
to develop research projects on fire to support the group's efforts to
restore fire, which had been suppressed for decades, to the ecosystem
to help restore healthy grasslands. It also holds annual science
conferences to bring together the relevant scientific findings on
rangelands, fire, threatened and endangered species, and other issues.
The group also works with USDA, Forest Service, and university
researchers on vegetation and fire studies. On the other hand, rather
than develop its own scientific information, the Cooperative Sagebrush
Initiative relied on data produced by the U.S. Geological Survey on
sagebrush habitat and studies completed by the Western Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies to assess the status of sage grouse and the
sagebrush ecosystem in the 11 western states involved. Several groups
developed landscape maps to show different information. For example,
the Onslow Bight Forum used habitat and biological information, and
other information, to develop a landscape map of the key areas for
habitat and preservation purposes. Finally, some groups, such as the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project, reported that using scientific
information, including field trips to demonstrate effects of their
management activities, helped them to communicate their efforts to
outside parties who may have otherwise been critical.
Leverage Available Resources. Five of the groups have been able to
generate funding from various sources, such as federal and private
foundation grants, and to use these funds in conjunction with federal
partners' funding to leverage the amount of work that could be done by
the group. For example, the Blackfoot Challenge recently received an
Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation[Footnote 12]
award of $100,000, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project received $500,000
from the state of Colorado and $620,000 from the Ford
Foundation,[Footnote 13] and the Malpai Borderlands Group received $8.5
million from its different fundraising efforts. According to the Onslow
Bight Forum, its members have raised as much as $75 million since 2001
from state and federal funds to acquire land, a process helped by the
existence of the forum. On the other hand, the Eastern Upper Peninsula
project and the Steens Mountain Advisory Council do not generate
funding. The Eastern Upper Peninsula project members said they did not
intend to raise funds because they did not intend to conduct joint
projects, and the Steens group is not organized to raise funds. The
federal legislation that created the Steens Mountain Advisory Council
authorized $25 million to be appropriated to BLM to work with local
ranchers, landowners, and others to conduct work in the cooperative
management area; however, these funds have not been provided. Some
members said that, if provided, these funds could be used to pursue
activities such as purchasing private inholdings, which are privately
owned lands within the boundary of a national park, forest, or other
land management unit.
Figure: Malpai Borderlands Group:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Malpai Borderlands Group data.
The Malpai Borderlands Group collaborative effort is located on the
border with Mexico in southern New Mexico and Arizona. The group formed
a nonprofit organization in 1994 to work on restoring the natural fire
regime, preserve large open space, and maintain a rural lifestyle in
the approximately 800,000 acres of desert grassland region that
includes a mix of federal, state, and private land.
The Malpai Borderlands Group was initiated by a group of ranchers and
environmentalists. Federal agencies, including the Forest Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Arizona and New Mexico state agencies; and conservation groups, such as
The Nature Conservancy, have played a role in the group‘s efforts.
[End of figure]
Provide Incentives. Several of the groups we studied that have dealt
successfully with conflict used different types of incentives to gain
cooperation and participation. Such incentives include conservation
easements, payments for projects or damages caused by wildlife, and
different agreements related to threatened and endangered species. The
Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands Group, and Eastern Upper
Peninsula project have arranged, or helped arrange, conservation
easements to protect either rangeland or forested land that could have
been developed for housing, otherwise. The Malpai group also used
another type of payment to help reduce conflict over livestock losses
caused by predators, supporting a predation fund to pay ranchers when
it can be proved a predator--the jaguar in New Mexico and Arizona--has
killed livestock.
A third type of incentive, safe harbor agreements and habitat
conservation plans, has been used by the Malpai Borderlands Group. Safe
harbor agreements seek to assure landowners that if they restore or
enhance habitat, they will not incur new restrictions if their actions
result in a threatened or endangered species taking up residence. In
order to obtain a permit to take a species incidental to lawful land
management activities, a landowner must complete a habitat conservation
plan, which specifies measures the landowner will undertake to minimize
and mitigate the effect on the species. These agreements encourage
private landowners to conduct projects that will protect species on
their property, while also protecting their use of the land should they
"take" one of the species--either by killing it or degrading its
habitat. According to one group these agreements can be complex and
time-consuming to arrange, and thus, it may be more efficient for the
group to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the
process than for each individual landowner. In addition to these types
of arrangements, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative wants to develop
a related incentive, a conservation credit bank in which one party
would pay to protect sagebrush habitat, or conduct restoration of
habitat, and another party would purchase credits to develop land that
would degrade sagebrush habitat or kill a species. The group is still
considering how to measure the conservation value of different
sagebrush species and habitat they provide and how to monitor those
values.
Collaborative Efforts Have Improved Natural Resource Conditions, but
Determining the Extent of Improvement Was Difficult Because of Limited
Landscape Data:
Through cooperating, five of the seven efforts we studied have
accomplished multiple management activities and projects that have
helped sustain or improve natural resource conditions in their areas.
Officials of the five efforts that have completed resource management
projects to date said that this work had improved resource conditions
and helped to accomplish the goals the groups hoped to achieve. The
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative has not yet accomplished its work, as
it started in September 2006 and is just developing demonstration
projects. And, although the Steens Mountain Advisory Council has helped
BLM to develop a management plan for the Steens Mountain CMPA, it did
not deal with the most contentious issues that relate to travel access,
wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas in the plan issued in
November 2007. Table 2 shows the work accomplished by the different
efforts that we studied.
Table 2: Natural Resource Accomplishments, Improvements, and Monitoring
by Seven Collaborative Resource Management Efforts:
Collaborative resource management effort: Blackfoot Challenge;
Work accomplished: 90,000 acres of easements acquired;
38 miles on 39 tributaries restored and 62 miles of riparian habitat
restored; fish populations increasing;
Carcass removal program--340 carcasses removed in 2005; fencing for
spring calving;
75 irrigators involved and 60 cubic feet per second of water saved in
2005;
Improved natural resource conditions:
* Prevent development of private ranches and timberland, maintain open
space;
* Protect riparian habitat, including for endangered bull trout;
* Limit grizzly bear and wolf conflicts with livestock;
* Conserve water particularly during drought conditions;
Monitoring conducted: Site-specific:
- Monitoring of riparian projects;
- Landscape-level:
- Fish population monitoring in Blackfoot River;
- Water quality and quantity.
Collaborative resource management effort: Cooperative Sagebrush
Initiative;
Work accomplished: Three ecosystem-scale, integrated projects in
development in four states, 1 million acres of sagebrush habitat
involved;
Improved natural resource conditions:
* Demonstrate ability to manage sagebrush habitat at a large scale for
species at risk, including sage grouse;
Monitoring conducted: None yet.
Collaborative resource management effort: Eastern Upper Peninsula
Partners in Ecosystem Management;
Work accomplished: Land-type associations created;
Fostered communication among National Park Service, state, and private
timber company about timber management in buffer zone;
Conflict over road across land owned by The Nature Conservancy
resolved;
Joint cross-country ski trail developed across lands with different
ownership;
Improved natural resource conditions:
* Create single land-type classification for all lands to facilitate
complementary management;
* Cooperatively manage National Park Service buffer zone including
timber harvests;
* Maintain and manage public and private forests in a complementary
way;
* Develop joint projects;
Monitoring conducted: None as a group, agency monitoring of various
projects, species, and habitat conditions as appropriate.
Collaborative resource management effort: Malpai Borderlands Group;
Work accomplished: 69,000 acres of land burned;
Conservation easements protecting 77,000 acres;
Grassbank created, allows ranchers to move their cattle during drought
to less-affected area;
Chiracahua leopard frog habitat protected on private land;
In 2007, paid $500 to rancher to compensate for jaguar predation;
Improved natural resource conditions:
* Reintroduce wildland fire to grasslands;
* Prevent development of private ranches, maintain open space;
* Protect lands and financial stability of ranchers;
* Protect habitat for endangered species;
Monitoring conducted: Site-specific:
290 transects (a sample path) to monitor condition of range in that
area;
Research project monitoring.
Species counts before and after projects (such as fires).
Collaborative resource management effort: Onslow Bight Forum;
Work accomplished: 57,000 acres of wetlands and other lands acquired,
restoration underway;
60,000 acres burned (some as part of regular agency programs);
Improved natural resource conditions:
* Acquire lands, protect habitat for endangered species;
* Acquire lands, prevent loss of open space and restore habitat;
* Manage wildland fire to restore habitat and ecosystem processes;
* Use habitat corridors and wildlife-friendly highway underpasses to
protect bears and other species; Monitoring conducted: None as a group,
agencies monitor projects, species, and habitat conditions as
appropriate.
Collaborative resource management effort: Steens Mountain CMPA Advisory
Council;
Work accomplished: Management plan completed, travel plan completed in
November 2007;
Juniper management area with numerous test plots to demonstrate
different ways to remove large trees to enable fire to move more
naturally through thick juniper stands; Improved natural resource
conditions:
* Advise on management plan for CMPA;
* Advise on cooperative management activities in CMPA;
* Advise on treating juniper encroachment; Monitoring conducted:
Monitoring plan for CMPA developed by BLM with review and feedback from
the Council.
Collaborative resource management effort: Uncompahgre Plateau Project;
Work accomplished: Integrated GIS maps and developed plan and projects
for two entire watersheds, including BLM and Forest Service land;
Treated 50,000 acres of agency land;
Gathered native seeds for more than 50 plants and developed methods for
propagating these;
Treated invasive species on more than 100,000 acres; Improved natural
resource conditions;
* Restore wildlife habitat on the Plateau;
* Reduce vegetation to reduce fire threats;
* Develop native seed program to provide vegetation conditioned to the
area
* Reduce invasive species on public and private lands;
Monitoring conducted:
Site-level:
-Condition of vegetation in project areas after treatment;
-Landscape-level;
-Location of vegetation treatments and burns to show overall openings
and continuity of trees and vegetation;
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
As shown in table 2, the efforts' accomplishments ranged widely, from
developing joint plans and scientific information, to changing
vegetation conditions and managing species habitat. For example, some
of the groups developed landscape maps of vegetation and potential
habitat that integrated information for each of the members in the
group. The groups also accomplished numerous activities to keep
landscapes open and usable for natural resource purposes, such as
grazing or timber harvesting. At the same time, the groups worked on
several projects to help conserve threatened and endangered species
habitat. The two efforts that have not completed projects--the
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative and the Steens Mountain Advisory
Council--have not moved beyond planning work.
As shown in table 2, three of the groups--the Blackfoot Challenge,
Malpai Borderlands Group, and Uncompahgre Plateau Project--have
employed monitoring programs that demonstrate the effect of their
activities on site-level natural resource conditions. Monitoring
environmental or natural resource characteristics is typically
conducted at the site level--the area involved in a management
activity, such as a vegetation treatment--to determine what effect the
management activity has, or at the landscape level--a broad area--to
determine the overall conditions across that area. Monitoring can also
be conducted over time to indicate the trend in conditions at a site or
landscape. Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, one of the
partners involved in the Blackfoot Challenge, conducts fish surveys in
the Blackfoot River to determine how populations are faring. This work
measures the benefits provided by the group's riparian projects for
fish populations, including endangered bull trout. The Malpai
Borderlands Group conducts range monitoring on 290 sites in its area
and conducts monitoring of some species to determine how they have been
affected by group projects. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project maps its
vegetation treatments and fires, and thus shows areas of different
vegetation ages, types, and the habitat it provides across the broad
area managed by several agencies. Because the agencies' mapping data
are not compatible, however, staff said that they had to develop ways
to merge the data, which was is time-consuming and expensive. Through
January 2008, the agencies, with the help of the group, had pulled
together data for two large watersheds and had begun working on two
more. The other groups do not conduct monitoring as a group, although
the resource management agencies do track resources in some cases.
Two of the seven groups--Blackfoot Challenge and the Uncompahgre
Plateau Project--monitor the results of some of their projects across
the larger landscape to determine the effect of their work across the
broad landscapes that they are trying to affect; however, the other
groups do not conduct landscape monitoring. According to two groups,
they are not able to monitor across a larger area for two primary
reasons. First, according to participants, it is time-consuming and
expensive to monitor multiple sites regularly across a large area, and
this is what is necessary to understand the effects of multiple
projects in that large landscape. For example, even though the Malpai
Borderlands Group monitors 290 sites for the effects of grazing,
climate, and other factors on the condition of the grasslands that are
useful for assessing the condition of that pasture or smaller area,
according to the group's scientists, the group does not collect
comparable data across different pastures or smaller areas that allow
comparison across the broader landscape. Data must be collected at a
different, broader scale and need to be collected consistently at
specified locations to determine the condition of the hundreds of
thousands of acres of rangeland that the group is helping to manage.
Currently, the group and its scientific advisory board are considering
what data to collect.
The second reason that the groups do not collect data is that they
either have not agreed to collect such data or they have not agreed on
the work that they will conduct and monitor. Two groups--the Onslow
Bight Forum and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group--do not monitor
because both of these groups organized to share information, not to
develop joint projects and monitoring. According to some Onslow Bight
members, it would be useful to track the results that individual
members have accomplished with the group's information, but the group
has not decided to do this jointly or to dedicate the resources to it.
According to the members of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, their
purpose has never been to jointly manage projects and therefore there
is no need to monitor results. The group's purpose is to share
information about natural resource problems, such as invasive species,
and effective ways to treat them, without requiring the participants to
work together. The group gives members a place to find common problems
with other agencies and then each agency or participant can conduct its
work and monitor results accordingly.
Finally, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative and the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council do not conduct any monitoring because the groups are
just beginning projects that warrant monitoring. The Cooperative
Sagebrush Initiative recognizes the need for monitoring and has
considered including the cost of monitoring in each project to ensure
that it is conducted, but the group has not yet conducted any projects,
nor have they conducted pilot projects to ensure that they can
correctly measure the benefits achieved by restoration projects. At
Steens Mountain, BLM has drafted an overall monitoring plan for the
Steens Mountain area that may serve to monitor work accomplished.
However, BLM has not yet conducted some of the key work identified as
needed by the Advisory Council because the agency is still conducting
studies to determine how to best clear juniper in wilderness areas and
wilderness study areas because mechanical tools--the method that has
been proven effective for removing large juniper trees--cannot be used
to cut down trees prior to burning.
Cooperative Conservation Policies and Actions Address Some of the
Challenges Faced by Federal Agencies Participating in Collaborative
Efforts, but Opportunities Exist for Further Action:
Federal land and resource management agencies face several challenges
to participating in collaborative resource management efforts,
according to the experts, federal officials, and participants in
collaborative efforts we interviewed. Key challenges that the agencies
face include improving federal employees' collaborative skills and
working within the framework of existing laws and policies. The 2004
Executive Order and 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative
Conservation set in motion an interagency initiative, including a
senior policy group, an executive task force, and working groups, to
develop policies and take actions that support collaborative efforts
and partnerships. The policies and actions taken as part of the
initiative have made progress in addressing the challenges agencies
face. However, additional opportunities exist to develop tools,
examples, and guidance that would strengthen federal participation in
collaborative efforts and better structure and direct the Cooperative
Conservation initiative to achieve its vision.
Federal Land and Resource Management Agencies Face Several Challenges
to Their Participation in Collaborative Resource Management Efforts:
As the federal land and resource management agencies work to
collaborate with state, local, private, and tribal entities, they face
several challenges. The key challenges identified by experts, federal
officials, and participants in collaborative efforts we interviewed
include (1) improving federal employees' collaborative skills; (2)
determining whether to participate in a particular collaborative
effort; (3) sustaining federal employees' participation over time; (4)
measuring participation and monitoring results to ensure
accountability; (5) sharing agency and group experiences with
collaboration; and (6) working within the framework of federal statutes
and agency policies to support collaboration.
Improving Federal Employees' Collaborative Skills:
The first challenge agencies face involves improving their employees'
skills in collaboration, as well as increasing their use. Such skills
include improving communication, identifying and involving relevant
stakeholders, conducting meetings, resolving disputes, and sharing
technical information and making it accessible. Federal participants
and others we interviewed indicated that federal employees are often
technical experts and improving their collaborative skills may enable
them to work more effectively with a collaborative group. They
indicated that such skills are important to work effectively with
neighboring landowners and community members who are interested in the
projects and lands. Many participants emphasized that hiring new people
with collaborative skills is one way to improve the level of
collaboration by federal agencies and also said that training in
collaboration for employees is important to improve skills. Some
federal agency officials said that hands-on training in collaborative
efforts, involving participants from other groups, is most helpful.
Furthermore, to encourage the use of collaboration by federal
employees, several participants we interviewed said that management
should support field staff in their collaborative efforts. For example,
one participant stated that management needs to identify those
employees with collaborative skills and assign them according to these
skills. Some participants said that senior employees may be better at
collaboration because they have developed a relationship with the group
or are more comfortable in interpreting laws and policy to apply in
specific situations that might arise. Others said that new employees
have enthusiasm and only need to be shown how they can best work with
groups. Several participants said that federal agencies need to allow
their staff to become acquainted with a community to work better with
local groups, and others said that providing flexibility for the
employees to work with the groups is needed. Finally, one participant
we interviewed said that collaborative efforts will fail if federal
management officials reverse the decisions made by the federal
representatives working with a collaborative group because the group
will no longer trust the federal agencies to do what they have agreed
on.
Determining Whether to Participate in a Particular Collaborative
Effort:
A second challenge agencies face in working with collaborative groups
is determining whether or not to participate in a particular group.
Collaborative efforts are commonly started by concerned citizens
interested in the management of their public lands and, as a result,
the federal agencies can choose whether to be involved and what role to
play. If they make an uninformed choice, they risk becoming involved in
a group that might take great effort and expend considerable staff
resources with few results. Various external factors affect a
collaborative group's ability to cooperate and succeed, including a
community's collaborative capacity and the amount of controversy
involved. If federal agencies do not understand these contributing
factors, as well as the nature of the controversy related to a problem,
federal staff may become involved in a collaborative effort that has
little chance of working, potentially leading to increased conflict and
costs.
Part of determining whether to be involved is what role the agencies
can play. Participants we interviewed indicated that it is important
for federal agencies to be involved in collaborative efforts because
they are such large landowners, and, in many areas, natural resource
problems cross their boundaries onto other lands. However, several
participants--including federal agency officials--indicated that the
agencies should "lead from behind," letting the group take a lead in
determining what work can be done. One participant said that by doing
this, the community works out their issues and comes to a common
understanding among themselves--without the agency staff brokering the
discussion. In such cases, the agencies can help the groups by
providing planning assistance, technical information, funding, and even
administrative support. In other cases, the federal agencies may want
to use a collaborative group to provide input on a management plan or
project, and in these cases, the agencies need to determine which
groups to involve and what their particular natural resource management
concerns are. Regardless of the federal role in collaboration, experts
and participants emphasized the need for federal agencies to clarify
how a group's agreed-upon ideas could affect decisions about federal
land.
Sustaining Federal Participation over Time:
Once federal staff have become involved in a collaborative effort, a
third challenge becomes sustaining employees' participation over time.
This is particularly important because of limited resources available
in the field offices and the staff's limited ability to participate
while also conducting their work for the agency. Experts and
participants we interviewed said that, to be effective, federal
participation should be consistent and ongoing throughout the
collaboration, which can be for many years. For example, participants
of the Blackfoot Challenge and the Malpai Borderlands Group indicated
that their groups had benefited from agency staff acting as liaisons to
the groups for several years. These groups were highly organized in
their efforts and worked with agency officials to create these
relationships. However, at many of the field offices we visited,
federal agencies were experiencing staffing limitations that made their
work with existing collaborative efforts more difficult and limited. In
particular, the federal agencies' field offices had experienced recent
downsizing in the last several years and were one or two people below
their normal staffing levels. As a result, the remaining staff members
were spread thinly across existing programs to accomplish their work
and achieve targets set by the agencies. According to the officials,
these federal employees sometimes continued to participate in
collaborative efforts but devoted less time and attention to them. For
example, in North Carolina, federal officials for the National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge, and Forest Service had
been involved in the Onslow Bight Forum efforts to map key habitat, but
as their biologists left the agencies, the agencies became less
involved and attended fewer meetings.
Another issue related to staffing and federal agency support of
collaborative efforts is the agencies' practice of transferring people
frequently from one field location to another. Participants said that
longevity and a "sense of place"--or commitment to an area--is
important for collaborating with groups whose participants may have
been in an area for generations. A few participants thought that
changing staff helped to bring in new people with energy and new ideas,
but, according to several other participants, moving staff frequently
creates a gap in the support for a group, which may hinder progress if
a federal participant for a project moves at the wrong time. Some
participants thought that the transition between outgoing and new
federal staff could be eased by the outgoing staff member writing a
memo to describe all the relevant details of the group, its members,
its issues, and its projects, among other things, but others thought
that it would be better to rely on the other staff in the office or
group members for knowledge about the group, community, and other
factors that would affect the agency's participation.
Measuring Participation and Monitoring Results to Ensure
Accountability:
Once a collaborative effort has begun, an important challenge faced by
federal agencies and the members of the group is measuring
participation and monitoring the results of the efforts. Measurement
and monitoring allow members, both federal and nonfederal, to be
accountable to each other and to the public. In the case of the federal
agencies, measuring participation and monitoring results help show how
an agency's participation in a group has helped to achieve some
important resource management goal for the agency. According to federal
officials we interviewed, agencies will be involved in collaborative
efforts to the extent that the group can help them achieve federal land
management goals and targets for work they are required to do. However,
according to experts, federal officials, and participants, it is
difficult to measure the results of collaboration because there is no
direct measure or "widget" produced from participating or
collaboration. For example, according to one participant, counting the
number of meetings held does not measure collaboration, and, in fact,
the number of meetings needed for a well-run group may decrease over
time. Participants also said that it may take a few years to build a
group and relationships before any work is accomplished, which may not
fit with agency performance targets that are set annually.
Moreover, experts said that monitoring the natural resources results of
collaborative management is also difficult because of the long-term
nature of ecological change. For example, it can take several years
before the results of a management project can be seen or measured; at
the same time, natural fluctuation in drought, vegetation, and species
can mask the effects of management actions. To counter these
difficulties, according to some participants we interviewed, groups
need to have an overall plan for the improvements in natural resources
they are working to achieve and monitor according to those goals. Even
then, as the examples we studied show, collaborative groups have a
difficult time monitoring because of the time and cost involved.
Sharing Agency and Group Experiences with Collaboration:
A fifth challenge that the federal agencies face in participating in
collaborative efforts involves sharing agency and group experiences
with collaboration. By their nature, collaborative groups are
decentralized and localized, with their members focused on the group's
management plans and activities. According to experts and participants,
these groups are each unique in their makeup, organization,
circumstances, and abilities, yet can experience similar problems
working together and with federal agencies. Some participants who had
been involved in the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation
and other conferences stated that such forums are useful for giving
groups the opportunity to share practical experiences of working
together and with federal agencies. The types of lessons include the
fact that groups can benefit from paid staff, even part-time, or a
director to keep the group organized between meetings.
Working within the Framework of Federal Statutes and Agency Policies to
Support Collaboration:
Finally, agencies face the challenge of collaborating within the
existing framework of federal statutes and agency policies that
establish a management culture within each agency. In addition to the
framework of natural resources and environmental laws and policies
described above, agencies have a set of laws and policies for working
with nonfederal entities or groups, including the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, policies on ethics related to working with groups, and
financial assistance requirements. Some experts and participants in
collaborative groups identified aspects of federal laws and agency
policies as being inconsistent with collaboration. However, aspects of
the policies reflect processes established to support good government
practices such as transparency and accountability. The federal agencies
have not, in all cases, evaluated the laws and policies involved to
determine how best to balance collaboration with the need to maintain
good government practices. A short description of these laws and
policies follows.
Federal Advisory Committee Act: Some experts and collaborative groups
assert that the Federal Advisory Committee Act inhibits collaborative
management by imposing several requirements on interaction between
federal and nonfederal participants. For example, the act requires that
all committees have a charter, and that each charter contain specific
information, including the committee's scope and objectives, a
description of duties, the period of time necessary to carry out its
purposes, the estimated operating costs, and the number and frequency
of meetings. The act generally requires that agencies announce
committee meetings ahead of time and give notice to interested parties
about such meetings. With some exceptions, the meetings are to be open
to the public, and agencies are to prepare meeting minutes and make
them available to interested parties.[Footnote 14] By making the
process bureaucratic, some experts and others say that the act limits
groups' abilities to work together spontaneously to solve problems or
get work done. USDA officials indicated that they have a budget limit
on what they can spend on groups working under the act. Some
participants of collaborative groups we interviewed said that the fact
that the act's requirements do not apply to privately led efforts is
one reason for communities to lead collaborative efforts with
assistance from federal agencies. Other participants said that the
act's requirements caused their groups to focus their goals solely on
information sharing, because the group's purpose would not be to offer
advice regarding agency decisions, and therefore the group would not be
subject to the act.
Ethics rule: USDA and Interior implement federal ethics' rules on
federal employees' participation on the board of directors of an
outside organization differently, resulting in their staff members
participating in different capacities on a group's nonprofit board. The
ethics rules generally prevent a federal employee from serving as a
board member while serving in an official capacity for the federal
agency because of concerns over conflicts of interest. Waivers may be
granted under limited circumstances; however, according to USDA and
Interior officials, USDA rarely grants waivers, while Interior has
granted some waivers. As a result of different implementation of the
rule, in the Blackfoot Challenge case, a Forest Service member serves
as a nonvoting board member, while BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service members serve as voting members. Several of the participants of
the group expressed confusion and some distrust over the different
federal agency interpretations, saying that they raised some questions
about the Forest Service's commitment to participate. Other groups that
form nonprofit boards may face this same inconsistency.
Financial requirements: Some groups receive federal grants or
cooperative agreements that enable them to conduct activities that
provide for a public purpose. Nonfederal participants in collaborative
efforts identified federal agency financial procedures for these grants
and cooperative agreements that make it difficult for them to work
collaboratively with the agencies. For example, some grants require
that any interest earned be returned to the federal government, others
require the group to raise funds to meet a share of costs, or others do
not allow the group to be paid up front, which is difficult for small
organizations without much funding. In addition, several participants
indicated that it is difficult to pull together funding over the long
term from the numerous sources available--foundations, agencies, and
fundraising activities--and that this is an ongoing struggle for
groups. However, because federal agencies need to seek competing offers
or applications for many types of grants and agreements, the agencies
may not be able to provide stable funding to groups for very long. For
example, the participants of one group we interviewed recently learned
that they would have to compete with others to renew their agreement,
even though the group has ongoing management plans and projects with
BLM and other agencies to provide long-term vegetation management
across the agencies' lands. The result of this action is that the group
was uncertain if they would be able to carry out these long-term plans
and projects because they rely on this stream of funding to pay for
part-time staff to organize the group and provide support for planning
projects and reporting the results.
One specific type of funding agreement that can help make collaboration
work, identified by some federal officials we interviewed, is the
watershed restoration and enhancement agreement. Under this authority
the Forest Service can use appropriated funds to enter into agreements
with other federal agencies; states, tribal, and local governments; or
private entities to protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat and other resources on public or private land. However, the
authority that allows this for the Forest Service--the Wyden Amendment-
-is set to expire in 2011.[Footnote 15] In addition, Interior officials
stated that they do not have general authority to use their funds to
restore or enhance resources on nonfederal land; however, they
indicated that BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Park Service can fund projects on nonfederal land related to
reducing the risk of damage from wildland fire. The agency officials
that discussed these funding sources said that the ability to spend
some of their funds on nonfederal lands enhances--or would enhance--
their ability to work with partners in the community.
Endangered Species Act requirements for listing species: Participants
in the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative identified several aspects of
the Endangered Species Act that make collaboration difficult for them.
They have identified and proposed areas where they believe Endangered
Species Act policies could be made more consistent with their
collaborative effort. In particular, the group is planning to conduct
restoration projects for sagebrush habitat, but, according to one
participant, these restoration projects are scrutinized as much as a
destructive project is in terms of the effect the project may have on a
potentially endangered species such as the sage grouse. The group has
proposed to Interior that the policy for listing species as endangered-
-the Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts--would apply to their
restoration actions because such actions might make listing
unnecessary, or listing requirements might be less restrictive. This
policy identifies criteria the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will use
in determining whether formalized conservation efforts that have yet to
be implemented or to show effectiveness contribute to making listing a
species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. The group has also
proposed other changes to the Endangered Species Act regulations and
policies that they say would support collaboration and their particular
effort. For example, under current policies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service treats the two types of species (threatened and endangered) in
the same manner with regard to prohibitions on the taking of a species.
The group has proposed that Interior relax the prohibition on the
taking of threatened species, arguing that the Endangered Species Act
allows for threatened species to be treated in a different manner from
endangered species.
National Environmental Policy Act: Experts and participants have stated
that NEPA hinders collaboration by essentially duplicating the public
participation that occurs through collaborative efforts. Collaborative
groups may develop a plan or project that they would prefer. For
federal projects having a significant environmental effect, NEPA
requires the development and analysis of a reasonable range of
alternative actions, including the agency's preferred alternative
action, in an environmental impact statement. It also requires public
participation in the development of the environmental impact statement.
Because collaborative groups often include many of those interested in
the natural resources or management being conducted, several
participants said that the collaborative group provides the agencies
with its preferred alternative and a good sense of the public's opinion
of the project. They believe, for this reason, that NEPA requirements
are redundant in these cases.
Cooperative Conservation Policies and Actions Have Made Progress in
Addressing the Challenges Agencies Face, but Additional Opportunities
Exist to Strengthen Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts:
Building on the agencies' earlier efforts to develop their partnership
programs and abilities to work collaboratively, the 2004 Executive
Order and 2005 White House Conference heightened attention to
partnerships and collaboration across the federal government. After the
White House Conference, a report entitled Supplemental Analysis of Day
Two Facilitated Discussion Sessions (Day 2 report) was written
summarizing the comments of numerous participants in collaborative
groups and highlighting actions that the federal agencies could take to
improve cooperation and partnerships.[Footnote 16] In response to the
Day 2 report, a senior policy team--composed of the Chairman of CEQ,
Director of OMB, and selected Deputy Secretaries of the departments--
identified issues to be further addressed by an executive task force
and working groups.[Footnote 17] The task force formed--or
incorporated--working groups to address several overall themes
identified in the Day 2 report: personnel competencies, training and
development, legal authorities for cooperative conservation, conflict
resolution, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, education, federal
financial assistance, measuring and monitoring, volunteers, engaging
the public, and Web site development. Table 3 shows the challenges we
identified with input from experts, federal officials, and participants
in our review; proposed actions from the Day 2 report that are
responsive to the challenges; and the policies or actions taken by the
task force working groups that address the challenge.
Table 3: Cooperative Conservation Actions, Proposed and Initiated, That
Can Address Challenges Federal Agencies Face in Collaborating:
Challenge: Improving employees' collaborative skills;
Day 2 report proposed actions to implement Cooperative Conservation:
Assess personnel policies and hiring practices to ensure that staff
members possess good communication and collaborative skills;
train agency staff in collaboration and skills associated with
establishing and maintaining partnerships and integrate skills into
leadership and management training programs;
Increase capacity to use joint fact- finding approaches that involve
stakeholders in the development of questions; teach scientists how to
communicate and problem solve with groups;
Ensure personnel hiring, promotion, and reward policies provide
incentives for collaboration, problem-solving, and risk- taking.
Cooperative Conservation working group actions: The personnel
competencies working group developed competencies for agencies to
consider as part of human capital policy. Agencies have developed human
capital policies that discuss hiring and rewarding collaboration.
The training and development working group reviewed and organized
training programs for all agencies to identify those that include
collaboration and make them widely available;
OMB and CEQ issued guidance on collaborative problem-solving principles
based on a report by an interagency task force convened by the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
Challenge: Determining whether federal agencies should participate;
Day 2 report proposed actions to implement Cooperative Conservation:
None;
Cooperative Conservation working group actions: None.
Challenge: Sustaining federal participation over time;
Day 2 report proposed actions to implement Cooperative Conservation:
None;
Cooperative Conservation working group actions: None.
Challenge: Measuring participation and monitoring results;
Day 2 report proposed actions to implement Cooperative Conservation:
Create an interagency task force to develop project monitoring
protocols and final project evaluation;
Develop and implement effective measures of progress and look for
opportunities to address cooperative conservation in agency performance
measures;
Cooperative Conservation working group actions: The measuring and
monitoring working group gathered and analyzed different tools to help
groups demonstrate the leveraging effect of partnerships and
collaboration. Some of these tools can help groups monitor their
results.
Challenge: Sharing agency and group experiences with collaboration;
Day 2 report proposed actions to implement Cooperative Conservation:
Communicate success stories and lessons learned and capture and publish
best management practices;
Work with other people engaged in cooperative conservation to create
models and "how to" guidance about communicating risk and scientific
information to citizens;
Facilitate the development of a network of people familiar with
cooperative conservation;
Organize and support annual conservation conferences and regional
cooperative conservation conferences;
Cooperative Conservation working group actions: The Web site working
group developed the Cooperative Conservation Web site, which includes
lessons learned and examples of collaboration. Cooperative Conservation
America also publishes examples online;
The Collaborative Action Team, including members of national
nonprofits, created the Western Collaboration Assistance Network
(WestCAN) that seeks to broaden the community of people working
together on public lands issues. It provides technical assistance, best
practices, lessons learned, and mentoring services.
Challenge: Working within legal and cultural framework;
Day 2 report proposed actions to implement Cooperative Conservation:
Assess existing legal incentives and disincentives that can influence
collaborative efforts, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act;
Analyze agency procedures for grants and contracting to remove barriers
to partnerships and landscape-level management and collaboration;
Create incentives, processes, and policies to communicate across
fragmented agencies to overcome boundaries between agencies and
programs;
Review personnel policies that move staff frequently; Cooperative
Conservation working group actions: The Legislative working group, with
agencies, prepared legal primers on agencies' authorities to
collaborate;
The Federal Advisory Committee Act working group is working on
streamlining internal procedures, providing consistent legal advice,
and other actions, but is not done;
The Federal financial assistance working group has delegated this task
to departments.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
As shown in table 3, several actions have been taken, including
development of policies, that have resulted in progress toward
addressing several of the challenges agencies face participating in
collaborative efforts, but other opportunities exist to take actions
that further address the challenges.
The challenge of improving federal employees' collaborative skills is
being addressed by the personnel competencies working group. Through
2007, with the input of the Office of Personnel Management, this
working group developed a set of collaborative behaviors for federal
employees that some of the agencies have made part of their strategies
to hire and train employees to improve their collaborative skills.
According to Interior and Forest Service officials, senior executive
service managers in the agencies are already rated on their ability to
collaborate and collaborative behaviors. Interior agencies are now
considering how to incorporate these into personnel rating systems for
other federal officials and staff, and the Forest Service has revised
its employee rating system and incorporated the collaborative
competencies into the new system for both managers and employees. In
addition, the training and development working group identified and
published appropriate training courses offered by each of the land and
resource management agencies. For example, BLM and the Forest Service
offer a series of courses that include collaborative behavior, and BLM
offers one course that visits a community and trains community and
agency members on how to work as a group.[Footnote 18] According to a
member of the working group, the idea of an experience-based training,
in which staff would visit and work with an experienced group, has been
developed but none of the agencies have adopted this at the time of our
review. Furthermore, in 2005, CEQ and OMB issued joint guidance,
developed by a broad interagency task force convened by the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, to encourage agencies
to use collaborative problem-solving and elaborate on the principles of
collaboration.[Footnote 19] According to officials, the institute also
offers a series of courses on collaboration that federal agencies can
take.
The twin challenges of determining (1) whether to participate in a
particular collaborative effort and (2) how to sustain federal
employees' participation over time have not been addressed by policies
or actions of the task force or its working groups. However, BLM
published a collaborative guidebook in 2007 that includes a discussion
of factors to consider in determining whether to collaborate.
Similarly, the Forest Service's Web site links to various partnership
assessment tools created by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and private companies. In addition, the Forest Service developed an
assessment document that guides an office through an analysis of its
workload and how much time it can devote to a collaborative effort. The
results of this analysis can help determine whether an office will be
able to sustain their participation in a group. Finally, the Forest
Service has adopted a tool developed with the Collaborative Action
Team, called a transition memo, which allows an employee transferring
locations to leave detailed documentation about the community, groups,
leaders, and other information for the person coming into the position.
While these separate tools are available to the individual agency that
developed them, they have not been shared or adopted more broadly among
the federal agencies to help them in making decisions whether and how
much to participate in particular collaborative efforts. Without tools
to assess these aspects of collaboration, particularly as the agencies
increase their ability and efforts to participate in collaborative
efforts, agencies may be more likely to get involved in unsuccessful
efforts.
The challenge of measuring participation and monitoring results of
collaborative efforts, as shown in table 3, has been partly addressed
by the measuring and monitoring working group. Through September 2007,
the working group gathered, reviewed, and analyzed tools that measure
and monitor how cooperative conservation activities help achieve
environmental protection and natural resource management goals. For
example, the working group discussed different means to demonstrate the
leveraging power of partnerships and collaboration. Some of these tools
can also help people engaged in partnerships and collaborative efforts
monitor how they are doing and improve their efforts during the
process. In addition, the working group identified a few resources that
discuss, in general, monitoring of natural resource conditions. In
October 2007, the group posted a variety of tools on the Cooperative
Conservation Web site, which is an initial step to address this
challenge.[Footnote 20] However, actions that would more fully address
natural resource monitoring--the Day 2 report indicated that project
monitoring protocols would be useful--have not been taken by the task
force or working groups. CEQ officials indicated that an ongoing effort
on key national indicators might help to address this aspect of the
challenge. However, until guidance or protocols on natural resource
monitoring for collaborative groups is provided, federal agencies and
groups will be unable to track and relate their progress to Congress,
the communities, or other interested parties.
The challenge of sharing experiences among agencies and groups has been
partly addressed through the actions of the outreach working group,
which has developed an official Web site and examples of collaborative
experiences. In addition, in 2007, the Collaborative Action Team
started WestCAN, facilitating the development of a network of people
familiar with cooperative conservation. Other actions identified in the
Day 2 report that could be taken and would address this challenge
include organizing and supporting annual conservation conferences. As
of October 2007, the agencies had held nationwide listening sessions,
but had not held or proposed any further conferences on cooperative
conservation either nationally or regionally. Federal officials
indicated that such meetings can be expensive and time-consuming to
organize and that they would like others to take the lead in organizing
them. They also indicated that it is important to have clear goals and
objectives for such meetings and that the meetings should lead
progressively to achieving these goals and objectives. Individual
agencies have held conferences in the past; they also meet regularly
with nonprofits interested in the collaborative approach through the
Collaborative Action Team. However, these meetings and tools may not
provide the opportunity for the different agencies and groups to meet
and share information and possible solutions, or the face-to-face
experiences that participants in the conference found valuable. Without
such meetings, it would be difficult for the groups to be able to meet
periodically to generate ideas and share information or develop a
cooperative conservation network.
The challenge of working within the agencies' legal framework is being
addressed, as shown in table 3, by several actions. At a broad level,
the legal authorities working group worked with the agencies to publish
a compendium, for each department, of the authorities that allow and
support collaboration, which will help agency staff who are working
with collaborative groups to understand the requirements that they
face. More specifically, the status of actions to resolve perceived
inconsistencies between the authorities and collaboration include the
following:
* The Federal Advisory Committee Act working group is streamlining
requirements for federal advisory groups, which is one of the primary
pieces of legislation that agencies and participants in collaborative
efforts have identified as inconsistent with collaboration. According
to CEQ officials, the Federal Advisory Committee Act team has
determined that flexibility exists within the current law and policy
for groups and is developing the best way to share this information
with agency staff and group participants, such as training.
* A legal analysis of the incentives and disincentives affecting
collaborative groups--particularly those associated with the Endangered
Species Act and NEPA--was an action proposed by the Day 2 report that
has not been addressed by the task force or working groups. In
addition, USDA's and Interior's different implementation of ethics
rules resulted in inconsistent decisions regarding federal employees
serving on nonprofit boards. While no specific actions have been taken
by the task force, Interior is evaluating regulatory and policy changes
to the Endangered Species Act in response to the concerns raised during
listening sessions held in 2006, and by the Cooperative Sagebrush
Initiative. As of October 2007, Interior had not proposed any
regulatory or policy changes to the Endangered Species Act. Also, in
October 2007, CEQ issued guidance on collaboration within the NEPA
process that discusses using a collaborative group's option as the
preferred alternative in a NEPA analysis.[Footnote 21] The guidance
resulted from the recommendation of a federal task force in 2003 and
followed the issuance in 2005 of a report by the National Environmental
Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee concluding that one way to
achieve NEPA goals is for the federal agencies to use environmental
conflict resolution practices, including collaboration.[Footnote 22]
However, no evaluation or action has occurred as of October 2007 to
resolve the inconsistent application by USDA and Interior of federal
ethics rules.
While these actions are addressing the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Endangered Species Act, and NEPA, the federal financial assistance
working group did not complete its task of evaluating the extent to
which cooperative funding authorities could be enhanced to better
assist collaboration. Because of the number and complexity of funding
authorities, the working group determined that each department should
undertake an analysis of its own financial assistance to collaborative
groups. Through December 2007, Interior was considering its use of
cooperative agreements and whether they can be used to support partners
to conduct work that is mutually beneficial to the group and Interior
agencies. In such situations, both the partners and the federal
agencies bring resources to the table and both sides benefit from the
work jointly conducted. However, an Interior official noted that laws
related to federal contracting may limit the agencies' ability to use
these agreements in the absence of specific statutory authority to do
so.[Footnote 23] In September 2007, an Interior official stated that
the type of authority needed is reflected in authorities provided to
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and other agencies that
allow them to work with partners on mutually beneficial activities.
Through September 2007, the Forest Service had authority to use
cooperative agreements with private and public organizations, including
nonprofit groups, to perform forestry protection activities and other
types of cooperative projects that provide mutual benefits other than
monetary considerations to both parties. In addition, the agency has
authority to work on mutually beneficial restoration projects under the
Watershed Enhancement and Restoration Act or Wyden authority, but this
authority is not permanent, extending only to 2011.
In late December 2007, Congress passed, and the President signed, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, which included
two provisions related to the agencies and cooperative agreements. The
first provision authorizes Interior to enter into cooperative
agreements with state or local governments, or not-for-profit
organizations, if the agreement will (1) serve a mutual interest of the
parties to the agreement in carrying out Interior's programs and (2)
all parties will contribute resources. The second provision extended
through 2010 the Forest Service's authority to enter into cooperative
agreements with state, local, and nonprofit groups if the agreement
serves the mutual benefit (other than monetary consideration) of the
parties carrying out programs administered by the Forest Services and
all parties contribute resources. However, the overall problem of
facilitating collaborative partnership projects for collaborative
groups and partners--in terms of interest, cost share, and other
administrative matters--remains. For this reason, an overall evaluation
of federal funding assistance and tools available for collaborative
groups could help to identify the situations across agencies that
hinder collaboration and the potential legal and policy changes that
could be made.
Overall, the working groups and agencies have made some progress in
developing policies and taking actions that address the challenges they
face in working with collaborative groups. However, these challenges
will not be fully addressed or solved in the short term. As indicated
in the Day 2 report, the actions to be taken by federal agencies would
require a sustained effort and a senior policy team with an overall
strategy to sequence the many actions that need to be taken by multiple
different federal agencies. While the Cooperative Conservation
initiative is being coordinated by a task force and working groups,
both are temporary, formed by federal agency personnel interested in
the cooperative approach but who, for the most part, have other full-
time responsibilities. Because of this, the structure and direction--
which includes goals, actions, time frames, and responsibilities--of
the initiative as it moves forward are uncertain. According to CEQ and
agency officials, the task force working groups were organized to
propose actions that could be taken in the short term; CEQ officials
said that the senior policy team would meet to assess the status of
actions and progress toward the vision laid out for the Cooperative
Conservation initiative. As of December 2007, the policy team had not
met, but CEQ officials expected they would meet after the issuance of
the second annual report on the implementation of the Cooperative
Conservation initiative. Currently, the task force is developing the
report, which was expected to be issued in January 2008.
Conclusions:
Collaborative resource management offers federal land and resource
management agencies a promising tool with which to approach the ongoing
and potential conflicts that arise in managing the nation's land and
resources. Compared with the alternatives--such as litigation or
individual landowners making independent, potentially conflicting
decisions about their separate parcels of land--collaboration provides
groups a way to integrate multiple interests and achieve common goals.
To date, federal land and resource management agencies have had some
success in working with collaborative efforts. Moreover, the policies
put in place through the Cooperative Conservation initiative move the
federal government and agencies forward in supporting collaborative
resource management efforts. However, based on the challenges that the
agencies face in working with collaborative efforts, additional
opportunities exist to enhance and effectively manage federal agencies'
participation in and support of ongoing and future collaborative
efforts. Specifically, because federal agencies have limited resources
and time, yet at the same time have multiple opportunities to
collaborate, they need to be judicious in their decisions about
collaborating with particular efforts and could benefit from guidance
on how this can be done. This would involve dissemination of tools that
already exist for field offices to assess a community's capacity for
collaborating, and the federal ability to participate. In addition,
because the agencies are accountable to Congress and the public for
achieving their land and resource management goals, it is important for
them to be able to demonstrate the results that have been accomplished
through collaborative efforts. This means that agencies and groups
should be able to measure participation and monitor their progress,
including monitoring the broader landscape-level effects that result
from their collaborative efforts and projects.
Furthermore, collaborative resource management is just beginning to
emerge as one approach for federal land and resource agencies to work
with local groups in ways that can reduce conflict and improve
resources. In addition to developing capability among agency personnel,
federal agency support for this approach entails helping to create
networks, identifying best practices, and generating new ideas. These
outcomes can be achieved though facilitating the exchange of
information and lessons learned among collaborative groups, as was done
at the White House Conference. Federal support also involves an ongoing
commitment to identify practicable legal and policy changes that could
enhance collaboration. In particular, CEQ, OMB, and other federal
agencies can evaluate and identify possible changes to federal
financial assistance authorities and policies that make it difficult to
work with partners. Also, USDA and Interior can identify a way to
achieve more consistent results in determining participation by USDA
and Interior employees on nonprofit boards. In the future, as the
agencies participate in different collaborative efforts, additional
situations may arise in which agencies need to seek ways to implement
laws or policies in a manner that enhances collaboration.
Finally, because collaborative resource management involves multiple
departments and agencies facing common challenges and will take a
sustained effort to implement, it is important that the effort has
structure and long-term direction to ensure that it is ongoing and
completed. Structure could be provided by continuing such an
interagency effort as the Cooperative Conservation task force and its
working groups. One way this could be accomplished would be by
developing a memorandum of understanding between participating
agencies. Long-term direction to address common challenges could be
provided by the memorandum of understanding, or through another
organizational document or plan that will steer the task force, working
groups, and agencies toward realizing the vision of the initiative.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance the federal government's support of and participation in
collaborative resource management efforts, we recommend that the
Chairman of CEQ, working with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior, direct the interagency task force to take the following
actions:
1. Disseminate, more widely, tools for the agencies to use in assessing
and determining if, when, and how to participate in a particular
collaborative effort and how to sustain their participation over time.
2. Identify examples of groups that have conducted natural resource
monitoring, including at the landscape level, and develop and
disseminate guidance or protocols for others to use in setting up such
monitoring efforts.
3. Hold periodic national or regional meetings and conferences to bring
groups together to share collaborative experiences, identify further
challenges, and learn from the lessons of other collaborative groups.
4. Identify and evaluate, with input from OMB, legal and policy changes
concerning federal financial assistance that would enhance
collaborative efforts.
5. Identify goals, actions, responsible work groups and agencies, and
time frames for carrying out the actions needed to implement the
Cooperative Conservation initiative, including collaborative resource
management, and document these through a written plan, memorandum of
understanding, or other appropriate means.
Furthermore, to ensure that federal agencies can work well with
collaborative groups, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture take action to develop a joint policy to ensure
consistent implementation of ethics rules governing federal employee
participation on nonprofit boards that represent collaborative groups.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided CEQ, Interior, and USDA with a draft of this report for
review and comment. Interior concurred with the conclusions and five of
the six recommendations in the report, providing written comments that
included additional information describing actions the department and
its agencies are taking that they believe are responsive to our
recommendations, some of which have been finalized since they received
the draft report. We made changes to the report as appropriate to
include this information, but underscore the fact that the
recommendations apply more broadly to the federal agencies implementing
the Cooperative Conservation initiative (see app. III). USDA provided
oral comments also concurring with the conclusions and five of the six
recommendations in the report. CEQ did not provide comments on the
report.
The departments neither agreed nor disagreed with our sixth
recommendation that the Secretaries take action to develop a joint
policy to ensure consistent implementation of ethics rules governing
federal employee participation on nonprofit boards that represent
collaborative groups. USDA's Office of General Counsel, however,
expressed concerns that such a policy might be desirable, but not
feasible. The office said that the two departments may provide waivers
based on each agency's interests and distinct relationship with the
collaborative group, and therefore it is not practicable to have a
joint policy in advance of a particular request and consultation may
not make the waivers more uniform. While we understand these concerns,
we believe that such a consultation would have either resulted in a
consistent recommendation in the case of the Blackfoot Challenge, or if
it did not, would have at least provided a transparent response to the
group and field offices seeking the waivers. We continue to believe
that the departments should make a good faith effort to develop and
implement a process that would be more transparent to the groups with
which they work. Therefore, we did not change our recommendation.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense, Chairman
of CEQ, and Director of OMB, as well as other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or n [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov]
azzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Key contributors are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives for this study were to determine (1) experts' views of
collaborative resource management as an approach for addressing complex
natural resource management problems; (2) the extent to which selected
collaborative resource management efforts have addressed land use
conflicts and improved natural resource conditions; and (3) what
challenges, if any, federal land and resource management agencies face
in participating in collaborative resource management efforts and how
the Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed the challenges.
For the first objective, to determine experts' views of collaborative
resource management as an approach for addressing natural resource
problems, we examined the academic literature related to the topic. To
identify relevant articles in the literature, we first interviewed
experts who have studied collaborative resource management. Following
GAO's methodology for identifying experts, we started with
knowledgeable individuals and agency personnel and asked them for
referrals to experts. In an iterative process, we contacted these
experts and asked them for nominations of other knowledgeable
individuals. We interviewed over 20 individuals who could be considered
experts, based on the nominations of others in the field. We asked
these experts for references to articles on the collaborative resource
management approach. We also identified articles through a search of
four academic databases including Agricola, a database of articles
relating to aspects of agriculture, forestry, and animal science;
ProQuest Science Journals, a database of science and technology
journals that includes literature on biology and earth science; ECO, a
database of scholarly journals; and BasicBIOSIS, a database of biology
and other life science-related journals. We searched these databases
using the terms "ecosystem management policy" and "collaborative
resource management policy," which produced over 950 articles in the
four databases. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed and only
those articles appropriate for our work were retained for a literature
review. This process yielded over 130 articles (the full article was
used, not just the abstract).
To perform the literature review, one of two analysts (A, B) read and
reviewed each of the articles and indicated whether or not the contents
included themes related to our objectives, that is, the common
practices, benefits, limitations, and critiques of collaboration. The
analysts summarized information from the articles that was relevant to
these themes and recorded it as statements in a database. To verify
that the two analysts were extracting similar information from the
articles, the analysts randomly selected 10 percent (13) of the total
articles. For each of these 13 articles, if Analyst A had originally
summarized and categorized relevant information in the article, then
Analyst B independently performed the same tasks. Similarly, Analyst A
reviewed the articles originally reviewed by Analyst B. For each
article, the verification work was compared with the original and it
was determined whether both analysts agreed or disagreed on the
presence of information in the article related to each theme. This
analysis indicated that the two analysts were extracting comparable
information from the articles.
A content analysis was then performed on the statements. Each analyst
classified the statements from the articles read as a benefit,
limitation, or critique associated with collaborative resource
management. The analysts then exchanged data and examined the other
analyst's categorizations to determine whether there was agreement on
classifying each statement from the literature review into the
benefits, limitations, and critiques categories. The two analysts
reviewed the statements they had placed into these categories and
either concurred with the classification or noted the basis of
disagreement. For items where there was disagreement, the disagreement
was resolved so that agreement was 100 percent.
Once the analysts had established a unified set of statements under
each category--benefits, limitations, and critiques--each analyst
independently grouped the statements under each category into similar
components. The analysts' lists of components for each category were
compared, discussed, and merged into one set. The components we agreed
upon for each category and a description of them are noted in table 4.
Table 4: Description of the Benefits, Limitations, and Critiques of
Collaboration:
Components: Category: Benefits: Reduction in Conflict and Litigation;
Description: Conflict is reduced and better managed, which may prevent
parties resorting to litigation.
Components: Category: Benefits: Better Natural Resource Results;
Description: More creative solutions are identified and better
decisions are made because a broad array of knowledge, including local
information, is incorporated into decisions. Solutions are easier to
implement because there is typically less opposition, sometimes leading
to a cost savings.
Components: Category: Benefits: Shared Ownership and Authority;
Description: Ownership and responsibility for a problem are shared and
state and federal agencies become partners with local agencies and
groups. Such joint stewardship can make federal and state programs more
locally relevant and can increases fairness in the process.
Components: Category: Benefits: Increased Trust;
Description: Increased trust among participants, between organizations,
and between decision makers.
Components: Category: Benefits: Improved Communication;
Description: Communication is improved and becomes more open and
honest.
Components: Category: Benefits: Increased Understanding;
Description: Participants learn about and gain an understanding and
appreciation of the natural resource problem and of other participants'
perspectives, including local knowledge.
Components: Category: Benefits: Increased Community Capacity;
Description: Increased community capacity involves increased public
engagement and awareness, social networks, and community ability to
engage in dialogue.
Components: Category: Limitations: Process Difficult/Time-Consuming;
Description: The process can be inefficient, slow, and require large
amounts of resources.
Components: Category: Limitations: Process Does Not Always Work;
Description: There are circumstances in which collaboration or reaching
consensus is not possible for reasons such as irreconcilable
differences, particular groups derailing the process, or a resistance
to change.
Components: Category: Critiques: Process Is Not Equitable;
Description: Power is not equally balanced among participants, placing
some at a disadvantage and making the process undemocratic. Not all
groups who have a legitimate interest may be able to participate, which
may mean that their concerns are not addressed. For example, national
environmental groups cannot participate in all local efforts.
Components: Category: Critiques: Results in One, or More, Groups Being
Co-opted;
Description: The collaborative group is taken over or assimilated by a
more powerful or established interest.
Components: Category: Critiques: May Produce Least Common Denominator;
Description: The focus on consensus as an end result can lead to a
solution that is a compromise that may not necessarily reflect the best
science or the view of any group.
Components: Category: Benefits: Reduced Accountability;
Description: Lessened accountability to the public or individual
constituencies occurs through aspects of the process such as devolving
federal authority to collaborative groups and removing discussion from
the public eye.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
After developing the categories and components, we independently
assigned each of the statements to one of the components. After the
statements were independently assigned a component, the analysts
discussed every statement for which they had assigned different
components and reached agreement on the category for each of the
statements. As a result, the analysts attained 100 percent agreement on
the assignment of statements to components. Table 5 reports the number
of statements that were assigned to each component.
Table 5: Number of Statements in the Components of Each Category:
Components: Benefits: Better Natural Resource Results;
Number of statements: Benefits: 31.
Components: Benefits: Shared Ownership and Authority;
Number of statements: Benefits: 21.
Components: Benefits: Increased Understanding;
Number of statements: Benefits: 14.
Components: Benefits: Increased Community Capacity;
Number of statements: Benefits: 12.
Components: Benefits: Reduction in Conflict and Litigation;
Number of statements: Benefits: 11.
Components: Benefits: Increased Trust;
Number of statements: Benefits: 6.
Components: Benefits: Increased Communication;
Number of statements: Benefits: 5.
Components: Limitations: Process Does Not Always Work;
Number of statements: Benefits: 18.
Components: Limitations: Process Difficult/Time-Consuming;
Number of statements: Benefits: 14.
Components: Critiques: Reduced Accountability;
Number of statements: Benefits: 26.
Components: Critiques: Process Is Not Equitable;
Number of statements: Benefits: 23.
Components: Critiques: Results in One, or More, Groups Being Co-opted;
Number of statements: Benefits: 18.
Components: Critiques: May Produce Least Common Denominator;
Number of statements: Benefits: 9.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
The literature review was also used to identify what the experts viewed
as common practices of successful collaborative groups. Such practices
were described in 15 of the articles from the literature review and one
GAO report that described practices to sustain collaborative efforts
among federal agencies.[Footnote 24] To develop a comprehensive list to
summarize the practices described in all of these sources, two analysts
independently generated lists based on commonalities of those described
in the literature. A third analyst reconciled the two lists and all
three analysts discussed the results and agreed on the following final
list of practices:
* Seek inclusive representation.
* Develop collaborative processes.
* Pursue flexibility, openness, and respect.
* Establish leadership.
* Identify or develop a common goal.
* Develop a process for obtaining information.
* Leverage available resources.
* Provide incentives.
* Monitor results for accountability.
For the second objective, to determine the extent to which selected
efforts have addressed land use conflicts and improved natural resource
conditions, we identified seven examples involving collaborative
resource management efforts. The examples were identified using
referrals made by experts and citations in the literature. The seven
examples we chose to study were judgmentally selected based on several
criteria, as shown in table 6, designed to capture groups with (1) a
significant amount of federal land involved, (2) participation of
multiple stakeholders, (3) locations across the United States, and (4)
different types of groups, from nonprofit groups, to an advisory
council, to loosely organized information-sharing groups. Although
there are many collaborative efforts dealing with water issues, we
confined our examples to land management efforts to limit the scope of
our work. The examples we selected included both new and experienced
groups, made up of multiple participants including federal agencies,
from rural areas. The groups chosen and the states in which they are
located are shown in table 6.
Table 6: Collaborative Resource Management Groups Selected as Case
Examples:
Collaborative effort: Blackfoot Challenge;
Year group started: 1993;
Location: West-central Montana;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): 1.5
million acres (Lolo and Helena National Forests, Bureau of Land
Management [BLM] land);
Group type: Nonprofit organization;
Stakeholders: Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
state and local agencies, businesses, foundations, nonprofit
organizations, private landowners, schools, communities.
Collaborative effort: Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative;
Year group started: 2006;
Location: 11 western states;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): (Federal
land in the western United States);
Group type: Nonprofit organization;
Stakeholders: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, nonprofit organizations,
energy companies, private landowners.
Collaborative effort: Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem
Management;
Year group started: 1992;
Location: Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): 4 million
acres (Hiawatha National Forest, Seney National Wildlife Refuge,
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore);
Group type: Information-sharing;
Stakeholders: Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, a state agency, a nonprofit organization, and
companies owning private forest land.
Collaborative effort: Malpai Borderlands Group;
Year group started: 1994;
Location: Southern Arizona and New Mexico;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): 800,000
acres (Coronado National Forest, BLM land, San Bernardino National
Wildlife Refuge);
Group type: Nonprofit organization;
Stakeholders: Forest Service, BLM, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, nonprofit
organizations, private landowners.
Collaborative effort: Onslow Bight Conservation Forum;
Year group started: 2001;
Location: Coastal North Carolina;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): (Marine
Corps Base Camp Lejune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Croatan
National Forest);
Group type: Memorandum of understanding, information-sharing;
Stakeholders: Department of Defense, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, state agencies, nonprofit organizations.
Collaborative effort: Steens Mountain Advisory Council;
Year group started: 2000;
Location: Southeastern Oregon;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): 496,000
acres (Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area);
Group type: Legislatively created advisory council;
Stakeholders: BLM, nonprofit organizations, recreationists, private
landowners.
Collaborative effort: Uncompahgre Plateau Project;
Year group started: 2001;
Location: Southwestern Colorado;
Approximate acres of land involved (federal lands involved): 1.5
million acres (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest;
BLM land);
Group type: Memorandum of understanding;
Stakeholders: BLM, Forest Service, a state agency, a community group,
electric utilities.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
To gather information on each group's organization, efforts, and
results, we conducted field visits and detailed, semistructured
interviews with several key participants of the group, and in some
cases, interested parties who were not participating in the group. We
obtained related documentation of each group's activities and results
and in some instances observed the groups' projects in the field. We
did not independently verify data related to the groups' results. In
analyzing the groups, we considered conflicts to exist if two or more
participants had different interests to achieve and considered
conflicts to be reduced or averted if a common solution or interest was
identified.
For the third objective, we identified challenges associated with the
collaborative resource management approach described by the experts in
the literature and by members of the collaborative resource management
groups we studied. The components of the challenges described by the
experts in the literature were identified using the literature review
and content analysis that is explained above. Table 7 describes the
challenges.
Table 7: Description of the Challenges Associated with Collaboration
Identified by the Experts:
Challenge: Improving Federal Employees' Collaborative Skills;
Description: Skill and experience interacting and communicating with
the public and conflict resolution skills.
Challenge: Determining Whether to Participate in a Collaborative
Effort;
Description: Evaluating particular factors that will affect whether a
collaborative effort is likely to succeed in a particular circumstance.
Such factors include the capacity for the community to engage in such
efforts, which may depend on the community having leaders, social
networks, and local infrastructure and institutions that facilitate
civic involvement; and external conditional factors that may include an
issue that has a history of litigation and viewpoints rooted in the
community that participants bring with them into a collaborative effort
such as stereotypes or a history of distrust among community members.
Challenge: Sustaining Participation;
Description: Achieving and sustaining the consistent participation of
all relevant stakeholders and people with collaborative, leadership,
and technical skills and being able to build trust and equal footing
among the participants. Also includes a lack of sufficient time, money,
or people to fully support a collaborative effort.
Challenge: Measuring and Monitoring for Accountability;
Description: Achieving and demonstrating accountability through
measuring participation and monitoring natural resources given the long
time horizons of natural resource results.
Challenge: Working within Federal Laws and Agency Policies;
Description: Agency support of collaboration through culture, funding,
laws, and policies, and relationships with other agencies and
organizations.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
As with the benefits, limitations, and critiques, each statement
identified as a challenge in the literature review was assigned to a
component. The number of statements that were assigned to each
challenge component is listed in table 8.
Table 8: Number of Statements in the Challenges:
Challenge: Sustaining Participation; Number of statements: 58.
Challenge: Determining Whether to Participate in a Collaborative
Effort;
Number of statements: 49.
Challenge: Working within Federal Laws and Agency Policies;
Number of statements: 35.
Challenge: Measuring and Monitoring for Accountability;
Number of statements: 21.
Challenge: Improving Federal Employees' Collaborative Skills;
Number of statements: 10.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
An additional challenge related to sharing experiences with
collaboration was identified through semistructured interviews with
collaborative group participants. Many participants we interviewed
mentioned that aspects of their collaborative group were unique, yet
the groups share similar problems and could benefit from sharing
experiences with other groups. This challenge reflects the personal
experiences of participants working within a specific collaborative
group.
To identify how efforts under the Cooperative Conservation initiative
address challenges associated with federal land and resource management
agencies' participation in collaborative resource management, we
interviewed federal officials from organizations responsible for
implementing the Cooperative Conservation initiative, including the
Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget,
Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture. In addition,
we reviewed Cooperative Conservation documents and agency guidance
related to partnerships and Cooperative Conservation.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2006 through February
2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Collaborative Resource Management Groups and Successful
Collaboration Practices:
To understand the purpose and nature of collaborative resource
management groups, we selected seven such groups for detailed study. We
met with participants of these groups individually or, at times,
together to discuss the natural resource problems and conflicts the
group was managing and the practices used by the group that enabled
them to successfully alleviate conflict and improve resource
conditions. To various degrees, the seven groups we studied used the
collaborative practices identified by experts that successful groups
commonly use. Experts emphasized that while these practices are
commonly used by successful groups, the use of these practices does not
guarantee success for all groups. Collaborative groups are unique and
can succeed or fail depending on the nature of the problem or conflict
involved. The following describes each of the collaborative groups, the
natural resource problems or conflicts they managed, and the extent to
which they used collaborative practices.
Blackfoot Challenge:
The Blackfoot Challenge (Challenge) is a landowner-based nonprofit
group working in the 1.5-million-acre Blackfoot River watershed in
Montana. Although it began much earlier, the group was officially
established as a nonprofit group in the early 1990s, with a board
including private landowners and federal and state agency
personnel.[Footnote 25] The participants of the group sought to create
an organization that could resolve natural resource issues, such as the
reintroduction of threatened and endangered species and their effect on
private landowner livelihoods, before they became conflicts.
Of the total acres in the watershed, about 57 percent is publicly
managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the
state of Montana. The remaining lands in the watershed are owned by
timber companies and private citizens. The area has had a long history
of mining, logging, and ranching. More recently, the area has
increasing numbers of people, which has increased development and
recreation. The ecosystem is also home to threatened and endangered
species including the bull trout, grizzly bear, and gray wolf.
Natural Resource Problems:
Participants of the Challenge identified several natural resource
problems and conflicts that the group has managed, and is continuing to
manage, including the following:
* In 2000, the Challenge responded to a conflict that arose over low
water flows in the Blackfoot River that threatened the survival of fish
and other river species and organisms. The Challenge formed a Drought
Response Committee, which has since expanded to address long-term water
conservation and recreation issues. The committee met with the Big
Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited, which had concerns about fish
populations and habitat; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks; and water users to develop an emergency drought plan for the
river. The plan, based on the idea of "shared sacrifice," provided more
in-stream flow as water users voluntarily reduced the amount of water
they withdrew, allowing more water to be left in the stream. In 2005,
this plan helped save 60 cubic feet per second of water.[Footnote 26]
* Riparian habitat for fish in the Blackfoot River is fragmented by
culverts, roads, and other infrastructure on both public and private
land that block tributaries and creeks flowing into the river. Wildlife
agencies have noticed the reduction in fish populations, including the
threatened bull trout. Many groups, including federal agencies,
fishermen and women, and ranchers, are interested in reconnecting
streams that have been blocked to provide better fishing and wildlife
habitat opportunities. However, some ranchers are hesitant about making
improvements or working with federal agencies. The group has worked
with willing ranchers and the local chapter of Trout Unlimited to
develop a plan for restoring riparian areas and tributaries across the
watershed. Over time, the groups have protected and restored 38 miles
on 39 tributaries and 62 miles of riparian habitat.
* In 2002, the Challenge responded to concerns throughout the valley
about increased grizzly bear activity by creating a Wildlife Committee
to exchange information and coordinate efforts. The Blackfoot watershed
is nearby three wilderness areas and is considered a prime wildlife
corridor for wolves and grizzly bears, whose populations are
increasing. Local landowners are concerned about increased human and
livestock interaction with such species. The Challenge began a Carcass
Pick-Up Program in conjunction with the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Partners Program; local
ranchers; and a waste service to remove dead livestock from ranches to
deter bears from searching for such remains. Human-grizzly bear
conflicts have been reduced by 91 percent from 2003 through 2006.
* In 2005 and 2006, the Challenge dealt with two unique resource
conflicts. In the first case, conflict arose over a housing development
around one particular community in the watershed that would
dramatically affect an important elk migration corridor and increase
the community's population, water use, and school enrollment. As a
result, there were many different stakeholders interested in the issue.
Rather than taking a position on the conflict, the Challenge has
instead brought the community together with the stakeholders to find an
acceptable alternative. In a second similar case, members of the
Challenge did not take sides on a controversial proposed gold mine near
Lincoln, Montana, in the northern part of the watershed. Instead of
advocating for a particular solution, the Challenge offered to bring
people together to discuss their options. In the end, according to the
participants, the state passed a law against methods of mining that use
cyanide to leach the gold from the rocks and the proposed mine was
ultimately blocked.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Challenge are described in the
following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Challenge board and its working committees include a wide variety
of representation. Members of the board are landowners, land managers,
agencies, and others who are represented through working committees and
membership. The group has tried to involve every type of stakeholder in
the process to provide help or share resources. They realize, however,
that some perspectives that should be included may be missing from the
board, including absentee landowners who own second homes in the
valley. In an effort to provide greater inclusiveness, the board has
created at-large members.
As members of the Challenge, federal agency officials are members of
the Executive Board and committees. Because the Challenge provides a
forum for information sharing, agency officials have an opportunity to
hear community concerns. It allows them to know, in an informal
capacity, if local people are supportive of particular actions before
making decisions. Of equal importance, the agencies have an opportunity
to communicate correct facts about their respective agencies. This
helps to correct rumors and reduce doubt, uncertainty, and distrust
between the community and the agencies and provides a forum for agency
officials to make participants aware of their limitations early in the
process. Although federal employees serve as members of the Executive
Board, a nonprofit board, the Forest Service member serves as a
nonvoting member, while the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employees serve as voting members.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
The group uses an "80-20" rule, whereby the group concentrates its
efforts on 80 percent of the issues it can agree upon and does not
force consensus on the 20 percent that it is unable to agree upon. This
strategic approach allows the group to first work on solutions to
problems that are less controversial and more likely to succeed,
thereby building common ground and trust among participants. The
Challenge does not advocate any one position because it believes if it
did, it would be unable to act as a bridge between two sides of an
issue. Instead the group chooses to facilitate dialogue and information
sharing. This process helps to promote community dialogue between
private landowners and public agencies in an attempt to resolve issues
before they become major conflicts.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
Members of the Challenge attributed much of their success as a group to
the time they have taken to develop trust among members. Participants
of the Challenge include individuals that are respectful of diverse
views, committed to the effort, and are willing to negotiate and build
consensus. One member described the group's common approach as polite,
thoughtful, kind, and respectful.
Find Leadership:
According to participants, a collaborative group needs the right leader
and the Challenge has had several committed, talented community leaders
over the years. They view the right leader as someone who is a local
opinion leader and who has the respect of a majority of the community.
A participant described one of the reasons for the Challenge's success
as inspired leadership, which involves being able to focus the group on
its common interests. The group also hired an Executive Director, which
was a crucial step for the Challenge in terms of raising funds and
organizing the group because it could only accomplish a limited amount
on a volunteer basis.
Identify a Common Goal:
Concern for maintaining a certain quality of life in the area prompted
landowners, public agencies, and other community leaders to begin
working together on ways to manage the watershed. The group's mission
is to "coordinate efforts that will enhance, conserve and protect the
natural resources and rural lifestyles of Montana's Blackfoot River
Valley for present and future generations." As early as the 1970s,
private landowners and public agency officials worked together to
resolve conflicts, or potential conflicts, among various users within
the watershed. For example, in an effort to protect and restore fish
and wildlife habitat along the river corridor, several public agencies,
including BLM, the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
state wildlife and parks agencies, attempted to purchase conservation
easements from private landowners. The landowners made the agencies
aware that they were each asking to acquire land, and the agencies and
landowners started talking about their common goals. In the 1980s, a
conflict over access to the river between recreationists and private
riparian landowners developed. To access the river, recreationists had
to trespass on private lands.[Footnote 27] In response, a local timber
company joined with BLM and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks to allow limited access across private land to use the river
if the agencies would manage the activities and effects on resources.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
The Challenge relies on the scientific expertise and information
provided by the resource managers from the federal and state agencies.
To make decisions about specific resource management problems, the
group has a standard set of committees that include knowledgeable
agency and community members. One committee in particular, the Drought,
Water Conservation, and Recreation committee, monitors snowpack, stream
flow, and drought conditions, as well as recreation use of the river.
The Challenge has recently become involved in monitoring and developing
water quality standards for streams in the watershed because the water
quality data needed to analyze and improve conditions in the watershed
were inadequate. It also works with university researchers to conduct
studies.
Leverage Available Resources:
In the past, the Challenge has operated on about $50,000 per year,
receiving funding from private donors and foundations. The group
recently received a $100,000 award for innovations in governance from
the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard
University. The group's resources are used to leverage federal funds by
coordinating private projects with federal projects. For example, as
the Forest Service and BLM work to restore parts of a stream on their
respective lands, the Challenge coordinates the projects and adds its
own resources to conduct work on private stretches of the same stream,
thereby providing greater stream restoration than if the agencies had
conducted individual projects.
Provide Incentives:
The Blackfoot Valley uses conservation easements as an incentive for
conservation activities. Through many partners, more than 100
conservation easements on more than 90,000 acres of private lands have
been purchased to keep agricultural and grasslands open and available
for ranching and wildlife use. Conservation easements are being
purchased and donated to the following organizations: Forest Service;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; The
Nature Conservancy; Montana Land Reliance; and Five Valleys Land Trust.
Monitor Results for Accountability:
For the most part, the Challenge uses monitoring data that the agencies
collect, although in specific cases, the group and its partners are
monitoring the results of their projects. In particular, the local
chapter of Trout Unlimited led the development of a process to
prioritize tributaries and stretches of the river to restore and
monitor results. In addition, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks monitors fish populations in the river, which indicates
habitat improvement and water quality conditions. The Challenge
recently began monitoring water quality.
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative:
The Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative (Initiative) is a partnership of
landowners, communities, local working groups, conservation groups,
industries, and tribal, state, and federal agencies that started in
2006 to focus on conservation of the western sagebrush landscape. The
effort encompasses the sagebrush range, which spans 11 western states,
and involves creating incentives for conservation through mechanisms
such as a system to trade credits for conservation activities.[Footnote
28] The group incorporated into a nonprofit organization in 2007 and is
still organizing and planning the effort, so it has not yet conducted
conservation activities. In 2007, the group solicited proposals for
projects designed to demonstrate how the work could be done and
incentives could be developed and has endorsed three proposed projects
that encompass over 1 million acres of sagebrush habitat in four
states.
In the mid-1990s, the declining status of two sage grouse species--
Gunnison sage grouse and greater sage grouse--triggered regional
concern for the health of the sagebrush ecosystem. In 2000, the
Gunnison sage grouse was added to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
list of candidate species to be considered for a threatened or
endangered listing under the Endangered Species Act and the greater
sage grouse was the subject of three petitions in 2002-2003 seeking
listing throughout its range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found
that a listing was not warranted for the greater sage grouse in 2005,
or for the Gunnison sage grouse in 2006. The sagebrush range is also
home to wildlife, such as mule deer, valued for hunting; scenic
attractions; energy resources; and ranching; which could be affected by
declining greater sage grouse populations or a listing of one, or more,
of the species that are dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem.
Natural Resource Problems:
The primary natural resource problem that the Initiative is focused on
is the decline of the sagebrush range and associated decline in greater
sage grouse populations. These declines have been attributed to factors
such as increased oil and gas exploration and development in the West,
some ranching practices, and climate. Although the sage grouse species
were not listed when originally petitioned, there are three lawsuits
that could affect the legal status of the sage grouse.[Footnote 29] The
states, energy companies, ranchers, and developers are concerned that a
listing decision would limit their activities in sagebrush habitat.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Initiative are described in the
following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Initiative was started when representatives of a nonprofit
organization called the Sand County Foundation saw an opportunity for
oil and gas companies to become involved in stewardship of the
sagebrush ecosystem and help with key issues hindering sage grouse
conservation in the West that were identified in a report sponsored by
the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. These key issues
included creating an organizational structure for conservation efforts,
establishing leadership to coordinate the efforts, and finding
resources to fund the efforts. Representatives from the Sand County
Foundation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated discussions
with representatives from BLM, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Encana
Oil and Gas to develop ideas for a collaborative conservation effort
that spanned the range of the sage grouse.
The partners believe that the effort should be broad, inclusive, and
representative and, therefore, include key state agencies; counties;
tribes; a wide spectrum of landowners, ranchers, and citizens; a
diverse mix of companies across multiple industries; a good
representation of local, regional, and national conservation groups;
and other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense. Potential
partners in the Initiative were identified through conversations among
the core group who initiated the effort. Subsequently, invitations to
participate were sent out broadly to individuals and the list of
potential partners grew through further recommendations. At the second
major general meeting of the group in December 2006, over 80 people
attended, including representatives from federal and state agencies,
energy companies, and nongovernmental organizations, as well as private
landowners.
After its initial efforts to gain participation, the Initiative formed
a partnership and outreach working group responsible for identifying
and communicating with critical partners for the Initiative, as well as
developing an outreach strategy to inform key audiences of the
Initiative's purpose and achievements. Partners we spoke with noted
that they believe they have good representation from all of the
necessary interests, although some noted that the tribes have not been
involved thus far even though they have been encouraged to participate.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
Decisions within the Initiative are made by consensus and meetings are
facilitated by a staff member from the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution. To accomplish work, the Initiative has developed a
strategic plan that includes four working groups: (1) a partnership and
outreach group to ensure that the Initiative includes all stakeholders
and reaches out to underrepresented interests; (2) an incentives group
to work on incentive mechanisms for the participants; (3) a projects
group that identifies and prioritizes conservation projects; and (4) a
funding group that is developing a banking structure for the group.
The Initiative is governed by a 12-member Partnership Council that
includes representatives from the Cooperative Sagebrush Steppe
Restoration Initiative, Encana Oil and Gas, EnerCrest Corporation,
Environmental Defense, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Department of
Fish and Game, National Cattleman's Beef Association, Peabody Energy/
Powder River Coal, Shell Oil, Western Governor's Association, Sand
County Foundation, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Vermillion
Ranch, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In
addition, there are nonvoting federal advisory members on the
Partnership Council from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
According to some of the partners, the group views transparency as the
best way to deal with critics and skeptics and, therefore, has invited
everyone to participate. By having an open process for discussion, the
group has been able to respectfully discuss different perspectives even
though the members do not always agree. As one participant described
it, there is more to the process than sitting around singing "kumbaya."
In addition, the group posts most of its information and documents on
its Web site and opens its meetings and conference calls to any
stakeholders who want to participate.
Find Leadership:
Several participants attribute the initial success of the group to the
visionary leadership of some of the group's founders who saw an
opportunity for conservation in the concurrent trends of increased oil
and gas development in the West and decreasing sagebrush habitat. One
of the participants noted that the group has benefited from several
different leaders who have the ability to share a vision with others
and motivate them to work toward it by focusing on problem solving and
solutions.
Identify a Common Goal:
The Initiative partners came together around the goal of conserving
sagebrush habitat, with the focus on preventing the need for a listing
of the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. The
partners have identified a common goal which is to "result in the long-
term, verifiable recovery of the greater sage grouse and improvement of
other species of concern in the sagebrush range." Some participants
noted that the Initiative would not exist without the threat of a
listing because each of the partners has different concerns over the
need for or result of a listing. For example, conservation
organizations want to maintain the health of the species, industry is
concerned over increased limitations on energy exploration and
development in sagebrush habitat that would be brought about by a
listing, and ranchers are concerned that a listing would restrict their
activities on their private land as well as on the public land
associated with grazing leases.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
The Initiative has utilized the expertise of scientists from the state
wildlife agencies and the federal agencies to guide various aspects of
the effort and has used existing sagebrush habitat data from the U.S.
Geological Survey and sage grouse conservation studies completed by the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies across the 11-state
sage grouse range. In 2006, a panel of sage grouse scientists,
representing 10 state wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Forest
Service convened to identify priority areas of conservation and types
of conservation efforts that would benefit the sagebrush range. In
addition, to mentor applicants who have applied for conservation
projects under the Initiative and help them develop the details of
their project, one of the working groups has been charged with
recruiting a Science Advisory Council that will consist of scientists
with expertise in sage grouse biology, range management, landscape
ecology, and conservation biology. Furthermore, in February of 2007,
the Initiative sponsored a workshop to explore how a conservation
credit trading system for the sagebrush ecosystem may be defined. This
workshop brought together sage grouse and sagebrush scientists as well
as experts familiar with other credit trading systems such as wetland
banking programs, endangered species conservation banks, and carbon
offset programs.
Leverage Available Resources:
The Initiative's early efforts have been funded by some of the member
organizations such as the Sand County Foundation,[Footnote 30] National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Encana Oil and Gas. The funds
generated thus far have paid for meetings and planning activities, but
participants anticipate that the Initiative will be able to raise
sufficient money for demonstrating conservation efforts. As the effort
begins to implement conservation projects, participants noted that
funding may come from industry, federal programs, or the conservation
credit trading system. Funding for the demonstration projects will
potentially be provided by a mix of the partners, including the federal
agencies and oil and gas companies.
Provide Incentives:
According to the group, the Initiative's partnership is built upon
using incentives for landowners, local communities, and private
industry to invest in habitat restoration and other conservation
actions. The incentives working group has focused its efforts primarily
on two incentives. First, the Initiative views the creation of a
conservation credit trading system as a potentially significant
economic incentive for landowners to engage in voluntary conservation
efforts. This system would allow landowners or others to earn credits
by implementing sagebrush conservation activities. These credits could
then be sold to energy companies or others who may desire them for a
variety of purposes, including mitigating the effect of development
projects elsewhere in sagebrush habitat. The concepts behind the
conservation credit trading system are currently in development and
many of the participants acknowledge that there are significant
inherent difficulties in designing such a system, particularly one that
will stand up to scientific scrutiny. For example, the sagebrush
ecosystem is highly heterogeneous, with varying levels of habitat
quality across the range. This creates challenges in determining the
value of a credit and how this may change from location to location.
However, several of the participants we spoke with believed this credit
trading system was crucial to the overall Initiative and remained
optimistic that it could succeed.
The second type of incentive that the Initiative is working on includes
obtaining various assurances from the Department of the Interior that
by implementing voluntary sagebrush ecosystem conservation efforts,
participants would not bear greater costs or requirements if the
greater sage grouse or other species dependent on the sagebrush
ecosystem became listed under the Endangered Species Act. For example,
if a rancher improved or created habitat for sage grouse on his or her
land and then the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act,
the rancher could be subject to restrictions on grazing practices that
might harm the sage grouse by damaging its habitat. The Initiative
developed and submitted five specific recommendations that they believe
Interior could take to secure particular assurances. According to one
partner, Interior has indicated that the group will receive a response
soon.
Monitor Results for Accountability:
The group has not yet initiated any conservation projects; however, the
group issued a request for proposal in May 2007 for demonstration
projects designed to measurably improve sagebrush habitat and test the
concept of a conservation credit trading system. The request for
proposal included provisions for monitoring of projects. Some
participants noted that monitoring would be a critical component of any
conservation projects and conservation credit system.
Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management group was
started in 1992 originally to collaborate across boundaries on lands in
the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan for ecosystem management. Over
time, the group evolved into an information-sharing group to coordinate
land management, but has been relatively inactive in recent years.
Members of the group include state and federal government agencies, a
conservation organization, and industrial (timber) landowners who
together manage two-thirds of the four million acres of the eastern
Upper Peninsula. This area includes the 895,000-acre Hiawatha National
Forest, 95,000-acre Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 73,000-acre
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, state land, and privately owned
land.
Historically, much of the eastern Upper Peninsula was managed for
timber harvest and most of the region was cut by the early 1900s. In
the 1800s, loggers harvested pine and shifted to hardwoods in the 1900s
as pine trees were cut over. The eastern Upper Peninsula is once again
largely forested with second-growth forests including aspen, white
birch, and jack pine. In recent years, many of the timber companies
have been selling their lands.
Natural Resource Problems:
According to group members, there are few contentious issues causing
conflict among land managers and owners in the eastern Upper Peninsula,
but the group saw an opportunity among the large landowners to
cooperate in a manner that could enhance ecosystems across the
landscape. Many members note that the primary outcomes of the group
have been educating partners with information that they can use in
their management, sharing information among the partners, and building
relationships. Some of the particular examples of the Eastern Upper
Peninsula group's coordinated efforts include the following:
* Most of the eastern Upper Peninsula is second-growth forest, with
trees of similar age. Some members of the group sought to establish a
mix of trees of different age classes across the landscape to provide
healthy habitat for species, in particular, neotropical bird species
such as the golden-winged warbler, that use the forests. However, the
forest companies that owned land in the eastern Upper Peninsula were
focused on commodity production rather than habitat health. The Eastern
Upper Peninsula group provided opportunities to educate the industrial
landowners that accommodating neotropical birds on their land could be
done without affecting their financial bottom line. By coordinating
with neighboring landowners to obtain a mix of vegetation over a larger
area, the need for any one landowner to achieve all habitat objectives
on his or her land alone was reduced.
* To support efforts to manage their land in a complementary manner,
members of the group recognized the need for broad-scale mapping that
could be used in looking at the overall landscape. As a result, the
group coordinated to map and categorize land units in the region into
areas with similar physical and biological characteristics, called land
type associations. The land type associations have been used to varying
extent by the partners as a planning tool and for some decision making.
The group was able to reach consensus on the descriptions of the land
classifications, but was unable to agree on the management implications
of the ecological descriptions such as the need to use fire to attain a
particular age variation in the trees. The partners were concerned that
documenting management implications would constrain the activities they
could conduct on their land.
Many of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group partners have worked together
on individual efforts to enhance their positive effects on the
landscape, discuss compatible management, or preserve land. Examples of
such efforts include the following:
* Through the relationship built with the Eastern Upper Peninsula
group, The Nature Conservancy and a timber company were able to reach
agreement on access and save a wetland area from being built over by a
road. The timber company wanted to gain access across a nature preserve
owned by The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy originally
denied access and the timber company threatened to build a road across
a wetland on its land. Through the relationship developed through the
Eastern Upper Peninsula group, these organizations were able to discuss
the issue and The Nature Conservancy agreed to allow access across its
land.
* A National Park Service official noted that the Eastern Upper
Peninsula group helped the National Park Service open a dialogue with
the state and timber companies to discuss forest management issues.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore has a 39,300-acre buffer zone of land
within its boundary that is predominately owned by the state and timber
companies. According to a former National Park Service official, the
National Park Service has an interest in maintaining healthy ecosystems
in this buffer zone, while the state and timber company's interest is
focused primarily on the use of the land to generate revenue from
harvesting timber.
* As a result of the relationship that The Nature Conservancy developed
with state and federal agencies and timber companies, The Nature
Conservancy negotiated a conservation easement on 250,000 acres of
private timberland. The easement will allow some forestry on the land,
but in a manner that is compatible with a nearby Nature Conservancy
preserve.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Eastern Upper Peninsula group
are described in the following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula group effort began when staff from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources recognized the need to talk
with the landowners who shared their boundaries and subsequently
convened a meeting with the Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Nature Conservancy. According to
these partners, after they had been meeting for a period of time, they
recognized the influence of private forest land in the eastern Upper
Peninsula landscape. The group members debated about whether or not to
bring private timber companies who owned or managed land into the
partnership because they were commodity-based and would have different
goals and objectives for the land than the agencies. Ultimately,
according to the members, they decided to invite timber representatives
into the group. One timber industry official noted that his company was
initially interested in the Eastern Upper Peninsula group because
participating in a collaborative group could help them attain
certification for sustainable forestry practices. More recently, the
timber companies have had less interest in the group, in part because
many of them have been selling their land in the eastern Upper
Peninsula.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
The participants stressed that the Eastern Upper Peninsula group is not
a decision-making group and therefore does not have an established
decision-making process. However, the group has used consensus to
identify issues that it would like to work on. The group has no
protocols, bylaws, or memorandums of understanding. The members share
information and, as partners see the need, form subgroups to work on
particular projects, with people joining in as they have the interest
and time. Under this arrangement, each entity retains its own
individual objectives and decision-making process that it will go
through to determine what work it will undertake as a part of the
group's efforts. Some members noted that the informality of the group
has allowed them to avoid issues with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, which establishes rules for federal advisory committees.[Footnote
31]
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
According to the Eastern Upper Peninsula group partners, the
participants generated trust because early in the process they agreed
to respect the missions of each of the individual organizations and to
not change any agency's or organization's mission or objectives.
Participants describe trust as the most significant outcome of their
efforts. When the group first began meeting, each of the partners
discussed their organization's missions, which helped the group to gain
an understanding of one another. As a result of the trust generated by
the group, they have been able to openly share information that they
probably would have not shared otherwise, such as the location of
timber harvests. Some participants noted that through the open
atmosphere generated by the group, potential conflicts are often
eliminated before they become conflicts.
Find Leadership:
According to some of the members, the group was pulled together by a
few key people who were all managers and able to make decisions.
Everyone in the initial group was a manager and had good decision-
making skills, an ability to voice his or her opinion, and knowledge of
the relevant governing laws, authorities, and policies. Some members
noted that different people emerged at various times to bring the group
together on different issues and move the group forward.
One of the original members coordinated the group and kept it going
between 1992 and 2006. When this person assumed a different position
within his agency and was no longer able to coordinate the group, it
became less active and does not currently have a coordinator. Some
members noted that there were still natural resource issues, such as
invasive species, that the group could continue to work on and that the
Eastern Upper Peninsula group effort could be improved by having a
leader dedicated to the group who had coordination and facilitation
skills.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has not previously been
actively involved in the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, according to an
official from the agency, but coordinates the Upper Peninsula Resource
Conservation and Development Council--a congressionally designated,
nonprofit group that identifies and undertakes resource management and
community development projects. Some of the council's goals overlap
with those of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group. Consequently, the
council coordinator, who is a Natural Resources Conservation Service
employee, has offered to facilitate and coordinate the group's meetings
in the future, starting in early 2008. A Natural Resources Conservation
Service official noted that this may supply the impetus needed to get
the Eastern Upper Peninsula group active again and working on issues
important to the group members.
Identify a Common Goal:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula group members agreed that their goal is "to
facilitate complementary management of public and private lands, for
all appropriate land uses, using a landscape-ecological approach to
sustain and enhance representative ecosystems in the Eastern Upper
Peninsula of Michigan." According to one of the group's founders, the
Eastern Upper Peninsula effort was originally envisioned as a means to
coordinate land management strategies and activities among neighboring
landowners to achieve overall ecosystem goals. However, after the group
began meeting, it became apparent that it would not be able to concur
on a common management approach given the different missions of each of
the partners. Efforts by some of the members to try to get the partners
to coordinate and agree on common management practices and strategies
were met with resistance. Consequently, the group determined that it
would function as an information-sharing group and not a decision-
making body.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has placed a high priority on
developing and sharing information. The group has worked together to
map and describe land type associations in the eastern Upper Peninsula,
which some members noted have been useful in making landscape-scale
decisions. Members of the group stated that any information developed
by the group is made available to other members without restrictions or
protocols. For example, land type associations were developed for
private lands adjacent to the national forest and were used by small
foresters to help with their planning.
Leverage Available Resources:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has not officially sought funding
because, according to group members, it made a decision that it did not
want to receive and mange funds. Resources for the group came from the
individual partners as they were needed and available. For example,
some of the timber company partners published a guide on threatened and
endangered species using private funds.
Provide Incentives:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula group does not use any particular
incentives to achieve its goals.
Monitor Results for Accountability:
The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has not established any formal
mechanisms to monitor natural resources, but has periodically assessed
the need for the group to continue. According to one member, monitoring
natural resource improvements made by a group is possible only if the
group has joint projects, which is not the case of this group.
Furthermore, the group has no resources to dedicate to monitoring.
However, group members noted that they assessed the value of the group
every 2 or 3 years by evaluating their progress toward their goals and
discussing among the members whether the effort was still needed. In
addition, every 2 to 3 years the group would discuss and set new goals.
Malpai Borderlands Group:
The Malpai Borderlands Group is a nonprofit group in southeastern
Arizona and southwestern New Mexico working to restore fire as an
ecological process to the rangelands and keep a working landscape based
on natural resources--primarily, livestock grazing. The Sonoran and
Chihauhaun deserts in this area have historically supported ranching,
but also support numerous species, including threatened and endangered
species such as the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, jaguar, and
Chiricauhua leopard frog.
The group's planning and activities encompass approximately 800,000
acres including public lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and
the states of New Mexico and Arizona, as well as private lands held by
ranchers and the nonprofit Animas Foundation. The group started
informally, meeting to discuss problems the neighbors faced in ranching
and eventually bringing in interested environmentalists who were
concerned about subdivision and development of the land, including The
Nature Conservancy. The group incorporated in 1994 to more actively
pursue its goals.
Natural Resource Problems:
In working to restore fire to the landscape, the Malpai group has
worked to resolve related problems.
* Wildland fires can provide some beneficial effects to ecosystems that
are adapted to fire, such as restoring vegetation and improving
habitat. Some landowners view fire as beneficial but others do not want
to use fire to manage land and vegetation. For example, Arizona state
trust lands are managed primarily for ranching and to generate income
for public schools in the state. As a result, the state puts out all
fires on these lands and generally does not use fire as a management
tool to promote growth of grasses and fuel reduction of shrubs and
bushes, although it works with the Malpai Borderland Group to set
prescribed fires. On the other hand, the Forest Service, BLM, and some
private ranchers want to burn their grasslands to reduce shrubs, such
as creosote and mesquite and to promote grasses. The group has worked
to educate landowners about the benefits of fire and has worked with
the different landowners to set and burn several large fires. The group
has succeeded in reintroducing fire to a total of about 69,000 acres.
* The effects of fire on threatened and endangered species are mixed
and create difficulties for using fire to restore vegetation. While
restoring fire to an ecosystem that is fire-adapted helps support
habitats and species in the long term, using fire on the landscape in
the short term can harm threatened and endangered species, such as the
ridge-nosed rattlesnake, or food sources for other threatened and
endangered species, such as the agave plant used by lesser long-nosed
bats. The group worked to get the most recent scientific evidence from
researchers working on the species to use in their plans to restore
fire, both on public and private lands. More recently, the group has
begun working on a habitat conservation plan with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which would identify the activities that could be
undertaken by the group without triggering concerns about "taking"--
killing or harming--a threatened or endangered species.
* Resource overuse can occur during drought. During an extended drought
over the last decade, ranchers in the Malpai area faced a decision to
sell off their herds or keep them on the land and potentially overgraze
it. To avoid this outcome, the group and the Animas Foundation--a
nonprofit working ranch operating within the group's boundaries--
established a grassbank on Animas Foundation lands in New Mexico.
Ranchers with distressed lands have used the grassbank for 3 to 5
years. Continued drought has made this program less viable in the last
few years as the drought has extended over a broader area.
* Development of open land and loss of the resource and open space
occurs when ranchers sell their lands. Private landowners can sell
their land at any time, but are more likely to sell during economic
hardship. Yet ranchers, and others, have an interest in maintaining
open lands for different purposes--livestock grazing, habitat for
species, and amenities such as recreation or scenic views. The group
worked with ranchers in the area who did not want to sell, purchasing
conservation easements for their lands that allowed them to stay in
ranching despite economic need to sell the land. The group has
succeeded in protecting 77,000 acres of land using conservation
easements.
* The group worked with an individual rancher who provided habitat for
a threatened species--the Chiricahua leopard frog. As a result, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Malpai Borderlands Group
with a safe harbor agreement that protects the owner, and any other
landowners who wish to participate, should the species be damaged by
typical ranching actions.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Malpai Borderlands Group are
described in the following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Malpai Borderlands Group began informally as a discussion group
that later incorporated as a nonprofit. The original members of the
group were self-selected members of the ranching community and
interested environmentalists who were associated with members of the
group. When the Malpai Borderlands Group incorporated in 1994, this
discussion group formed the original board. Many of the members of the
Malpai group are landowners in the area, but some are not. The board
includes a member of The Nature Conservancy and retired federal
employees who were key in helping the group get started and work with
the agencies. Board meetings are open and the group invites a wide
range of people to attend. It also works with its critics on various
issues; however, it has determined not to change the membership of the
board to include outside parties because of concerns over control of
members' private lands. The members of the group are particularly
concerned about the need to recruit young people to the group and
board--some are leaving ranching altogether and those who remain often
do not attend meetings.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
The group is managed by a nonprofit board, which has bylaws and
organizational structure. According to some members, the group has
succeeded because it is run by the board, and while the agencies have
joined the effort, they do not direct it. This is important because the
private landowners make decisions about what actions to take on their
own lands.
The group coordinates closely with federal and state agencies that
manage lands within the Malpai planning area. Until the last few years,
two of these agencies--the Natural Resources Conservation Service and
the Forest Service--dedicated an employee to be a liaison with the
group. When the Natural Resources Conservation Service liaison retired,
a new person was selected with the help of the group; however, when the
Forest Service liaison retired, the agency and the group decided not to
fill that position and the agency is instead trying to have more
employees work with the group.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
The group holds open meetings and invites a wide range of participants
to talk about management issues. It works by consensus, trying to work
problems out informally first. For example, in the mid-1990s, a member
of the group photographed a live jaguar in the United States. Members
participated in the discussions over protection of the species and
designation of critical habitat--specific areas that may be critical
for the conservation of the species--for it in the United States. The
group invited a key scientist to visit and assess the habitat, and as a
result, members believe that what they are doing to restore the habitat
and keep it open is the best protection for the habitat. The Malpai
group also established a fund to reimburse ranchers for any jaguar
kills of livestock. While members of the group disagree with the need
for the federal government to designate critical habitat for the
species in the United States, which may have an effect on the
activities that they can conduct on their land, they invited
environmental groups to their board meetings to discuss protection of
the species under the Endangered Species Act. According to the Center
for Biological Diversity, a member attended a meeting but the groups
disagreed on how to handle the situation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service listed the jaguar as endangered outside of the United States in
1972, prohibiting the import of jaguar pelts into the country, and
listed it as endangered within the United States under the Endangered
Species Act in 1997. Recently, the Center has sued the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to compel the agency to develop a recovery plan and
designate critical habitat for the jaguar.
Find Leadership:
Members of the Malpai group attribute their success to the leadership
of several individuals who brought vision, commitment, and
organizational skills to the group. They also recognized the role
played by federal agency officials both in Washington and in the field
offices, who recognized the group's potential and gave it the
opportunity--and resources, including people--to work. According to
members, leadership and organizational skills from The Nature
Conservancy were also key to getting foundations interested in the
group's efforts and getting the group incorporated as a nonprofit. Most
importantly, key members of the ranching community had the vision to
join together--when most ranchers prefer to work as individuals--and
other farsighted ranchers joined them. Members attribute this attitude
to a particular individual whose philosophy was to protect the land and
those who work it.
Identify a Common Goal:
The Malpai group's goal is to "restore and maintain the natural
processes that create and protect healthy, unfragmented landscape to
support a diverse, flourishing community of human, plant, and animal
life in our borderlands region. Together, we will accomplish this by
working to encourage profitable ranching and other traditional
livelihoods which will sustain the open space nature of our land for
generations to come." When lands in the area started selling, these
ranchers became concerned about future subdivision and development of
ranchland and the potential loss of their ranching livelihoods and
joined together to protect both. Another concern was the lack of fire.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
As part of its decision-making process, the Malpai Borderland Group
seeks to gather and use scientific information relevant to the problem
its members are managing. The group has a science coordinator whose
position is to manage several ongoing research efforts on lands in the
Malpai planning area and a Science Advisory Board made up of more than
40 experts in rangeland science; this group provides advice about
research efforts, monitoring, and management activities. These include
a program of research to study the effects of wildland fire on
threatened and endangered species such as the lesser long-nosed bat and
ridge-nosed rattlesnake. The science program also includes 9,000 acres
of research plots established by the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain
Research Station to study different revegetation treatments in areas
excluded from grazing and 12 watersheds to examine the sediment runoff
resulting from burning differently-sized areas and different amounts of
vegetation. The group funds research, as well as partners with outside
researchers from federal agencies, such as USDA's research stations,
and universities. In addition, the group sponsors an annual scientific
conference on topics related to its interests and management
activities.
Leverage Available Resources:
Because the group fosters a cooperative relationship among landowners
and agency staff to manage a broad landscape, it has been able to raise
more money for its conservation efforts. Private fundraising groups and
individuals provide funding to groups that can achieve on-the-ground
resource improvements and results. The group received start-up funds,
which was important because it let the group buy basic office equipment
such as computers, printers, and supplies. Over the years, the group
has met at one of the ranch houses, in an addition built for the
meetings. The group continues to get grants from nonprofit groups such
as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and receives grants for
research and personnel support.
Most of the members have been involved since the inception of the
discussion group and acknowledge the heavy time commitment that comes
with being part of the group. The members see the benefit of
participating because as a group they are able to accomplish activities
that they would not do as individuals. For example, prior to the
establishment of the group, one rancher could not coordinate with the
agencies to burn vegetation on both his land and on the agency's
adjacent land. The group used to meet monthly, but now meets less
often. Because the distances between ranches are great and require
considerable travel time, the group conducts business by telephone
conference and e-mail and holds quarterly board meetings in person.
Provide Incentives:
Incentives used by the group include a grassbank, which allows ranchers
to temporarily move their cattle from their own drought-damaged land to
healthier grasslands on the Gray Ranch owned by the Animas Foundation.
In exchange, the Malpai Borderlands Group receives a conservation
easement for the development rights to the private property on the
ranch. These conservation easements are different from others used by
The Nature Conservancy and federal agencies in that they contain a
clause that states if the rancher loses access to his or her federal
grazing allotment through no fault of his or her own, then the easement
is void and the land could then be sold for development.
The group has worked with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the
threatened and endangered species on privately-owned ranchlands in the
group's planning area. In one case, the group received a safe harbor
agreement to protect one of the last remaining populations of
Chiricahua leopard frogs that were residing in a rancher's stock pond.
The agreement allows the rancher, who had trucked water in to the pond
during drought years to keep the frogs alive, to manage the stock pond
for livestock purposes without the threat of enforcement action should
any of the frogs die because of those actions. Other ranchers can
participate in the safe harbor agreement by signing a certificate of
inclusion with the Malpai Borderlands Group and thereby receive the
protections of the agreement. The group is also developing a habitat
conservation plan for the area in order to implement grassland and
ranch management activities in areas where there are threatened or
endangered species. For example, this habitat conservation plan will
allow the use of fire in certain conditions and identify certain
restrictions to protect the threatened ridge-nosed rattlesnake and
several other species that might be harmed or killed by the fires. This
will permit ranchers to conduct activities provided the restrictions
are followed.
Monitor Results for Accountability:
As part of its management efforts, the group conducts range monitoring
across the lands in its planning area and maintains more than 290
monitoring plots for this purpose. It pays a contractor to visit the
plots to determine the condition of the pastures and the availability
and use of grass by livestock or wildlife. According to members, these
monitoring efforts are useful for judging the condition of grasslands
in the vicinity of the plots, but do not gauge overall rangeland
conditions. The group is working on a method for monitoring range
conditions more broadly across the whole planning area. The group has
also sponsored species counts for some of the threatened and endangered
species on lands in its planning area. This work enabled them to better
know and understand the location of species and to limit activities
there.
Onslow Bight Conservation Forum:
The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum (Forum)--named for the shallow
crescent-shaped bay that makes up much of the coastline in southeastern
North Carolina where the group is organized--is an information-sharing
group organized to help protect and restore the unique coastal
environment of the area and associated species. The Onslow Bight
region, as with other parts of coastal North Carolina, is developing
quickly and the rural nature of the area is rapidly changing. Because
of its unique makeup, the area is a hotspot for endemic species--those
that can only be found in that area--such as the Venus flytrap. This
area of North Carolina contains both longleaf pine habitat favored by
the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and unique wetland habitat such
as pocosins, or wetlands that form on a hill because of large amounts
of peat that accumulate.
The group, formed officially in 2001, originally began as a way to help
the Marine Corps manage encroachment issues around its installations
and to manage habitat for threatened and endangered species, in
particular the red-cockaded woodpecker. The group has since expanded
its vision to include aquatic habitat and conservation of land along
the coast. The members of the group represent the large blocks of
publicly-owned lands such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission game lands, the Croatan National Forest, Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, and several land
conservation trust groups. In addition to overall biodiversity
conservation, one focus of the group has been to study potential
corridors for wildlife to migrate between these public lands.
Natural Resource Problems:
The natural resource management problems and conflicts that the Forum
has managed revolve around land development and conservation:
* Development of lands eliminates habitat for different species and
causes the public lands to become islands of biodiversity, which can
affect management of these lands. In particular, development can harm
endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. Agencies with
populations that need to be protected are interested in expanding
habitat to help protect the species and ease the pressure on their
lands. Yet, private landowners are free to sell and develop their land.
The Forum developed a habitat protection plan to identify the location
of important habitat for threatened and endangered species and has
discussed and agreed upon areas that are a priority for preservation
and protection. This information has helped the agencies and land
trusts coordinate and prioritize land acquisition and has prevented
them from competing for the same lands. Since 2001, the Forum partners
have together acquired about 57,000 acres of land from willing sellers.
* Encroachment near military installations creates safety hazards as
well as complaints from neighboring communities about noise, dust, and
other side-effects of training exercises. The military has the
incentive to use its lands for training purposes and to have large
buffers between its installations and communities. Yet, communities and
others have incentives to develop lands for other purposes. Through the
Forum, the Marine Corps representatives can work with other members to
identify lands that have compatible uses with the military's needs and
also meet habitat purposes. Military funds can then be used to help
acquire conservation easements to the land.
* Habitat fragmentation occurs with increased development, particularly
with greater numbers and size of roads, which affects large species and
increases vehicle collisions with wildlife that are possibly fatal.
Private landowners have the right to sell and develop their land and
zoning allows for building. However, hunting, environmental, and other
groups have an interest in protecting species such as the black bear,
which need land to roam. The Onslow Bight area supports a large
population of bears and the number of collisions with wildlife in the
area is increasing. The group has identified areas that road
construction should avoid and the need for more wildlife crossings in
new road construction.
* Historically, the longleaf pine and pocosins of the Coastal Plain
depended on fire as an ecological process. Fire has been suppressed for
years, although the health of the vegetation depends on fire. The
agencies and land managers have an interest in burning their lands to
restore their health, however, new community members do not like smoke
and complain about burning programs. The group is working with The
Nature Conservancy on a project started in 2005 called the Onslow Bight
Fire Learning Network/LANDFIRE application project to develop and
support a burn program to help restore habitat.[Footnote 32] The Nature
Conservancy is also developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
the Forum to share equipment and personnel. Including burning on agency
lands as part of the fire programs, the members of the Forum burn about
60,000 acres of land a year.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Forum are described in the
following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Forum includes a range of participants who manage land or are
advocates for land conservation. The Forum began with a network of land
managers and federal and state agency officials, and members have
discussed how broadly to advertise for potential members; for now, they
have determined to keep the membership more narrow. Two land
conservation organizations--North Carolina Coastal Federation and North
Carolina Coastal Land Trust--have representatives in the Forum. Members
also include representatives from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, which conducts inventories for rare species and high- quality
habitat in the state, and the Wildlife Resources Commission, which
manages state lands for wildlife. Another state agency, the Department
of Transportation, has signed on as a member because it acquires lands
to mitigate the destruction of wetlands or other lands for road
building activities. It is also interested in identifying where to put
underpasses for wildlife to safely cross roads; however, members
indicated that agency representation has been infrequent.
In addition to the Marine Corps, other federal agencies that are
involved in the Forum include the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The federal partners
were initially more involved in planning efforts, but because the key
staff involved left the area and were not replaced, the agencies have
had less involvement. Members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services group participate because of threatened and
endangered species issues. Other federal employees from the Forest
Service have attended as they are able to do so, but according to Forum
and Forest Service members, other Forest Service activities compete for
their attention. The Natural Resources Conservation Service also joined
the Forum and attends meetings. However, while Forum members see a role
for the agency because of the large amounts of conservation funding
that it provides, the agency has been less involved in acquisition
activities because that is not a main goal of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
The Forum exists through an MOU signed by all members. The MOU is
nonbinding and states that each agency will retain its mission. It also
states that the group will discuss and share information that is
compatible with the land use and management objectives of each entity
involved. The MOU allows the groups to discuss, share information, and
agree on conservation or preservation opportunities, but in order to
avoid triggering Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements, the group
does not make official decisions or take official actions. For
committees subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the act
generally requires that agencies announce committee meetings ahead of
time and give notice to interested parties about such meetings. With
some exceptions, the meetings are to be open to the public, and
agencies are to prepare meeting minutes and make them available to
interested parties. Nevertheless, the Forum can come to consensus on
activities, which individual agencies can decide to undertake or not.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
According to members, because of the MOU, which allows each member to
retain its overall mission and undertake the activities that best suit
that mission, the group is highly flexible and open. In addition,
participants said that the Forum has been managed in a transparent
manner, in that the participants are clear in sharing their individual
interests with other members. Participants said that this transparency
has helped to foster respect among the members. For example, the Marine
Corps members have been upfront about their purpose in working for land
conservation, which involves relieving the pressure of development
around their installations and potentially removing restrictions on
training exercises that result from threatened and endangered species
habitat.
Find Leadership:
The Forum started with the efforts of two key people with The Nature
Conservancy and the U.S. Marine Corps, modeled after a similar effort
at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina. It has continued with the
sustained interest of several more individuals. Members participate as
they are able and as they can offer particular skills. Because these
individuals and their agencies have sustained the Forum by such efforts
as organizing meetings and completing work between meetings, the group
is currently discussing whether it should hire staff to ensure that
work gets accomplished. The participants are uncertain which of the
agencies or groups could justify funding such a position and to whom
that position would answer.
Identify a Common Goal:
The goal of the Forum is to provide for open discussion about the long-
term conservation and enhancement of biological diversity and ecosystem
sustainability in the Onslow Bight area. The members have different
goals for managing their land and resources, but do share the goal of
identifying opportunities to preserve, protect, and restore native
biological elements in the coastal landscape, including marine and
estuarine areas. To achieve their goal, the group has focused on
acquiring lands that bridge the gaps between large publicly-owned
lands, as well as some private conservation lands, and can meet their
common needs. For example, one species on which the group focuses is
the red-cockaded woodpecker; two of the federal partners have primary
habitat for this species and support two of the main recovery
populations of the bird as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in its recovery plan for the species. The group has identified,
and has acquired, land between the public lands that can serve as a
stepping-stone for members of the populations. The group recognizes
that acquisition is only the first step of protecting land and
resources. The next step is to restore habitat and manage those
acquired lands and resources in the long term. Most of the land is
being managed by the state's Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, primarily the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division
of Parks and Recreation.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
In developing its habitat protection plan, the Forum made use of
available information about lands and resources in the area. In
particular, the state's Natural Heritage Program conducts assessments
of habitat and identifies good habitat for purposes of preserving and
protecting it, and the Forum used this data to develop the plan. It
also used information on existing populations of species such as bears
and red-cockaded woodpeckers and locations of undeveloped woodlands.
The Forum also used the scientific expertise available from the federal
and state agencies in its planning process. Biologists from the federal
and state agencies helped to identify how species such as bears and
woodpeckers move across the landscape and, accordingly, good places to
protect.
Leverage Available Resources:
Members of the Forum have been successful in getting grants and using
these funds to match agency funding to acquire lands. According to
participants, one of the benefits of the Forum is that foundations and
other funding groups use collaboration as a way to judge the potential
success and effectiveness of the group. Sources of funding include the
military, North Carolina trust funds established for purposes of land
conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grants under the North
American Wetland Conservation Act, and funds raised by the land
conservation group partners. The Forest Service also attempted to get
funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but did not succeed.
The Forum does not have staff and its work is done by the participants,
which means that sometimes it does not get done. The group meets every
few months and keeps in touch by e-mail, but participants may not be
able to prioritize or complete tasks for the group in between meetings.
The Forum discussed hiring staff but has not made a decision to do so.
According to members, having staff would allow the group to get more
work done in between meetings and would ensure that the work would be
done. The decision to have staff is difficult, however, because the
action might force the group members to increase their commitment to
the group through funding the position or even cause the Forum to take
on a different organizational structure to enable the hiring of staff.
Provide Incentives:
Apart from the incentives provided by land acquisition, the group has
not had the opportunity to provide or use any incentives to achieve its
goals. However, in the future, the group may need to work more with
private landowners and provide them incentives. Some members cited
Natural Resources Conservation Service programs to protect and conserve
agricultural lands and wetlands as potential sources of funding to work
with landowners. For example, one program that could potentially be
compatible with the Forum's goals is the Wetlands Reserve Program, a
program that seeks to restore marginal agricultural land to its
previous wetland condition through cost-share assistance and easement
purchases. According to the agency's Forum representative, the agency's
staff currently works with landowners on more traditional agricultural
issues such as preventing erosion and conserving soils.
Monitor Results for Accountability:
As membership in the Forum is voluntary, any activities the
participants undertake are also voluntary and the Forum does not track
its achievements. These activities, primarily land acquisition and some
restoration work, help the Forum achieve its overall vision of
protecting habitat. This conclusion is based on the assumption that
protecting and restoring habitat will improve species conditions. As
part of its planning effort, the Forum has developed a geographic
information system (GIS) map of the public lands and locations of
important species and habitat. Because the lands are acquired by each
agency or participant and not by the Forum, this map is not updated to
show acquisitions or to keep track of the lands protected. Rather, the
information that the group develops about habitat and species can be
used by each participant as it makes decisions about land acquisition.
Steens Mountain Advisory Council:
The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA),
located in southeastern Oregon, was created in 2000 when Congress
passed the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act
(Steens Act).[Footnote 33] The high desert mountain area occupies about
496,000 acres and supports diverse vegetation and wildlife, including
habitat for the sage grouse. The same area has a long history of human
use as a Native American site for spiritual experience and herbal
gathering and for cattle grazing by local ranching families. The
purpose of the CMPA is for BLM "to conserve, protect, and manage the
long-term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain for future and
present generations." Of the 496,000 acres in the CMPA, about 428,000
acres are federal lands and the remaining lands are private and state
lands. The Steens Act protected about 170,000 acres of the federally
managed land as wilderness, of which about 95,000 acres are
specifically designated as a cattle-free wilderness, the first of its
kind.[Footnote 34] The federal land is managed for various uses by BLM,
and BLM is authorized to work cooperatively with private land owners in
managing the entire area.
Natural Resource Problems:
The Steens Act established a multistakeholder group called the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council (Council). The Council is charged with
providing BLM recommendations regarding "new and unique approaches to
the management of lands within the boundaries of the CMPA and
cooperative programs and incentives for seamless landscape management
that meets human needs and maintains and improves the ecological and
economic integrity of the CMPA." The major land and resource management
issues that the Council has considered are described below:
* The act required that BLM develop a comprehensive management plan for
the Steens Mountain CMPA. In addition to the wilderness area created by
the act, the CMPA contains several wilderness study areas that BLM must
manage to retain wilderness conditions and wild and scenic river
corridors that BLM must manage to maintain natural conditions. These
designations may limit certain activities, such as motorized vehicles
and equipment, in the areas, and as a result, Council members disagree
over how to manage these areas--ranchers and others would like the
wilderness study areas to be removed from consideration as wilderness,
but an environmental group would like even more area to be considered
as wilderness study area. In August 2005, BLM, with the Council's
input, issued a land management plan; however, it did not completely
address management of roads and travel in the CMPA, deferring decisions
on route designations until 2007.
* Travel management and designation of roads, tire tracks, and ways for
traditional access was an issue discussed in 2007. BLM has been charged
with managing travel in the CMPA and can potentially restrict travel in
some places, in particular the new wilderness area and other wilderness
study areas. Although motorized access to wilderness areas and
wilderness study areas is limited, participants of the Council have not
been able to agree on the definitions for different types of roads that
should remain open for access. Given the historic uses of Steens
Mountain, the area has many roads, tracks, or ways that are used at
various times and for multiple reasons--such as to access property each
day, check on fencing periodically, and gather herbs during different
seasons. However, some of these have been proposed for closure by
environmental groups in order to maintain wilderness characteristics of
the wilderness areas and study areas, as required by law. An initial
travel management plan was made public in May 2007, but was rescinded
due to a court order and was reissued in November 2007.
* Private land management within the CMPA is another management issue
in which the Council has been involved. BLM is authorized to work with
private landowners within the CMPA to cooperatively manage the private
and public lands, such as to control vegetation. However, BLM has been
able to agree in only a few cases on what management activities and
payments will be involved. At least one owner is considering selling
his land for development rather than working with BLM. The act
authorizes $25 million from the land and water conservation fund for,
among other purposes, the acquisition of private land and conservation
easements within the CMPA. According to the agency and Council members,
none of these funds have been provided, limiting the actions local BLM
officials can take. Council members and others explained that by adding
new layers of management restrictions, such as wilderness management
restrictions, the act limited their ability to manage the area in a new
and innovative way, thereby precluding some cooperation and creative
management that could have taken place.
One area in which the group has agreed is related to vegetation
management. The Council has endorsed a juniper management program to
thin stands of juniper that have expanded and overcome sagebrush
habitats and grasslands in the area. BLM, with Council input, is
studying different options for reducing the expansion of juniper
woodlands, but to date only limited activity has been funded. According
to the agency, the Council has had greater success at working together
to solve ecological restoration issues.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Council are described in the
following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Council consists of 12 representatives that, according to the
Steens Act, must be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior from
nominees submitted by various federal, state, and local officials.
Members include, among others: a private landowner in the CMPA; two
members who are grazing permittees on federal lands in the CMPA; a
member interested in fish and recreational fishing in the CMPA; a
member of the Burns Paiute Tribe; two persons who are recognized
environmental representatives, one of whom represents the state as a
whole and one of whom is from the local area; a person who participates
in dispersed recreation such as hiking, camping, nature viewing or
photography, bird watching, horse back riding, or trail walking; and a
person who is a recreational permit holder or is a representative of a
commercial recreation operation in the CMPA. Several members noted that
the group stalemates as a result of their makeup and difficulty in
getting a quorum. According to several members and observers, the group
is polarized on fundamental issues of use versus nonuse and some
suggested the need for more neutral or balanced representation.
Another community group, similar to the Blackfoot Challenge in Montana
and the Malpai Borderlands Group in Arizona and New Mexico, has formed
with the help of the staff at the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
refuge. This group, called the High Desert Partnership, has succeeded
in working together on a few projects and has helped rebuild trust with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service among some community members. One
difference is that the group is focused on the common interests of the
members.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
The Council's organization and processes have evolved, although members
of the Council and others explained that it has been less successful
making recommendations because of organizational problems. Although the
Council votes using a majority rule, it was not until March 2006 that
members adopted operating protocols that describe, among other things,
the Council's objectives, roles and responsibilities, and communication
protocols. The Council needs 9 votes in order to provide BLM with a
formal recommendation; however, during the several years the group has
been in existence, attendance has been poor and filling vacancies has
been a problem, making it difficult for it to establish a quorum for
votes to take place. According to several members of the Council, they
believe they have failed to make recommendations on large issues but
they have made decisions about less important issues. More recently,
all vacancies have been filled and some participants were more
optimistic about the Council's ability to collaborate in the future. In
2007, the Council provided approximately 20 recommendations.
BLM has brought in an outside facilitator to help the Council work
through conflicts. The facilitator worked with the members during a 2-
day retreat and made progress on a wilderness access issue. However, a
later vote by the Council failed to approve the final plan.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
At times, the group has lacked a respectful atmosphere. One observer
explained that at one of the Council's meetings some members fostered
disrespect toward BLM representatives and tried to direct BLM decisions
rather than simply provide advice. In response to such issues, the
March 2006 protocols include a section on rules for members and members
of the public to follow in order to facilitate an open and
collaborative discussion. These rules say that members will listen with
respect, avoid grandstanding in order to allow everyone a fair chance
to speak and to contribute, and jointly advocate for support for
consensus recommendations.
Find Leadership:
According to the agency and participants, the group needs a strong
leader or facilitator with sufficient training to guide the group. The
Council has a regular facilitator from the local area; however, at
least one member believes the group requires stronger facilitation to
move forward. While the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution provided the Council with third-party facilitation in 2003
that achieved consensus on some travel access issues, the facilitation
was short term and the consensus did not last.
Identify a Common Goal:
While one objective of the Steens Act was to promote and foster
cooperation, communication, and understanding and to reduce conflict
between Steens Mountain users and interests, members and other parties
said that conflicting interpretations of the act are a fundamental
source of conflict among parties. According to several BLM officials,
cooperation among stakeholders was much better before the act. The
Steens Mountain area has been considered an area worthy of conservation
since at least 1999, when the area was considered for designation as a
national monument but local stakeholders opposed special designation.
For this reason, Council members have fundamentally different
interpretations of the act, and continue to debate the conservation
versus use clauses in it. Council members interpret the act
differently--some refer to one of the statutory objectives of the CMPA
that promotes grazing and a provision that allows reasonable access to
lands within the CMPA, while others assert that a section requiring BLM
to ensure the conservation, protection, and improved ecological
integrity of the CMPA represents the act's primary purpose. After the
establishment of the CMPA and the wilderness area within it, a local
environmental group identified several new possible wilderness areas--
called wilderness study areas. The group has since sued BLM to
designate these areas as wilderness study areas. In June 2007, the
District Court held that BLM had properly declined to adopt most of the
group's proposed designations.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
The Steens Act authorizes BLM to establish a committee of scientists to
provide advice on questions relating to the management of the CMPA, but
BLM has not done so. A BLM official said that the reason a scientific
group has not been formed is lack of funding requested by the
scientists who were invited to participate. The local USDA Agriculture
Research Service office has partnered with BLM and several private
landowners over the last 30 years on scientific research including
juniper management. On other issues, such as travel management, the
county pulled together a common database for BLM and the Council to use
in its discussions about access.
The Steens Act established a Wildlands Juniper Management Area for
experimentation, education, interpretation, and demonstration of
management that is intended to restore the historic fire regime and
native vegetation communities on Steens Mountain. The area is being
used to demonstrate different ways BLM and partners are working to
reduce the amount or size of juniper woodlands to effectively manage
the expansion of juniper vegetation. Some additional experimentation
may occur in the area and in other areas of the CMPA. The results of
research can help the agency, with Council input, determine the best
way to reduce vegetation using all available tools in many areas, and
for certain areas including wilderness and wild rivers, through minimum
use of mechanized transport or motorized equipment.
Leverage Available Resources:
BLM pays between $70,000 and $80,000 annually for the Council's travel,
staff support, and facilitation. Because it is an advisory committee,
it is not organized to collect donations or spend funds. However, the
Steens Act authorized $25 million to be appropriated to BLM to help
purchase private properties within the boundaries of the CMPA, and
additional funds would be available for incentive payments for
cooperative agreements with private landowners. Several members of the
Council and others told us that many conflicts might have been resolved
had BLM received these funds.[Footnote 35] For example, funding could
have been used to develop cooperative agreements or purchase private
inholdings, thereby reducing controversial issues over access and
permissible use.
Provide Incentives:
According to the Steens Act, BLM may provide conservation incentive
payments[Footnote 36] to private landowners in the CMPA who enter into
a contract with BLM to protect or enhance ecological resources on the
private land covered by the contract, if those protections or
enhancements benefit public lands. However, according to BLM officials
and Council members, because funding has not been forthcoming, such
agreements had not been finalized at the time of our review. In 2007,
BLM initiated several cooperative management agreements concerning
joint juniper management projects where each party pays its own costs
and one agreement that provides public recreation on private lands
where BLM funds were used (not land and water conservation funds).
Monitor Results for Accountability:
The Steens Act requires that a monitoring program be implemented for
federal lands in the CMPA so that progress toward ecological integrity
objectives can be determined. BLM developed a plan to monitor changes
to current resource conditions within the CMPA, which would provide
information on 31 resources and uses identified in the CMPA management
plan.
The Council has not been formally evaluated to determine its
contributions or shortcomings. According to the agency and an observer,
the group's effectiveness should be evaluated, particularly because
some federal dollars contribute to its functioning.
Uncompahgre Plateau Project:
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project is a collaborative group working to
restore and sustain the condition of the 1.5-million-acre Uncompahgre
Plateau, located in southwestern Colorado. The group began in the late
1990s in response to a decline in the mule deer population on the
plateau that was observed by wildlife officials and hunters. After
recognizing that the mule deer decline was an indicator of a larger
ecosystem problem, the group broadened its focus to restoring and
sustaining the ecological, social, cultural, and economic values of the
plateau. The group, which includes federal agencies, a community group,
a state wildlife agency, and utility companies, has developed a plan,
the Uncompahgre Plateau Project Plan, to guide its efforts.
Historically, the Uncompahgre Plateau, 75 percent of which is managed
by the BLM, the Forest Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife
(CDOW), has had multiple uses including logging, ranching, and
recreation and provides habitat for many wildlife species, including
game species. Commercial logging has occurred on Forest Service land
for over a century, but in recent decades the Forest Service has
decreased timber harvest on the plateau and current logging operations
are limited to small sales of logs and firewood. Both the Forest
Service and BLM manage grazing allotments on the plateau that are tied
to privately owned ranches. Recreational use of the plateau has
steadily increased and includes fishing, off-highway vehicle use,
snowmobiling, mountain biking, camping, and cross-country skiing. In
addition, CDOW manages two areas on the plateau for deer and elk
hunting. Furthermore, the plateau contains lynx analysis units
designated by CDOW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for lynx
populations that were reintroduced into Colorado beginning in 1999.
Natural Resource Problems:
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project has concentrated on several natural
resource problems on the plateau, including the following:
* According to the group's participants, their focus broadened to
larger ecosystem health issues when state biologists found that the
observed decline in mule deer was related to poor habitat,
specifically, vegetation that was too homogeneous in its age class
distribution. According to natural resource managers, this condition
resulted from certain activities on the plateau such as fire
suppression and grazing practices. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project has
initiated landscape-level planning and restoration efforts across
jurisdictional boundaries to achieve more heterogeneous vegetation
across the plateau and bring vegetation structure, age, condition, and
spatial patterns in line with the habitat needs of wildlife species.
The group's initial planning and restoration efforts have focused on
two watersheds covering over 220,000 acres of BLM, Forest Service,
state, and private land and has included a variety of vegetation
treatments such as roller chopping--using a large round drum to crush
the shrubs--and prescribed burning. As of May 2007, the Uncompahgre
Plateau Project completed over 100 restoration projects, covering over
50,000 acres.
* The Uncompahgre Plateau has had problems with invasive species on
both public and private lands. Invasive species alter the ecology in an
area by crowding out native species, changing fire regimes, or altering
hydrologic conditions. To facilitate cooperation among land managers
and private landowners in efforts to manage invasive species, the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project has initiated a program to map, monitor,
control, and prevent invasive species within designated weed management
areas on over 350,000 acres.
* The Uncompahgre Plateau is a key location for east to west
transmission lines connecting Rocky Mountain power sources with western
markets such as Los Angeles. As a result of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, transmission line operators must ensure that their power lines
remain reliable. Forested rights-of-way pose threats to reliability
because of the potential for tall trees to fall on the lines, arcing
from the power line to trees, and forest fires. Traditionally, power
line rights-of-way have been clear-cut to remove tall trees underneath
and adjacent to the power lines, which has historically generated
conflict between utilities and land managers, according to a utility
official. While this practice removes the threat to power lines
directly posed by these trees, it can damage habitat and ecosystem
health and the risk from forest fires still remains. Through the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project, the utility companies and land management
agencies have worked together to treat vegetation outside of the
utility rights-of-way in order to reduce the risk of forest fires and
threats to the power lines in a manner that creates more natural
openings that are friendly to wildlife. This is accomplished through
means such as creating undulating boundaries between treated and
untreated vegetation, instead of straight lines. According to a group
member, these treatment techniques are being used as a model for other
utilities across the country.
* When conducting restoration projects, land managers working on the
Uncompahgre Plateau want to replant with vegetation that is native to
the plateau because it is better adapted to the local conditions and
can improve the success of restoration projects. However, there is not
a sufficient supply of native seeds available on the commercial market
for large-scale restoration projects on the Uncompahgre Plateau. In
response, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project initiated a native plant
program to collect, study, and produce native seeds that can be used to
facilitate restoration projects. According to a group member, it has
gathered native seeds for over 50 plants and developed methods for
propagating these. The ultimate goal of this program is to have
private, local growers and larger commercial growers cultivate the
seeds and sell them to the agencies and energy companies who are doing
restoration projects.
Collaborative Practices:
The collaborative practices used by the Uncompahgre Plateau Project are
described in the following sections.
Seek Inclusive Representation:
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project partners include BLM; Forest Service;
CDOW; utility companies including the Western Area Power Administration
and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc; and an
informal nonprofit community organization called the Public Lands
Partnership. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project was initiated by the
Public Lands Partnership and major land managers on the Uncompahgre
Plateau--BLM, Forest Service, and CDOW. Later, the Western Area Power
Administration and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc., approached the Uncompahgre Plateau Project after seeing a
presentation on the group and realizing that working collaboratively to
treat vegetation beyond the utility rights-of-way and decrease the
threat of forest fires could mutually benefit themselves and the
original partners. The Western Area Power Administration and Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., became formal partners
in the Uncompahgre Plateau Project in 2004.
Many participants cited the involvement of the Public Lands Partnership
as a significant and unique asset to the Uncompahgre Plateau Project.
The membership of the Public Lands Partnership is made up of county
commissioners, city administrators, user groups from the timber
industry, agricultural producers, environmentalists, recreationists,
and local citizens. The organization started in 1992 because members of
the community wanted to get involved in discussions about the public
lands that surrounded them. The group brings together members of the
public to discuss issues related to public lands including oil and gas
drilling, forest plans, campground closures, travel access, and roads.
BLM officials noted that, by having the Public Lands Partnership
involved in the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, they have been able to
complete their National Environmental Policy Act analyses more
efficiently because, through the Public Lands Partnership, the public
was brought in to help set the vision for the proposed action and there
were no subsequent appeals.
Develop a Collaborative Process:
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project operates by consensus and, through its
efforts, seeks to develop strong communication, collaborative learning,
and partnerships among the agencies and community. Individual projects
to be undertaken by the group are prioritized by a Technical Committee
according to criteria established in the Uncompahgre Plateau Project
Plan that was developed by the group. One participant noted that having
a collaborative group allows the partners to take a project of theirs
and see how it fits into the overall landscape.
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project was formalized with a Cooperative
Agreement and MOU, signed in 2001. When that MOU expired at the end of
2006, it was replaced by a second MOU. The structure of the group
includes an Executive Committee, Technical Committee, coordinators, and
a fiscal agent. The Executive Committee is responsible for annually
reviewing project progress and addressing future resource commitments.
The Technical Committee forms the working body and backbone of the
group and meets monthly to coordinate activities, meet with outside
members, review project requests, and recommend budgeting and project
approvals. Members from each of the partner organizations hold
positions on both the Executive and Technical Committees. In addition
to these committees, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project contracted four
part-time coordinators who are responsible for public relations and
outreach, overall project coordination, financial record keeping and
contracting, and grant writing. Some participants noted that the
coordinators play a critical role in moving the group forward between
meetings and making sure that projects get done. The Uncompahgre
Plateau Project uses Uncompahgre/Com, Inc., a nonprofit organization,
as its fiscal agent.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect:
One participant noted that the group was able to generate credibility
and trust among the members through the group's initial effort to
develop a landscape plan for a watershed around a common vision.
According to the participants, the group maintains transparency by
having open meetings, distributing minutes of meetings, and using its
Web site.
Find Leadership:
Several participants attributed the initial success of the group to the
leadership of the individual who was originally responsible for
coordinating the group. He was described by several participants as a
"charismatic leader" who had great vision for the group and was able to
get projects going by working with the different agencies to generate
support for the collaborative effort.
Identify a Common Goal:
While each of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project participants has
different interests, they have identified that their common interest is
to protect and restore the ecosystem on the Uncompahgre Plateau. The
participants were able to agree on a common goal to: "improve the
ecosystem health and natural functions of the landscape across the
Uncompahgre Plateau through active restoration projects using the best
science available and public input," which represents the area where
each of the partners' individual interests overlap. The federal land
management agencies--BLM and Forest Service--are responsible for
managing multiple uses on the plateau, including timber, grazing, and
recreation, and have an interest in conducting these management
activities in a manner that preserves ecosystem health. CDOW is
responsible for managing game species, so it is interested in ensuring
that habitat for the mule deer and other game species is healthy and
adequate to support them. The Public Lands Partnership represents the
community's values and is consequently interested in maintaining a
healthy ecosystem for economic, environmental, cultural, social,
recreation, and aesthetic reasons. The utility companies desire a
healthy ecosystem, less prone to catastrophic wildfires, in order to
protect the reliability of their power lines.
Develop a Process for Obtaining Information:
According to participants, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project is always
seeking new science to inform its decisions and looks for opportunities
to bring new ideas to the table. For example, the group works with
researchers from universities such as Colorado State University,
Brigham Young University, Snow College, and the University of Wyoming
to gather new scientific data on the vegetation and ecology of the
plateau and study the effects of different vegetation treatments.
Scientific publications related to research on the plateau are
available on the Uncompahgre Plateau Project Web site. The Uncompahgre
Plateau Project frequently sponsors field trips, which one participant
noted is important to get community members involved, understand the
resource problems that exist on the plateau, and become comfortable
with the projects being carried out by the group.
As part of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project planning efforts, BLM and
the Forest Service have integrated their GIS map data for two priority
watersheds and are working to integrate data for two other priority
watersheds. Because the agencies' mapping data are not compatible,
however, staff said that the landscape assessment process was
difficult. The agencies had to develop ways to merge the data, which
was time-consuming and expensive. For areas outside of these
watersheds, data generated by agency research are held within the
sponsoring agency, so other partners sometimes do not have access to
this information. For example, BLM fuel treatments are mapped in its
GIS database, which the Forest Service does not have access to, and
vice versa. The group noted that it would like to make all of the GIS
maps available on its Web site, but according to group members, this
effort is extremely resource intensive and therefore not feasible for
the group to accomplish at this time with its current resources.
According to the participants, BLM and the Forest Service have hired an
outside consultant to serve as a repository for the GIS data.
Leverage Available Resources:
The group has been successful in leveraging funds and has received over
$3 million from a variety of grants. Two grants that were instrumental
in getting the Uncompahgre Plateau Project started included $500,000
from CDOW for mule deer conservation efforts and $620,000 given to the
Public Lands Partnership from the Ford Foundation for community
forestry. The finances of the group are handled by Uncompahgre/Com,
Inc., which administers contracts, solicits bids, and pays invoices for
the Uncompahgre Plateau Project and provides the partners a mechanism
to pool their funds.
The Forest Service, BLM, CDOW, and the utilities support the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project through various means. BLM has an
assistance agreement with the group under which it can provide money to
the group for activities outlined in statements of work. BLM has also
given the group program funding. BLM officials noted that by having
nonfederal partners, the group has a relatively easy time coming up
with the nonfederal matching funds that are required with particular
federal grants. In addition, BLM and the Forest Service have provided
money for the native plant program. The Forest Service has used various
agreements including appropriated funds spent with Wyden Amendment
authority--which allows federal money to be spent on nonfederal lands-
-to support the efforts of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, such as
completing invasive species work across jurisdictional boundaries. The
Western Area Power Administration; Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc; and CDOW have provided money to support
vegetation management projects.
The group noted that while it has had success leveraging funds in the
past, it has run into difficulty acquiring funding now that the project
is more mature. In addition, most grant money is for projects on the
ground, so the group faces a challenge in funding its overhead costs.
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project applied for a National Forest
Foundation mid-capacity grant, which provides operating funding for
organizations that have been working together for some time, but was
unsuccessful in receiving this grant.
Provide Incentives:
The Uncompahgre Plateau Project assisted a local county in establishing
a cost-share program to provide incentives for private landowners to
treat invasive species. Furthermore, with assistance from Colorado
State University, the group has established a program to assist local
growers in cultivating native plants and purchase seed from them.
Monitor Results for Accountability:
According to group members, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project monitors
its work on both a landscape level and a site level in the watershed
where their efforts have been focused and produces an annual report for
the Executive Committee and agency offices that describes their
accomplishments. Some participants noted that monitoring efforts could
be improved if there were more resources available. To monitor
individual treatments on a site level, the group has set up a series of
specific locations across a site that are monitored before, and 2 and 5
years after, a site is treated to assess whether the treatments are
having anticipated results. For landscape-level monitoring the
Uncompahgre Plateau Project uses GIS data to assess vegetation age
classes across the watershed. The monitoring results are used in an
adaptive management approach to revise management strategies in order
to improve future treatments. One participant noted that the most
difficult thing about conducting monitoring for collaborative groups,
particularly landscape-level monitoring as the Uncompahgre Plateau
Project has done, is integrating the data from different agencies.
[End of section]
Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Note: Page numbers in the draft may be different from those in this
report.
United States Department of the Interior:
"Take Pride in America":
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
January 14, 2008:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office Draft
Report entitled, "Natural Resource Management Opportunities Exist to
Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce
Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions," (GAO-08-262). We
commend your staff for highlighting collaborative conservation and
concur with the report's general conclusion that collaborative resource
management can improve the management of natural resources. We also
concur with the report's five main recommendations, as we believe
efforts to enhance collaboration require ongoing training, capacity
building, monitoring, and adjustment to dynamic issues and emergent
policy needs.
The Department of the Interior has proposed Cooperative Conservation
legislation that we believe, if enacted, would enhance the ability of
our Bureaus effectively to engage in collaboration and cooperative
conservation. While the proposed legislation has several features, one
is particularly important and addresses a specific issue raised in the
GAO Report on page 27. The GAO Report notes that, "many collaborative
groups are successful in attracting sufficient funding for restoration
projects but have difficulty in securing funding for administration of
the group." Later, on page 52, the report notes that, "the types of
lessons include the fact that groups can benefit from paid staff, even
part-time, or a director to keep the group organized between meetings."
Our proposed Cooperative Conservation legislation includes a "Working
Landscape" section that would authorize use of a portion of our grant
funding for cooperative projects to be used to provide support over 3
years, based on a competitive selection, for the administrative
infrastructure of landscape-scale collaborative conservation projects.
The proposed legislation would also permanently authorize our Service
First program through which Interior agencies and the U.S. Forest
Service are able to colocate offices, share administrative services,
and provide more integrated programs and services to the public. We
have found that colocation, while providing for office efficiencies,
also significantly enhances prospects for collaborative conservation
across agencies and landscapes and with outside groups.
Background:
The Interior Department manages 507 million acres”or 20 percent”of the
land mass of the United States. Its responsibilities lie at the
confluence of people, land, and water. Interior programs touch the
lives of millions of people across the Nation, as we conserve unique
natural, historic, and cultural landscapes; provide access to energy;
deliver water in the West for drinking and for irrigation; protect
threatened and endangered species; reduce risks to communities from
Wildland fire; and fulfill responsibilities to Native Americans, Alaska
natives, and affiliated island communities.
In 2001, the Department of the Interior set forth cooperative
conservation principles (a term synonymous with collaborative
conservation) as a central organizing theme for enhancing resource
management and reducing conflict relating to public lands decisions.
The Bush Administration affirmed that conservation vision through a
2004 Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation.
In its embrace of this vision, the Interior Department has aligned
budgets, administrative tools, and policies to strengthen its capacity
to encourage cooperative conservation and fulfill its potential to
achieve on-the-ground conservation results. Specifically, the
Department has:
* increased programs and grants designed to facilitate cooperative
conservation from $217.1 million in 2001 to $311.3 million in 2008, a
43 percent increase.
• incorporated cooperative conservation goals into employee performance
plans;
* coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management to identify
competencies essential to building human resource capacity in
cooperative conservation;
* inventoried training programs and augmented training in facilitation,
mediation, partnering, and other skills relevant to collaboration;
* developed NEPA guidance to enhance use of consensus-building and
collaboration;
* proposed Cooperative Conservation legislation to promote landscape-
scale conservation partnerships and interagency cooperation; * revised
our policies pertaining to cooperative agreements to improve their
utility as a foundation for building strong conservation partnerships;
* provided grants coordination guidance to facilitate greater
cooperation and collaboration in the implementation of different grant
programs;
* held 26 Listening Sessions around the Nation to highlight best
practices and identify barriers to cooperative conservation;
* established a permanent Office of Conservation, Partnerships and
Management Policy within the Office of the Secretary, that works with
an intradepartmental team to strengthen capacity for collaboration,
mediation, and partnering; and:
* developed and disseminated video highlighting Interior partnerships
and collaborative efforts to be used to promote a culture of teamwork
and cooperation among Interior employees and externally, with the
public.
In addition, many of the Department's Bureaus have programs and
initiatives predicated on advancing cooperative conservation. Our
National Fish Habitat Initiative, for example, comprises multiple
Federal, State, local, tribal, public, and private partners who have
collaborated to develop common goals and jointly select priority
projects to improve fish habitat. Our migratory bird and joint ventures
programs similarly are premised on achieving results through systematic
collaboration. A number of our grant programs and technical assistance
programs, such as our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and our
Coastal Program, could not succeed without collaboration to define
goals and pursue on-the-ground results.
In 2007, the Secretary announced a Healthy Lands Initiative to address
resource management challenges associated with the multiple use of
Bureau of Land Management Public Lands. The initiative takes a
landscape-scale approach to assessing resource management and
anticipates public-private and Federal-State partnerships to maintain
wildlife corridors, restore sagebrush habitat, remove invasive species,
and improve overall land health.
We appreciate that the GAO Report highlights many of these efforts at
the Interior Department. However, the richness of these efforts is not
fully captured and, because our efforts are ongoing, several very
significant recent developments unfolded subsequent to preparation of
the final draft of the GAO report. All of these actions relate to
recommendations presented in the GAO report.
Recommendations For Executive Action:
Response: The Department concurs with the five recommendations for
Executive Action in the report with additional background and updated
information. Specifically:
1. Disseminate more widely tools for the agencies to use in assessing
and determining if, when, and how to participate over time.
The Department of the Interior perceives that participation in
collaboration requires a good understanding of the legal tools
available and guidance on how to use decision support tools, such as
adaptive management and sharing of best practices. To provide this
information, the Department is:
* keeping its Legal Primer updated and clarifying authorities and
regulations that provide the foundation for collaboration;
* training employees on use of a recently created guidance on adaptive
management as a useful approach to addressing complex resource
management problems, often in a collaborative setting;
* sharing best practices with plans for a "best practices" workshop in
spring 2008.
2. Identify examples of groups that have conducted monitoring,
including at the landscape level, and develop and disseminate criteria
for others to use in setting up such monitoring efforts.
Monitoring of efforts in cooperative conservation is relevant both for
collaboration processes and resource management outcomes.
Process Monitoring:
The Interagency Cooperative Conservation Team, on which the DOI serves,
identified monitoring of collaborative processes as important to
understanding how effective such efforts are at reducing conflicts and
enhancing resource management outcomes. That team has reviewed and
continues to assess measures and methods for evaluating cooperative
conservation processes. In addition, the DOI has incorporated
collaboration measures in its Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) strategic plan. While the plan includes measures for
collaboration, the current measures have limitations and require
further refinement.
In one area of collaboration”wildland fire and hazardous fuels
reduction”the Department of the Interior, working with the Forest
Service, the Western Governors Association, the National Association of
Counties, and others, developed measures to assess the extent and
effectiveness of collaboration in fuels reduction activities. Those
measures were incorporated into the updated National Fire Plan 10-Year
Implementation Plan. This effort may serve as a model for the
development of monitoring and measures regarding collaboration in other
contexts.
Resource Management Monitoring:
The Department of the Interior undertakes extensive monitoring of
resources, establishes baseline information, and reports on trends for
a variety of environmental variables. Through a periodic wetlands
report and with other agencies we monitor wetlands extent and
restoration. Through our migratory bird surveys, we monitor bird
populations and trends. We monitor water quality and quantity at
various sites across the Nation. Individual Bureaus and programs
monitor numerous other conditions on a site-specific or project-
specific basis. Much of this information is reported in our annual
performance report.
While these efforts provide some context and general information about
resource conditions over time, they do not necessarily provide the sort
of site-specific information relevant to evaluating baselines and
outcomes over time that result from particular cooperative conservation
projects. However, such baselines and monitoring are used for some of
the Department's significant, landscape-scale, and long-term
collaborative restoration projects, such as our Everglades restoration
work and our Glen Canyon Adaptive Management program.
Selection of metrics can often, in itself, engender controversy,
disagreements, and conflict. To improve the use of science and
empirical information to inform decision making, our U.S. Geological
Survey has a Joint Fact-finding Program, which uses several sample
projects to develop and use tools through which collaborative processes
generate baseline information and monitoring protocols to track
resource management outcomes. In addition, our new Adaptive Management
Technical Guide outlines the circumstances for using monitoring in
adaptive management protocols. In the context of adaptive management,
monitoring efforts are designed cooperatively to focus on those metrics
that will be most useful in promoting improved understanding and
management of natural resources.
3. Hold periodic national or regional meetings and conferences to bring
groups together to share collaborative experiences, identify further
challenges, and learn from lessons of other collaborative groups.
The Interior Department, working with the Administration, has convened
numerous conferences and workshops over the past 6 years to enhance
understanding of the benefits, tools, and challenges of cooperative
conservation, collaboration, and partnerships. Such dialogues must,
however, be continuous. Several highlights of efforts to convene
participants to discuss collaboration include the following.
* A multiagency "Joint Ventures Partners in Stewardship" conference in
2003 that convened over 1,000 participants with numerous breakout
sessions to describe best practices, challenges, and other topics.
While the focus was on partnerships, many of the sessions specifically
addressed activities germane to cooperative conservation and
collaboration.
* As the GAO Report notes, the Administration convened a White House
Conference on Cooperative Conservation in 2005.
* As a followup to the White House Conference, the DOI, working with
other agencies, held 26 listening sessions nationwide to discuss
cooperative conservation. Each session opened with a brief "best
practices" presentation. Out of the sessions emerged several concepts
that have been incorporated into draft legislation on cooperative
conservation.
* On an ongoing basis, the Department of the Interior and its various
Bureaus have held workshops on collaboration, cooperative conservation,
joint fact-finding, and adaptive management. All of these programs have
focused on illuminating best practices and identifying challenges.
* The Department is planning a workshop on cooperative conservation in
spring 2008 with a specific focus on practical applications of
collaboration.
4. Identify and evaluate, with input from OMB, legal and policy changes
concerning Federal financial assistance that would enhance
collaborative efforts, including options for mutual benefit authorities
that balance the need for cooperative cross-boundary management with
the need for full and open competition in the Federal procurement of
goods and services.
In spring 2007, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne established a
Partnership Facilitation Review Team, chaired by the Deputy Secretary.
The specific charge of this team was to evaluate current policies and
their effects on fostering collaboration, partnerships, and cooperative
conservation.
Through the work of the Team, the Department has revised its policies
pertaining to donations, as well as its policies pertaining to use of
cooperative agreements. Both policies have been finalized. Each policy
maintains transparency and accountability while, at the same time,
better assuring that collaborative efforts that advance the
Department's mission can be effectively and efficiently pursued. These
policies facilitate cross-boundary management and clarify circumstances
when grants, procurement contracts, and cooperative agreements should
be used. They also clarify the circumstances in which competition and
single-sourced cooperative agreements are appropriate, respectively.
The GAO report notes on page 53 that, "Some experts and participants in
collaborative groups identified aspects of federal laws and agency
policies as being inconsistent with collaboration. However, aspects of
the policies reflect processes established to support good government
practices such as transparency and accountability." We believe our new
policies, developed with significant input from our Solicitor's Office,
Inspector General, Acquisitions Office, and our Bureaus and in
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, strike the
appropriate balance.
5. Develop goals, actions, responsible work groups and agencies, and
time frames for carrying out the actions needed to implement
cooperative conservation activities, including collaborative resource
management, and document these through a written plan, memorandum of
understanding, or other appropriate means.
Cooperative Conservation is a hallmark of how the Department of the
Interior fulfills its mission in the 21st century. Cross-boundary
challenges, multivariable issues, and the variety of values that shape
public perspectives on land and water management combine to make
dialogue, partnerships, and collaboration central features of
decisionmaking. Because the Department holds collaboration as central
to fulfilling its mission, it has established an office dedicated to
coordinating and advancing cooperative conservation among our Bureaus
and with the public.
This partnership and collaboration office has developed a 2008 Action
Plan that identifies specific actions, timelines, and key players to
ensure successful completion of the planned actions. Key actions for
2008 include:
* implementing the revised Donations Policy through bureau development
of internal procedures;
* finalizing the Adaptive Management Departmental Manual chapter;
* translating the final Cooperative Agreements policy into the
Department Manual;
* developing a statement of principles to guide partnerships;
* finalizing nominations for our annual Cooperative Conservation awards
to recognize outstanding achievements;
* organizing a best practices workshop;
* refining out-year targets for our internal and external
collaboration/partnership GPRA measures;
* identifying and addressing key training needs through our Training
Directors Council; and
* updating the cooperative conservation and adaptive management Web
sites.
We also continue to work with the CEQ to refine and follow up on key
actions identified in the White House Conference report on cooperative
conservation. We concur that a more permanent interagency team and
structure to maintain progress and build capacity for collaboration and
cooperative conservation is an important goal.
Response To Critiques On Collaborative Conservation:
The GAO Report summarizes four concerns raised by some critics of
collaborative conservation. These issues include concerns that
collaboration can:
* "favor local over national interests,
* allow particular interests to dominate over others,
* result in a `least common denominator' decision that inadequately
protects natural resources, or:
* inappropriately transfer federal authority to local groups."
While the Department of the Interior believes these are important
issues, we believe they are not intrinsic to collaborative conservation
but, rather, depend upon the particular conduct and design of
collaborative processes. The Department believes that these issues can
be addressed by assuring balanced representation. Use of a skilled
facilitator can also help to insure that no interest dominates over
others.
Similarly, skilled facilitators and focused discussions on goals can
yield management decisions that go well beyond "lowest common
denominators." Indeed, many collaborative efforts actually achieve
conservation goals across ownership and jurisdictional boundaries that
would be unachievable through other means. In those circumstances,
collaboration yields greater, not fewer, resource protections and
conservation.
In conjunction with the White House Conference on Cooperative
Conservation, the Administration generated a report on several hundred
examples of cooperative conservation. These examples were selected in
part because they demonstrated significant natural resource benefits.
The scope and diversity of these examples suggests that, while "least
common denominator" outcomes are possible, they do not appear to be the
norm.
Through Department and Bureau policies, the DOI is careful to ensure
that it fulfills its statutory responsibilities. The Department's
policies and use by Bureaus of our Legal Primer help to ensure that no
inappropriate transfer of Federal authorities to local groups occurs.
Conclusions And Summary:
The Department of the Interior”and other land managers”increasingly
face issues that transcend boundaries, involve multiple variables,
require multidisciplinary knowledge, and benefit from on-the-ground
expertise and experiences of land managers, both public and private.
Fire management, mitigation of invasive species, water management and
conservation”these and other challenges”all result in a context
benefiting from more integrated decision making through collaborative
processes.
The Department of the Interior has a long history of working in
partnership with others to achieve effective resource management and
conservation. However, the Department still has many untapped
opportunities. To facilitate collaboration and cooperative
conservation, the Department believes budget, policies, and
administrative capacity building can all play a part. We thank the GAO
for identifying recommended areas of additional focus as we continue to
strengthen collaboration to improve resource management and reduce
conflict.
For a more complete picture of the various efforts of the Department to
enhance cooperative conservation, I commend to GAO our annual
Cooperative Conservation Report. Please find attached our Report for
2006. Our 2007 Report will soon be available.
An additional enclosure supplies technical remarks.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P.Lynn Scarlett:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or n [Hyperlink, nazarror@gao.gov]
azarror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant
Director; Ulana Bihun; Nancy Crothers; Elizabeth Curda; Anne Hobson;
Susan Iott; Rich Johnson; Ches Joy; and Lynn Musser made key
contributions to this report. Marcus Corbin, John Mingus, Kim Raheb,
Jena Sinkfield, and Cynthia Taylor also made important contributions to
the report.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
Beierle, Thomas C. "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions." Risk
Analysis, vol. 22, no. 4 (2002): 739-749.
Bell, Tom. "Broader System Urged for Fisheries Management." Portland
Press Herald, October 10, 2005, final edition, sec. B.
Bengston, David N., George Xu, and David P. Fan. "Attitudes Toward
Ecosystem Management in the United States, 1992-1998." Society and
Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 471-487.
Beyer, Jr., Dean E., Les Homan, and David N. Ewert. "Ecosystem
Management in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan: A Case History."
Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 38 (1997): 199-211.
Bidwell, Ryan D., and Clare M. Ryan. "Collaborative Partnership Design:
The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed
Partnerships." Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19 (2006): 827-843.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary. "The New
Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen
Participation in the Work of Government." Public Administration Review,
vol. 65, no. 5 (2005): 547-558.
Bissix, Glyn and Judith A. Rees. "Can Strategic Ecosystem Management
Succeed in Multiagency Environments?" Ecological Applications, vol. 11,
no. 2 (2001): 570-583.
Boxer-Macomber, Lauri Diana. Too Much Sun? Emerging Challenges
Presented by California and Federal Open Meeting Legislation to Public
Policy Consensus-Building Processes. Sacramento, Calif.: Center for
Collaborative Policy, 2003. See esp. chap. 6, "Findings."
Brick, Philip, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van de Wetering, eds. Across the
Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the
American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001.
Brody, Samuel D. "Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management
Through Local Land Use Planning." Population and Environment, vol. 24,
no. 6 (2003): 511.
Brody, Samuel D. "Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on
the Quality of Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative
Ecosystem Management." Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.
22 (2003): 407-419.
Brody, Samuel D., Sean B. Cash, Jennifer Dyke, and Sara Thornton.
"Motivations for the Forestry Industry to Participate in Collaborative
Ecosystem Management Initiatives." Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 8
(2006): 123-134.
Brunner, Ronald D., and Tim W. Clark. "A Practice-Based Approach to
Ecosystem Management." Conservation Biology, vol. 11, no. 1 (1997): 48-
58.
Brunner, Ronald D., Christine H. Colburn, Christina M. Cromley, Roberta
A. Klein, and Elizabeth A. Olson. Finding Common Ground: Governance and
Natural Resources in the American West. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 2002.
Brunner, Ronald D., Toddi A. Steelman, Lindy Coe-Juell, Christina M.
Cromley, Christine M. Edwards, and Donna W. Tucker. Adaptive
Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2005.
Bryan, Todd A. "Tragedy Averted: The Promise of Collaboration." Society
and Natural Resources, vol. 17 (2004): 881-896.
Burns, Sam. "A Civic Conversation About Public Lands: Developing
Community Governance." Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1-
2 (2001): 271-290.
Center for Collaborative Policy. "Conditions Needed to Sustain a
Collaborative Policy Process." [hyperlink, http://www.csus.edu/ccp/
collaborative/sustain.htm] (last accessed Jan. 23, 2008).
Cheng, Antony S., and Steven E. Daniels. "Examining the Interaction
Between Geographic Scale and Ways of Knowing in Ecosystem Management: A
Case Study of Place-Based Collaborative Planning." Forest Science, vol.
49, no. 6 (2003): 841-854.
Cheng, Antony S., and Katherine M. Mattor. "Why Won't They Come?
Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by
Participation Level." Environmental Management, vol. 38 (2006): 545-
561.
Clagett, Matthew Patrick. "Environmental ADR and Negotiated Rule and
Policy Making: Criticisms of the Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution and the Environmental Protection Agency." Tulane
Environmental Law Journal, vol. 15 (2002): 409-424.
Coggins, George Cameron. "'Devolution' in Federal Land Law: Abdication
by Any Other Name—" Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental
Law and Policy, vol. 3 (1996): 211-218.
Coggins, George Cameron. "Of Californicators, Quislings and Crazies:
Some Perils of Devolved Collaboration." Chronicle of Community, vol. 2,
no. 2 (1998): 27-33.
Coggins, George Cameron. "Regulating Federal Natural Resources: A
Summary Case Against Devolved Collaboration." Ecology Law Quarterly,
vol. 25 (1999): 602-610.
Comer, Robert D. "Cooperative Conservation: The Federalism
Underpinnings to Public Involvement in the Management of Public Lands."
University of Colorado Law Review, vol. 75 (2004): 1133-1157.
Congressional Research Service. Ecosystem Management: Federal Agency
Activities. Washington, D.C.: April 19, 1994.
Conley, Alexander, and Margaret A. Moote. "Evaluating Collaborative
Natural Resource Management." Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16
(2003): 371-386.
Cortner, Hanna J., Sam Burns, Lance R. Clark, Wendy Hinrichs Sanders,
Gus Townes, and Martha Twarkins. "Governance and Institutions:
Opportunities and Challenges." Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol.
12, no. 3/4 (2001): 65-96.
Cortner, Hanna J., John C. Gordon, Paul G. Risser, Dennis E.
Teeguarden, and Jack Ward Thomas. "Ecosystem Management: Evolving Model
for Stewardship of the Nation's Natural Resources." In Ecological
Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 2, ed.
R. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton, and A. J. Malk, 3-19. United
Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Cortner, Hanna J. and Margaret A. Moote. The Politics of Ecosystem
Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999.
Coughlin, Chrissy, Merrick Hoben, Dirk Manskopf, and Shannon Quesada.
"A Systematic Assessment of Collaborative Resource Management
Partnerships." Master's thesis, University of Michigan, 1999.
Duane, Timothy P. "Practical Legal Issues in Community Initiated
Ecosystem Management of Public Land: Community Participation in
Ecosystem Management." Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 771-797.
Dukes, Frank. "Key Principles for Effective Collaborative Processes."
Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia,
December 21, 2006.
Dukes, Frank. "Public Conflict Resolution: A Transformative Approach."
Negotiation Journal, January 1993: 45-57.
Dukes, Frank. "What We Know About Environmental Conflict Resolution: An
Analysis Based on Research." Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 22,
no. 1-2 (2004): 191-220.
Emerson, Kirk, Rosemary O'Leary, and Lisa B. Bingham. "Commentary:
Comment on Frank Dukes's 'What We Know About Environmental Conflict
Resolution.'" Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1-2 (2004):
221-231.
Fall, Andrew, Dave Daust, and Don G. Morgan. "A Framework and Software
Tool to Support Collaborative Landscape Analysis: Fitting Square Pegs
into Square Holes." Transactions in GIS, vol. 5, no. 1 (2001): 67-86.
Frame, Tanis M., Thomas Gunton, and J. C. Day. "The Role of
Collaboration in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of Land and
Resource Planning in British Columbia." Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, vol. 47, no. 1 (2004): 59-82.
Freeman, Jody. "Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State."
UCLA Law Review, vol. 45 (1997): 3-98.
Freeman, Richard. "The EcoFactory: The United States Forest Service and
the Political Construction of Ecosystem Management." Environmental
History, vol. 7, no. 4 (2002): 632-659.
GAO. Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,
D.C.: October 21, 2005.
Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty
Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989.
Gray, Gerald J., Larry Fisher, and Lynn Jungwirth. "An Introduction to
Community-Based Ecosystem Management." Journal of Sustainable Forestry,
vol. 12, no. 3/4 (2001): 25-34.
Gutrich, John, Deanna Donovan, Melissa Finucane, Will Focht, Fred
Hitzhusen, Supachit Manopimoke, David McCauley, et al. "Science in the
Public Process of Ecosystem Management: Lessons from Hawaii, Southeast
Asia, Africa and the US Mainland." Journal of Environmental Management,
vol. 76 (2005): 197-209.
Heikkila, Tanya, and Andrea K. Gerlak. "The Formation of Large-scale
Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of
Stakeholders, Science and Institutions." The Policy Studies Journal,
vol. 33, no. 4 (2005): 583-611.
Helly, J. J., N. M. Kelly, D. Sutton, and T. Todd Elvins.
"Collaborative Management of Natural Resources in San Diego Bay."
Coastal Management, vol. 29, no. 2 (2001): 117-132.
Holsman, Robert H. and R. Ben Peyton. "Stakeholder Attitudes Toward
Ecosystem Management in Southern Michigan." Wildlife Society Bulletin,
vol. 31, no. 2 (2003): 349-361.
Houck, Oliver A. "On the Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management."
Minnesota Law Review, vol. 81, April (1997): 869-979.
Hummel, Mark and Bruce Freet. "Collaborative Processes for Improving
Land Stewardship and Sustainability." In Ecological Stewardship: A
Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A.
J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, 97-129. United Kingdom:
Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Imperial, Mark T. "Analyzing Institutional Arrangements for Ecosystem-
Based Management: Lessons from the Rhode Island Salt Ponds SAM Plan."
Coastal Management, vol. 27, no. 1 (1999): 31-56.
Innes, Judith E. "Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics."
Planning Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (2004): 5-20.
Jackson, Laurie Skuba. "Contemporary Public Involvement: Toward a
Strategic Approach." Local Environment, vol. 6, no. 2 (2001): 135-147.
Johnson, Kathleen M., Al Abee, Gerry Alcock, David Behler, Brien
Culhane, Ken Holtje, Don Howlett, George Martinez, and Kathleen
Picarelli. "Management Perspectives on Regional Cooperation." In
Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management,
vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson,
155-180. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Johnson, Nels. "Legal Perspectives." In Ecological Stewardship: A
Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson,
A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 107-113. United Kingdom:
Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Kagan, Robert A. "Political and Legal Obstacles to Collaborative
Ecosystem Planning." Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 871-875.
Keiter, Robert B. "NEPA and the Emerging Concept of Ecosystem
Management on the Public Lands." Land and Water Law Review, vol. 25,
no. 1 (1990): 43-60.
Keiter, Robert B., Ted Boling, and Louise Milkman. "Legal Perspectives
on Ecosystem Management: Legitimizing a New Federal Land Management
Policy." In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem
Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N.
C. Johnson, 9-41. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Keough, Heather L. and Dale J. Blahna. "Achieving Integrative,
Collaborative Ecosystem Management." Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no.
5 (2006): 1373-1382.
Keystone Center. "The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem
Management: Final Report." The Keystone Center, Colorado, October 1996.
Knight, Richard L. and Peter B. Landres, eds. Stewardship Across
Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1998.
Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith
Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig W. Thomas. Collaborative
Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, D.C.:
Resources for the Future, 2004.
Koontz, Tomas M., and Craig W. Thomas. "What Do We Know and Need to
Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?"
Public Administration Review, December 2006: 111-121.
Korfmacher, Katrina Smith. "What's the Point of Partnering?" The
American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 4 (2000): 548-566.
Lachapelle, Paul R., Stephen F. McCool, and Michael E. Patterson.
"Barriers to Effective Natural Resource Planning in a 'Messy' World."
Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 473-490.
Lawless, W. F., M. Bergman, and N. Feltovich. "Consensus Seeking Versus
Truth Seeking." Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Management, vol. 9, no. 1 (2005): 59-70.
Leach, William D. "Building a Theory of Collaboration." In Effective
Collaboration for Environmental Change: Making Sense of an Emerging
Socio-Ecological Movement, Community-Based Collaboratives Research
Consortium, forthcoming.
Leach, William D. "Collaborative Public Management and Democracy:
Evidence from Western Watershed Partnerships." Public Administration
Review, December 2006: 100-110.
Leach, William D. "Public Involvement in UDSA Forest Service
Policymaking: A Literature Review." Journal of Forestry, January/
February 2006, 43-49.
Leach, William D. "Surveying Diverse Stakeholder Groups." Society and
Natural Resources, vol. 15 (2002): 641-649.
Leach, William D. "Theories about Consensus-Based Conservation."
Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 2 (2006): 573-575.
Leach, William D., and Neil W. Pelkey. "Making Watershed Partnerships
Work: A Review of the Empirical Literature." Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, vol. 127, no. 6 (2001): 378-385.
Leach, William D., Neil W. Pelkey, and Paul A. Sabatier. "Stakeholder
Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied
to Watershed Management in California and Washington." Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 21, no. 4 (2002): 645-670.
Leshy, John. "Public Lands." American Law Institute--American Bar
Association Continuing Legal Education Course of Study, February 13-15,
2002.
Linden, Russell M. Working Across Boundaries: Making Collaboration Work
in Government and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, Calif.:
Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Lubell, Mark. "Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the
Grassroots." Policy Studies Journal, vol. 32, no. 3 (2004): 341-361.
Lugenbill, Chris Herman. "An Interorganizational Management Strategy
for Collaborative Stewardship." Ph.D. diss., Colorado Technical
University, 2003.
Lysak, Tetyana, and Edward P. Weber. "Collaboratives, Wicked Problems,
and Institutional Design: Different Theories, Same Lessons." Washington
State University, submitted for publication, December 29, 2006.
MacEachren, Alan M. "Cartography and GIS: Facilitating Collaboration."
Progress in Human Geography, vol. 24, no. 3 (2000): 445-456.
MacCleery, Douglas W., and Dennis C. Le Master. "The Historical
Foundation and Evolving Context for Natural Resource Management on
Federal Lands." In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for
Ecosystem Management, vol. 2, ed. R. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T.
Sexton, and A. J. Malk, 517-556. United Kindgom: Elsevier Science,
Ltd., 1999.
Malk, Andrew. "Processes for Collaboration." In Ecological Stewardship:
A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson,
A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 129-134. United Kingdom:
Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Malone, Charles R. "Ecosystem Management Policies in State Government
of the USA." Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 48 (2000): 57-64.
Manring, Nancy J. "Collaborative Resource Management: Organizational
Benefits and Individual Costs." Administration and Society, vol. 30,
no. 3 (1998): 2742-90.
Margerum, Richard D., and Debra Whitall. "The Challenges and
Implications of Collaborative Management on a River Basin Scale."
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 47, no. 3
(2004): 4074-27.
McClosky, Michael. "Local Communities and the Management of Public
Forests." Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 25 (1999): 624-629.
McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. "Regionalism in the
West: An Inventory and Assessment." Public Land and Resources Law
Review, vol. 23 (2002): 101-123.
Meffe, Gary K. "Biological and Ecological Dimensions: Overview." In
Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management,
vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton,
39-44. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Mog, Justin Matthew. "Managing Development Programs for Sustainability:
Integrating Development and Research Through Adaptive Management."
Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19 (2006): 531-546.
Moody, James Bradfield, and Mark Dodgson. "Managing Complex
Collaborative Projects: Lessons from the Development of a New
Satellite." Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 31 (2006): 567-588.
Moore, Elizabeth A., and Tomas M. Koontz. "A Typology of Collaborative
Watershed Groups: Citizen-Based, Agency-Based, and Mixed Partnerships."
Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 451-460.
Mortenson, Kristin G., and Richard S. Krannich. "Wildlife Managers and
Public Involvement: Letting the Crazy Aunt Out." Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, vol. 6 (2001): 277-290.
O'Neill, Karen M. "Can Watershed Management Unite Town and Country?"
Society and Natural Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 241-253.
Office of Management and Budget and Council on Environmental Quality.
Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.,
November 28, 2005.
Paulson, Deborah D. "Collaborative Management of Public Rangeland in
Wyoming: Lessons in Co-Management." Professional Geographer, vol. 50,
no. 3 (1998): 301-315.
Payton, Michelle A., David C. Fulton, and Dorothy H. Anderson.
"Influence of Place Attachment and Trust on Civic Action: A Study at
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge." Society and Natural Resources,
vol. 18 (2005): 511-528.
Peterson, M. Nils, Markus J. Peterson, and Tarla Rai Peterson.
"Conservation and the Myth of Consensus." Conservation Biology, vol.
19, no. 3 (2005): 762-767.
Plummer, Ryan. "Sharing the Management of a River Corridor: A Case
Study of the Comanagement Process." Society and Natural Resources, vol.
19 (2006): 709-712.
Raedeke, Andrew H., J. Sanford Rikoon, and Charles H. Nilon. "Ecosystem
Management and Landowner Concern About Regulations: A Case Study in the
Missouri Ozarks." Society and Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 741-
759.
Ramirez, Ricardo and Maria Fernandez. "Facilitation of Collaborative
Resource Management: Reflections from Practice." Systemic Practice and
Action Research, vol. 18, no. 1 (2005): 5-20.
Rigg, Catherine M. "Orchestrating Ecosystem Management: Challenges and
Lessons from Sequoia National Forest." Conservation Biology, vol. 15,
no. 1 (2001): 78-90.
Rodriguez, Daniel B. "The Role of Legal Innovation in Ecosystem
Management: Perspectives from American Local Government Law." Ecology
Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 745-769.
Ryan, Clare M. and Jacqueline S. Klug. "Collaborative Watershed
Planning in Washington State: Implementing the Watershed Planning Act."
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 48, no. 4
(2005): 491-506.
Sayre, Nathan F. "Interacting Effects of Landownership, Land Use, and
Endangered Species on Conservation of Southwestern U.S. Rangelands."
Conservation Biology, vol. 19, no. 3 (2005): 783-792.
Scarlett, P. Lynn. "A New Approach to Conservation: The Case for the
Four Cs." Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 17, no. 1 (2002-
2003): 73-113.
Scheutt, Michael A., Steve W. Selen, and Deborah S. Carr. "Making It
Work: Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management."
Environmental Management, vol. 27, no. 4 (2001): 587-593.
Schusler, Tania M., Daniel J. Decker, and Max J. Pfeffer. "Social
Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management." Society and
Natural Resources, vol. 15 (2003): 309-326.
Selin, Steve, Michael Scheutt, and Debbie Carr. "Modeling Stakeholder
Perceptions of Collaborative Initiative Effectiveness." Society and
Natural Resources, vol. 13, no. 8 (2000): 735-745:
Sexton, William T., Robert C. Szaro, and Nels C. Johnson. "The
Ecological Stewardship Project: A Vision for Sustainable Resource
Management." In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for
Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, A. J. Malk, R. C.
Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 1-8. Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Singleton, Sara. "Collaborative Environmental Planning in the American
West: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Environmental Politics, vol. 11,
no. 3 (2002): 54-75.
Smith, Patrick D. and Maureen H. McDonough. "Beyond Public
Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making." Society
and Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 239-249.
Smith, Patrick D., Maureen H. McDonough, and Michael T. Mang.
"Ecosystem Management and Public Participation: Lessons from the
Field." Journal of Forestry, vol. 97, no. 10 (1999): 32-39.
Smutko, L. Steven. "Environmental Dispute Resolution Processes for
Resource Conservation." Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, North Carolina State University.
Susskind, Lawrence E., and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. "Conducting Conflict
Assessment." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide
to Reaching Agreement, ed. Lawrence E. Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and
Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1999.
Swanson, Louis E. "Rural Policy and Direct Local Participation:
Democracy, Inclusiveness, Collective Agency, and Locality-Based
Policy." Rural Sociology, vol. 66, no. 1 (2001): 1-21.
Thompson, Jan R., William F. Elmendorf, Maureen H. McDonough, and Lisa
L. Burban. "Participation and Conflict: Lessons Learned from Community
Forestry." Journal of Forestry, June 2005, 174-178.
Thompson, Jonathan R., Mark D. Anderson, and Norman Johnson. "Ecosystem
Management across Ownerships: The Potential for Collision with
Antitrust Laws." Conservation Biology, vol. 18, no. 6 (2004): 1475-
1481.
Tilt, Whitney. "Collaboration in Our Backyard: Lessons from Community-
Based Collaboration in the West." The Quivira Coalition Newsletter,
vol. 7, no. 2 (2005): 22-30.
Tilt, Whitney. "Getting Federal Land Management Agencies to the
Collaborative Table: Barriers and Remedies." Sonoran Institute, 2005.
Tipa, Gail and Richard Welch. "Comanagement of Natural Resources:
Issues of Definition from and Indigenous Community Perspective."
Journal of Applied Behavorial Science, vol. 42, no 3 (2006): 373-391.
Twarkins, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Tahnee Robertson. "Public
Involvement in Forest Management Planning: A View from the Northeast."
Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1/2 (2001): 237-251.
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. Off-Highway
Vehicle Use and Collaboration: Lessons Learned from Project
Implementation, edited by Larry Fisher. Tucson, Arizona, August 26,
2005.
Waage, Sissel. "Collaborative Salmon Recovery Planning: Examining
Decision Making and Implementation in Northeastern Oregon." Society and
Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 295-307.
Walker, Peter A. and Patrick Hurley. "Collaboration Derailed: The
Politics of 'Community-Based' Resource Management in Nevada County."
Society and Natural Resources, vol. 17 (2004): 735-751.
Weber, Edward P. Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem
Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press, 2003.
Weber, Edward P. "The Question of Accountability in Historical
Perspective: From Jackson to Contemporary Grassroots Ecosystem
Management." Administration and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (1999): 451-
495.
Weber, Edward P. "A Theory of Institutional Change for Tough Cases of
Collaboration: 'Ideas' in the Blackfoot Watershed." Washington State
University, submitted for publication, December 20, 2006.
Weber, Edward P. "Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and
Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings." Public
Administration Review (forthcoming).
Weber, Edward P., Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney. "Assessing
Collaborative Capacity in a Multidimensional World." Administration and
Society, vol. 39, no. 2 (2007): 194-220.
Weber, Edward P., Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney.
"Collaboration, Enforcement, and Endangered Species: A Framework for
Assessing Collaborative Problem-Solving Capacity." Society and Natural
Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 677-698.
Webler, Thomas, Seth Tuler, Ingrid Shockey, Paul Stern, and Robert
Beattie. "Participation by Local Governmental Officials in Watershed
Management Planning." Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003):
105-121.
Western Governors' Association. "Collaborative Conservation Strategies:
Legislative Case Studies from Across the West." Western Governors'
Association White Paper, June 2006.
Wilson, Randall K. "Collaboration in Context: Rural Change and
Community Forestry in the Four Corners." Society and Natural Resources,
vol. 19 (2006): 53-70.
Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L. Yaffee. Making Collaboration Work:
Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press, 2000.
Yaffee, Steven L. "Regional Cooperation: A Strategy for Achieving
Ecological Stewardship." In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference
for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C.
Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, 31-153. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science,
Ltd., 1999.
Yaffee, Steven L. "Three Faces of Ecosystem Management." Conservation
Biology, vol. 13, no. 4 (1999): 713-725.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The 11 states are California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
[2] While the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs within
Interior also manage lands, we focused this study on the four largest
land management agencies.
[3] GAO, Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately
Test a Promising Approach, GAO/RCED-94-111 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16,
1994).
[4] The Forest Service initially received stewardship contracting
authority first as a pilot program in 1998, while BLM received it in
2003. For a description of agency use of stewardship contracting
authority, see GAO, Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on
Community Involvement Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship
Contracting, GAO-04-652 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004).
[5] The Forest Service also uses collaboration in forest planning. This
involves people working together to share knowledge and resources to
describe and achieve desired conditions for National Forest System
lands and for associated social, ecological, and economic systems in a
plan area.
[6] The Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreement Act directs federal
agencies to use grants when the principal purpose of the relationship
is to transfer value to a nonfederal recipient to carry out a public
purpose rather than to acquire property or services for the benefit of
the federal government. Agencies are to use cooperative agreements when
the agency will be substantially involved in carrying out the
agreement, and grants if such involvement is not expected.
[7] The agencies are required to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service for actions that may affect threatened and endangered
species under the service's jurisdiction. These include marine mammals,
marine turtles, marine and anadromous fish, and marine invertebrates
and plants.
[8] The term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct. Regulations implementing the act define "harm" to mean an act
which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills
or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavior patterns.
[9] The total number of conservation-related programs can be defined in
several ways. The Congressional Research Service describes some
programs as having subprograms, while others were created by
administrative action. In addition to the 20 programs, Congress has
authorized other discretionary programs that often have a specific
geographic focus.
[10] These sources include our report: GAO, Results-Oriented
Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration
among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[11] The five objectives are: (1) maintain and enhance cooperative and
innovative management projects, programs, and agreements between
tribal, public, and private interests in the CMPA; (2) promote grazing,
recreation, historic, and other uses that are sustainable; (3)
conserve, protect, and ensure traditional access to cultural,
gathering, religious, and archaeological sites by the Burns Paiute
Tribe on federal lands and to promote cooperation with private
landowners; (4) ensure the conservation, protection, and improved
management of the ecological, social, and economic environment of the
CMPA, including geological, biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic
resources; and (5) promote and foster cooperation, communication, and
understanding and to reduce conflict between Steens Mountain users and
interests.
[12] This is part of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University.
[13] The Ford Foundation grant was to the Public Lands Partnership,
which funded the Uncompahgre Plateau Project from that amount.
[14] Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972 in
response to two principal concerns: (1) federal advisory committees
were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or
accountability and (2) certain special interests had too much influence
over federal agency decision makers. The act generally applies to
committees established or used by federal agencies for the purpose of
obtaining advice or recommendations.
[15] S. 232, a bill pending in the Senate, would extend this authority
permanently for the Forest Service.
[16] John R. Ehrmann and Juliana E. Birkhoff, Supplemental Analysis of
Day Two Facilitated Discussion Sessions, White House Conference on
Cooperative Conservation (Dec. 28, 2005).
[17] The policy group provides overall policy direction to an executive-
level task force that manages the initiative.
[18] BLM recently determined that it would review this series, as it is
almost 10 years old. According to Interior and BLM officials, the
agency is determining the most effective way to deliver the training.
[19] An interagency task force, convened by the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution at the request of CEQ in 2003,
developed the principles included in the guidance. The task force
effort paralleled the development of the Cooperative Conservation
initiative.
[20] For the Web site, see [hyperlink,
http://cooperativeconservation.gov].
[21] Council on Environmental Quality, Collaboration in NEPA: A
Handbook for NEPA Practitioners (Washington, D.C.: October 2007).
According to Forest Service officials, the agency is in the process of
putting its NEPA policy into federal regulations, which will emphasize
collaboration in alternative development as well as other aspects of
the NEPA process.
[22] National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee,
Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution of the Morris K. Udall Foundation (Tucson, Ariz.: April
2005).
[23] For example, the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act
provides, in pertinent part, that an executive agency must use a
procurement contract when: (1) the principal purpose of the instrument
is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for
the direct benefit or use of the U. S. government; or (2) the agency
decides in a specific instance that the use of a procurement contract
is appropriate.
[24] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[25] The Blackfoot Challenge was established in 1991 and formally
chartered in 1993.
[26] The average flow of the river is 1,968 cubic feet per second; in
2000, a drought year, the average flow was 1,261 cubic feet per second.
[27] In Montana, riparian lands, or lands located along a river
corridor, are frequently privately owned, while the streambed is often
owned by the state.
[28] The 11 states include California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
[29] In County of San Miguel v. MacDonald, the county and several
environmental and public interest groups have challenged the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's determination that listing of the Gunnison sage
grouse under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. In Center
for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an
environmental group is challenging the agency's rejection of a petition
to list the Mono Basin area sage grouse as endangered or threatened. In
Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, several
environmental groups challenged the agency's decision not to list the
greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. In December 2007,
the court held that the agency's decision was unauthorized because it
had not been based on the best available science, as the Endangered
Species Act requires. The court directed the agency to reconsider the
petitions.
[30] Money from the Sand County Foundation came through the Bradley
Fund for the Environment, a partnership between Sand County Foundation
and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
[31] Congress enacted Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972 in
response to two principal concerns: (1) that federal advisory
committees were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or
accountability and (2) that certain special interests had too much
influence over federal agency decision makers. The act generally
applies to committees established or utilized by federal agencies for
the purpose of obtaining advice or recommendations.
[32] The project will also test national fire data for the LANDFIRE
project, which is a database and related models being developed by the
Forest Service and BLM to gather consistent national data on vegetation
conditions and related fuel conditions.
[33] Pub. L. No. 106-399, Title I, § 101, 114 Stat. 1658 (2000).
[34] The Steens Act also designates three new Wild and Scenic Rivers,
adds new segments to existing Wild and Scenic Rivers, creates a Redband
Trout Reserve, and designates 900,000 acres of federal land off-limits
to mineral and geothermal extraction.
[35] Specifically, the act "authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000
from the land and water conservation fund established under section 2
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 — to provide funds
for the acquisition of land and interests in land — and to enter into
non-development easements and conservation easements" as provided
elsewhere under the act.
[36] Conservation incentive payments under the Steens Act may include
technical assistance, cost-share payments, incentive payments, and
education.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
