Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance	 
Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce	 
Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions (12-FEB-08,	 
GAO-08-262).							 
                                                                 
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.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-262 					        
    ACCNO:   A80693						        
  TITLE:     Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to      
Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce 
Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions		 
     DATE:   02/12/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Environmental legislation				 
	     Federal agencies					 
	     Land management					 
	     Land resources					 
	     Legislation					 
	     Natural resource management			 
	     Natural resources					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Regulatory agencies				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-262

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 Michiganï¿½s 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 groupï¿½s 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, [email protected]] 
[email protected]. 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 acresï¿½or 20 percentï¿½of 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. 

ï¿½ 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 collaborationï¿½wildland fire and hazardous fuels 
reductionï¿½the 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 Interiorï¿½and other land managersï¿½increasingly 
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 
conservationï¿½these and other challengesï¿½all 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, [email protected]] 
[email protected]: 

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 Nameï¿½" 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, ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ to provide funds 
for the acquisition of land and interests in land ï¿½ 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: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

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 nationï¿½s 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) expertsï¿½ 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 expertsï¿½ 
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 agenciesï¿½the Department of the 
Interiorï¿½s Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and National Park Service, and the Department of Agricultureï¿½s Forest 
Serviceï¿½face 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 governmentï¿½s 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 [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

*** End of document. ***