Federal Facilities: Further Review of Hawthorne Army Depot Land
Management Proposals Needed (Letter Report, 09/21/2000,
GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Defense's use of withdrawn land near Hawthorne, Nevada,
focusing on: (1) the status of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
proposal to reduce the amount of withdrawn land near Hawthorne; and (2)
possible approaches for addressing the use of this land.

GAO noted that: (1) the BLM's Carson City field office and the Hawthorne
Army Depot have not reached agreement on the BLM's proposal to terminate
Army control and exclusive use of a large portion of the lands at
Hawthorne, including the Mount Grant watershed; (2) the BLM's field
office has requested about $175,000 to prepare a detailed plan for
managing the watershed for multiple uses such as recreation, mining, and
livestock grazing; (3) BLM officials in Nevada have agreed to develop
the plan because local community and depot officials questioned
terminating the withdrawal without having a specific management plan in
place; (4) the BLM's headquarters office has funded a general plan for a
large area of Nevada for fiscal year 2001, but the general plan will not
contain detail on the management of Mount Grant; (5) the BLM's State
Director in Nevada told GAO they could develop a detailed plan in 2001
if fully funded; (6) BLM officials in Nevada also say they will not
proceed with terminating the withdrawn lands until they develop the plan
and attempt to obtain the depot's concurrence; (7) differing approaches
have been proposed for managing lands involving the Mount Grant
watershed; (8) one approach would be for the Army to continue to limit
public access to the watershed; (9) a second approach would have the BLM
manage the land and open portions of the watershed to multiple uses,
with some restrictions to protect the depot's water supply; (10)
specifically, this approach would allow public access, livestock
grazing, and mineral mining on the mountain and would consider placing
additional natural resource protections on some of the land; (11) other
approaches could involve joint cooperative agreements; (12) the
Departments of Defense, Interior, and Agriculture have developed a draft
guide that discusses joint land management between the military services
and land management agencies; and (13) where the military has used joint
agreements with the BLM at other locations, GAO's work has shown both
advantages and disadvantages to this approach.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD/RCED-00-251
     TITLE:  Federal Facilities: Further Review of Hawthorne Army Depot
	     Land Management Proposals Needed
      DATE:  09/21/2000
   SUBJECT:  Military operations
	     Land management
	     Land reclamation
	     Ammunition
	     Land use agreements
	     Interagency relations
	     Army facilities
IDENTIFIER:  Nevada
	     Mount Grant (NV)
	     Army Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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/NSIAD/RCED-00-251

Appendix I: Information on Lands and Resources at the
Hawthorne Army Depot

22

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

29

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Defense

30

Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of the Interior

31

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

33

Figure 1: Hawthorne Army Depot and the Surrounding Area 9

Figure 2: Army and Bureau Proposals for the Withdrawn Lands 10

Figure 3: Number of Visitors to Mount Grant Over the Last
6 Years 14

Figure 4: Walker Lake, Depot (to right), and Rose Creek
Reservoir From the Top of Mount Grant 23

Figure 5: Rose Creek Reservoir 23

Figure 6: Cat Creek Dam and Reservoir 24

Figure 7: Black Beauty Reservoir 24

Figure 8: Mount Grant Surface Water Used by the Depot
Versus Discharged to Walker Lake 25

National Security and
International Affairs Division

B-285864

September 21, 2000

The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate

Dear Senator Reid:

This report responds to your request regarding federal land near Hawthorne,
Nevada, that was set aside for exclusive use by the Department of Defense as
an ammunition depot. Lands set aside in this manner are referred to as
withdrawn, indicating the lands are withheld from public use and activities
within them are limited by restrictions on settlement, sale, or entry. Four
executive orders signed between October 1926 and February 1935 withdrew
about 173,0001 acres from the General Land Office, the predecessor office of
the Bureau of Land Management, to be used for depot purposes. Today, the
withdrawn land totals about 113,000 acres because about 60,000 acres has
been returned to the Bureau and to Mineral County, Nevada, where the land is
located. The withdrawn land in question has been under Army control since
1977 and includes the Hawthorne Army Depot. At the depot, the Army receives,
renovates, stores, and ships usable conventional ammunition such as bombs
and land mines, and it removes the explosives from and disposes of
unserviceable, obsolete, and surplus ammunition.

The Bureau of Land Management is an agency in the Department of the Interior
responsible for managing public lands, including reviewing the need to
continue withholding lands from public use. The Bureau's field office in
Carson City, Nevada, in 1991, started a review of the need to continue the
land withdrawal for depot purposes. As a result of that review, the office
asked the Hawthorne Army Depot to justify their need for the continued
withdrawal of lands at Hawthorne. In November 1991, the depot notified the
Bureau's field office in its justification report that it would be willing
to give up control over about 3,150 acres of the land. The field office
proposed in April 1996 that the depot give up control over about
44,000 acres of land because it said the depot was not using the land for
the purpose for which it was withdrawn. The field office's proposal would
end the depot's control over Mount Grant, which contains a watershed that
supplies most of the depot's drinking water. Army officials, in their
October 1996 response to the Bureau, disagreed with the field office's
proposal because they said they were using the land for its intended
purpose, and they were concerned that increased public access to the
mountain and its watershed would contaminate the depot's water supply. While
a public meeting and other exchanges of information between the Bureau and
the Army have occurred, no decision has been made on what should be done
with the withdrawn lands.

As agreed with your office, this report describes the status of the Bureau
of Land Management's proposal to reduce the amount of withdrawn land near
Hawthorne and discusses possible approaches for addressing use of this land.
In appendix I, we provide additional information discussing the watershed,
Walker Lake, and contaminated withdrawn lands.

The Bureau of Land Management's Carson City field office and the Hawthorne
Army Depot have not reached agreement on the Bureau's proposal to terminate
Army control and exclusive use of a large portion of the lands at Hawthorne,
including the Mount Grant watershed. The Bureau's field office has requested
about $175,000 to prepare a detailed plan for managing the watershed for
multiple uses such as recreation, mining, and livestock grazing. Bureau
officials in Nevada have agreed to develop the plan because local community
and depot officials questioned terminating the withdrawal without having a
specific management plan in place. The Bureau's headquarters office has
funded a general plan for a large area of Nevada for fiscal year 2001, but
the general plan will not contain detail on the management of Mount Grant.
The Bureau's State Director in Nevada told us they could develop a detailed
plan in 2001 if fully funded. Bureau officials in Nevada also say they will
not proceed with terminating the withdrawn lands until they develop the plan
and attempt to obtain the depot's concurrence.

Differing approaches have been proposed for managing lands involving the
Mount Grant watershed. One approach would be for the Army to continue to
limit public access to the watershed. A second approach would have the
Bureau manage the land and open portions of the watershed to multiple uses,
with some restrictions to protect the depot's water supply. Specifically,
this approach would allow public access, livestock grazing, and mineral
mining on the mountain and would consider placing additional natural
resource protections on some of the land. Other approaches could involve
joint cooperative agreements. The Departments of Defense, Interior, and
Agriculture have developed a draft guide that discusses joint land
management between the military services and land management agencies. Where
the military has used joint agreements with the Bureau at other locations,
our work has shown both advantages and disadvantages to this approach.2

Given the differing views that exist over the land management approaches at
Hawthorne, we are recommending that the Army and the Bureau set specific
goals and milestones to review the advantages and disadvantages of using a
cooperative agreement approach and determine whether such an approach would
be useful in this situation. In comments on a draft of this report, the
Departments of Defense and Interior generally concurred with our report.

The military requires large tracts of land for such activities as training
soldiers and testing, repairing, and storing weapons. The majority of the
land used by the military was not originally under their control but was
withdrawn from other federal land-managing agencies for military use. The
bulk of the withdrawn land is on long-term loan from the Bureau of Land
Management. The Bureau of Land Management has overall responsibility (under
Department of Interior policy) to review land withdrawn by the military to
determine whether it should be continued or terminated.3 The Bureau's field
office in Carson City, Nevada, started the Hawthorne Army Depot withdrawal
review, which continues today, in 1991 under authority of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976.4 The act requires a review of existing
withdrawals in 11 western states to determine which lands should be returned
to Bureau management.5 Section 204(l) of the act defines the roles of the
Secretary of the Interior, the President, and the Congress for major
decisions in the withdrawal review process. It specifies that the Secretary
of Interior shall report his/her recommendations to the President, along
with the concurrence or nonconcurrence from the agency administering the
land. The President shall forward the report, along with any
recommendations, to the Congress. The Secretary of the Interior may
terminate withdrawals 90 days after submission of the President's report to
the Congress, unless the Congress directs otherwise or unless the Congress
itself originally made the withdrawal. As of August 2000, no withdrawals
using Section 204(l) of the act have been terminated.

In 1993, the Bureau completed a draft manual for the review of withdrawals
and implementation of review recommendations, which Bureau staff continue to
use, but it did not issue the manual in final form. A Bureau official said
they planned to finalize it after some experience was gained processing
withdrawal reviews through the President and the Congress; however, no
reviews have been processed that far. The Bureau's policy is to obtain the
concurrence of the agency having control of the withdrawn land before
terminating the withdrawal. If the agency does not concur, the Bureau
strives to resolve differences at the lowest organizational level. If local
officials cannot resolve these differences, the Bureau's state office may
submit a report to its Washington, D.C., office in an attempt to resolve the
differences at a higher level.

The Bureau of Land Management calculates the withdrawn land at the Hawthorne
Army Depot as 113,260 acres. The Army calculates a total of 147,236 acres
because it includes an area that lies on the surface of Walker Lake, which
is next to Mount Grant. The area covered by the lake becomes part of the
withdrawal as the lake recedes and exposes dry land. The lake has lost 80
percent of its volume over the past century because water has been and is
still being diverted from Walker River (which feeds the lake) for
agricultural use in California and Nevada. The lake has become a major local
concern because it is deteriorating, and the water has become too salty to
be potable. If the trend continues, Bureau officials in Nevada believe the
lake's ecosystem could collapse.

Besides the Army and the Bureau, there are other groups who have an interest
in the Mount Grant watershed. For example, Mineral County, Nevada, where all
of the withdrawn lands that make up the depot are located, has been actively
involved in the issue of who should manage the mountain. The Walker River
Paiute Indian Tribe, whose reservation includes the northern part of Walker
Lake, has sacred sites on the mountain it would like protected. The State of
Nevada has offered to acquire and manage the lands on Mount Grant, and
public interest groups in and outside the state have requested more access
to the lands on the mountain.

The Bureau of Land Management's field office in Nevada and the Hawthorne
Army Depot have not reached agreement on the Bureau's proposal to terminate
Army control and exclusive use of a large portion of the lands at Hawthorne.
In April 1996, the Bureau's field office submitted a withdrawal report to
the depot in which it recommended terminating the withdrawal of 44,223 acres
currently administered by the Hawthorne Army Depot. The depot did not
concur. In response to depot and community concerns, the Bureau has proposed
and is awaiting funding to prepare a detailed plan for managing the Mount
Grant area for multiple uses such as recreation, mining, and livestock
grazing.

The Bureau field office's April 1996 withdrawal report recommends
terminating the withdrawal because it states that the depot is not using the
land for the purpose for which it was withdrawn. Specifically, it stated
that the Army was managing public recreation, wildlife habitat, and
watershed, and that these do not represent the purposes of the withdrawal.
In addition, the withdrawal report recommends limiting the withdrawal of the
remaining 69,037 acres to 20 years rather than indefinitely as stated in the
executive orders setting up the withdrawal.

Figure 1 shows the depot and the surrounding area, and figure 2 shows the
Army and Bureau proposals for the withdrawn lands. Note that the area the
Bureau proposes for termination has various distinctions. Contained within
the withdrawn land is military-acquired land, which was purchased from
farmers and miners who owned the lands when the surrounding land was
originally withdrawn. This land is not subject to termination under the act,
but the Bureau proposes that the land be transferred to the Bureau. Also,
land under a portion of Walker Lake is not currently withdrawn but would
become so as the lake recedes. Finally, as discussed in appendix I, some
portions of the proposed termination are reported to have environmental
contamination.

Note: Elevation in feet.

Source: GAO design based on data from the State of Nevada, Hawthorne Army
Depot, the Bureau's Carson City field office, and Walker River Paiutes, A
Tribal History, Edward C. Johnson.

Note: All boundaries are approximate.

aThe Bureau does not consider the surface of Walker Lake withdrawn until the
waters recede and expose lake bed.

Source: GAO design based on data from Hawthorne Army Depot and the Bureau's
Carson City field office.

In its October 1996 response to the field office's report, the depot
disagreed with the proposed withdrawal termination of 44,223 acres and then
proposed a 75-year continuation of the withdrawal for all but 3,150 acres.
The depot's response cited the fourth of four executive orders, which
reserved most of the Cottonwood Creek watershed6 for exclusive use by the
Navy, emphasizing the order's choice of words, "in connection with" the
depot.7 (In contrast, the first three executive orders stated that the
purpose of those withdrawals was for the development of and use "as an
ammunition depot.")8 The depot's response further stated that the water on
Mount Grant has been critical to meeting the depot's mission since the water
delivery system was installed in 1931 and 1932. The response stated that the
depot's other actions, such as providing permits for public access and
working with the State of Nevada, followed as a result of their control of
the land.

The depot's response also maintained that uncontrolled access to Mount Grant
would eventually lead to an increase in water contamination. The depot's
state water permit requires it to maintain a watershed control program
limiting human activity in the watershed and to seek approval of any changes
in the program from the Nevada Bureau of Health Protection Services. If
water does become contaminated, the depot could be required to install a
filtration plant. Because of the purity of the water from Mount Grant, the
depot's water permit includes a waiver of filtration requirements, which
allows the depot to only chlorinate the water. However, should the depot' s
public water system fail to meet requirements for coliforms and turbidity,9
it could be required to build a filtration system. According to depot
officials, such a system could cost $10 million to build and $200,000 a year
to maintain.

Following the depot's nonconcurrence in October 1996 with the proposed
termination, the Bureau's field office published a notice in the Federal
Register in February 1997,10 describing each party's position and soliciting
public comment. Public response to the Bureau's notice in the Federal
Register varied from support for the depot's continued management of the
land to support for management of the land by the Bureau. Because the
affected land is in Mineral county, the Mineral County Board of
Commissioners sent a letter to the Bureau in response to the Federal
Register notice in April 1997, which among other issues, expressed its
concern with the adverse economic impact to the county should the depot's
missions and responsibilities be reduced. The Bureau requested a public
meeting and in June 1997 a public meeting was held before the commission,
which was attended by members of the public, as well as depot and Bureau
officials. Commission members and depot officials at the meeting expressed
concern about the possible land degradation that may result from the
multiple uses proposed by the Bureau's field office and about the Bureau's
lack of specific plans for managing these multiple uses. (Comments for and
against the Bureau's proposal by the State of Nevada, Native Americans, and
other interested parties are discussed later in this report.)

Although a Bureau field official stated at the public meeting that Bureau
policy is to prepare such plans only after a withdrawal is terminated,
officials from the Bureau's state and field offices have since modified this
position. These officials believe they could resolve concerns about the
proposed termination by developing a detailed management plan together with
other stakeholders, including the Army. These officials told us that they
have requested about $175,000 to develop a detailed land management plan for
Mount Grant. Bureau headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., have approved
fiscal year 2001 funds for a general plan for a large area of Nevada, but
this plan will not contain detail on the management of Mount Grant. In
October 1999, the Bureau's State Director in Nevada told us they could
develop a detailed plan in 2001 if fully funded. Bureau officials in Nevada
say they will not proceed with the process for terminating the withdrawn
lands until they develop the plan and attempt to obtain the depot's
concurrence.

Differing approaches for land use management have been proposed for the
Mount Grant watershed. Under the Army depot's approach, it would continue
the current practice of limiting public access. Under the Bureau's approach,
it would manage the land and open various portions of the watershed to
multiple uses. The Bureau would restrict access to some areas to protect the
depot's water supply. Hawthorne community leaders have endorsed the Army
proposal and the Walker River Paiute Tribe has endorsed any proposal that
will protect their sacred sites on Mount Grant. Concurrently, public
interest groups and the State of Nevada have endorsed the Bureau's land
management proposal. The Army depot and the Bureau field offices have taken
steps to reach an agreement, but their differences on how to manage the
Mount Grant watershed remain unresolved.

The Army Depot's proposed land management approach to the withdrawn depot
lands would continue the current practice of limiting public access to the
Mount Grant watershed area. The depot currently controls access to the
mountain through a system of gated roads. Visitors must obtain the depot's
permission to unlock the gates and enter the area. In addition, the Army
controls access to various parts of the watershed through roughly 2,000
acres of land in separate parcels transferred to it by the Navy, which had
purchased it at various times between February 1929 and October 1955. The
Bureau's proposal for terminating the withdrawal on Mount Grant includes
transfer of these lands to the Bureau. Army officials say that they will not
transfer this land to the public domain and that they have no plans to sell
or release these lands.

The depot grants public access to the watershed for recreational purposes
such as sightseeing, fishing, and hunting and natural resources research
such as identifying rare Nevada plants. In 1999, for example, 683
individuals visited the mountain for sightseeing, fishing, and hunting. From
1995 through 1999, various private groups (such as the Nature Conservancy of
Nevada, the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Great Basin Bird
Observatory) conducted research there. According to Army records, since 1984
the mountain has averaged 1,227 visitors per year. Figure 3 shows the number
of visitors to Mount Grant over the last 6 calendar years. According to Army
officials, the downward trend in visitors since 1994 is due to a similar
downward trend in the populations of Mineral County, the city of Hawthorne,
and the depot as well as to restricted access during periods of increased
wildfire danger. According to a depot official, about one half of the
visitors were active duty or retired military personnel, depot federal
employees, contractor or subcontractor employees, or retired civil service
employees living in Mineral County. Visitors pay user fees for fishing or
hunting on Mount Grant to help defray the cost of stocking fish in Rose
Creek Reservoir, the only location where fishing is currently allowed on the
mountain. The depot does not limit visitors to Mount Grant; however, they
also do not publicize the fact that visitors are allowed on the mountain and
the security procedures visitors must go through to enter the watershed
area.

Source: Hawthorne Army Depot.

The Bureau's approach would increase public access to Mount Grant and
introduce other commercial activities, such as mining and grazing. Although
the Bureau does not yet have a management plan for Mount Grant, it says it
intends to develop one that may adapt an existing plan prepared and
currently being implemented by the depot that covers all withheld lands at
the depot. The depot's Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan was
prepared and approved in September 1998 in response to the Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997,11 which requires the plans for each military
installation. The plan's purpose states that it is to ensure that natural
resource conservation and Army mission activities are integrated and are
consistent with federal stewardship requirements on depot lands. Local
Bureau officials said that in the process of preparing their own management
plan for the Mount Grant area, they would consider the following actions:

ï¿½ Continue the withdrawal of 69,037 acres used by the Army for depot
purposes and add mineral restrictions to prevent future mining claims.

ï¿½ Revoke the withdrawal of 44,223 acres on Mount Grant, placing the land
under Bureau management; the roughly 2,000 acres of Navy-acquired federal
land purchased between 1929 and 1955 would also be transferred to the
Bureau.

ï¿½ Issue rights-of-way so the Army can visit and maintain facilities
associated with the depot's water system. Allow road maintenance for access
to facilities and authorize minimum fencing of some key facilities to
protect them from vandalism.

ï¿½ Open the lands to the public without restrictions except where needed to
protect the depot's water.

ï¿½ Limit off-road vehicle use to existing roads and trails. Some areas such
as reservoirs could be closed to vehicles, with public access only on foot
and for day use. This would be similar to current Army management.

ï¿½ Delegate management of wildlife, including fisheries, to the Nevada
Division of Wildlife. This would be similar to current Army management.

ï¿½ Allow Walker River Paiute Indians unrestricted access to their spiritual
sites.

ï¿½ Assess roads not associated with the water system to determine which would
be maintained. The others would be left to return to a natural state.

ï¿½ Exclude livestock from grazing in unique ecological areas and in areas
with water quality concerns.

ï¿½ Conduct a mineral inventory of the area and close the lands to mining in
areas where water quality is a concern, and open remaining lands to mining,
with restrictions to protect water quality or other "important values."

ï¿½ Assess suitability of the area, and possibly of Walker Lake, for a special
designation to further protect natural resources.

Approaches

The Mineral County Board of Commissioners has endorsed continued management
of the watershed by the Army, although the Commission chair has also
acknowledged that cooperation between the Bureau and the Army through some
form of joint management is a reasonable alternative.

Representatives of the Walker River Paiute Tribe told us that they would
like to see current restrictions on public access to Mount Grant maintained,
regardless of who manages the area. They did express concern about the
Bureau's ability to adequately protect their sacred sites on the mountain;
they feared that uncontrolled access would lead to destruction and looting
of their sites. The representatives added that they would like unrestricted
access to the mountain to visit their sacred sites. They currently must
follow the same procedures as the general public to visit the mountain.

Various public interest groups have endorsed management by the Bureau. In an
August 1999 letter, these groups requested that the Secretary of the
Interior support the Bureau's proposal to terminate the land withdrawal.12
They expressed concern that Mount Grant might be used for intensive military
maneuvers in the future; urged that protection, enhancement, and public
enjoyment of the area be ensured; and called for a special area designation
to ensure conservation of the area's biodiversity for future generations.

The state of Nevada has also endorsed Bureau management and has also offered
to manage the lands on Mount Grant. In a December 15, 1999, letter to us
documenting the state's position, the Administrator with the Division of
State Lands reemphasized the fact that the state still endorses Bureau
management. However, in the same letter she expressed appreciation for the
military's protection of the pristine natural conditions found on the
mountain and the state's strong belief that these conditions should be
protected in the future. In a July 1996 letter to the Bureau's State
Director, the Coordinator of the State Clearinghouse, Department of
Administration, commented that under the continued Army management approach,
the federal government could not ensure that the site would remain
protected. She expressed concern about public access, the protection of
state interests, and the uncertainties surrounding possible use of Mount
Grant for future defense activities.

To facilitate collaboration and development of cooperative land use
agreements, the Department of Defense, Interior, and Agriculture, in May
1998, developed a draft management guide. The guide provides key concepts
and principles for land use where both the military service and the
nonmilitary land management agencies have stewardship responsibilities that
must be accommodated. They plan to complete the guide by the summer of 2001.
Our work has shown that such cooperative land use agreements have both
advantages and disadvantages.

Both the military and the Bureau have entered into cooperative agreements
with various organizations and agencies to jointly manage withdrawn lands at
Hawthorne and at other military locations. For example, the depot currently
has cooperative agreements to manage the natural resources on Mount Grant
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and with the Nevada Division of Wildlife
to protect, develop, and manage fish and wildlife resources. In 1988, the
depot signed a cooperative agreement with the Nevada Division of Wildlife in
which the depot agreed not to allow domestic sheep grazing on Mount Grant.
It signed another agreement with the Division to help re-introduce the
Nelson Desert Bighorn Sheep in the area. Finally, the depot, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Wetland Inventory worked together to
provide a wetland map of the depot that is currently being used by the
Nature Conservancy to help research rare Nevada plants.

In the past the military and the Bureau have negotiated joint agreements to
manage natural resources at other locations as mandated by the Military
Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986.13 The purpose of the act was to remove from
public use more than 7 million acres of land and devote them to the military
services for training and for weapons and equipment testing purposes. These
agreements between the Army and the Bureau include those at Fort Greely and
Yukon Maneuver areas in Alaska and the McGregor Range in New Mexico.14 We
also reported previously on a management agreement between the Air Force and
the Bureau for the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona--an arrangement that
participants believed worked particularly well.15 There, Bureau officials
said that joint military-Bureau resource management, including the sharing
of expertise and funding, enabled the Bureau to make good progress in
implementing a resource plan. For their part, Air Force officials said that
the public is more likely to accept resource management strategies at
military locations if agencies such as the Bureau are involved. Joint
management plans at all four of these military locations provide direction
for managing the withdrawn lands and guide resource actions. The plans also
spell out the responsibilities of the parties involved.

At the same time we identified benefits of joint management, we also found
that cooperation and communication between the agencies involved did not
always work well. For example, at one location its management plan called
for the Bureau to manage eight different resources such as wildlife,
vegetation, and cultural resources; however, the military saw the Bureau's
role as limited to managing the cattle grazing program, assisting with fire
suppression, and helping to administer recreation activities. We recommended
more cooperative relationships and strengthened management by improved
liaison among agencies and reasonable access to withdrawn lands, as well as
better baseline data on natural resource conditions. We also suggested
schedules and milestones for implementing management plans and more closely
monitoring actions.16

A June 2000 draft version of the Interagency Handbook for the Joint
Stewardship of Withdrawn or Permitted Federal Lands Used by the Military
discusses both the positive and negative aspects of joint management
approaches. The Departments of Defense, Interior, and Agriculture are
currently developing the draft handbook. The handbook provides key concepts
and principles for the joint stewardship of natural and cultural resources
on federal lands and lists potential benefits, such as the following:

ï¿½ Each could save limited funds and reduce equipment purchases by sharing
information and resources with the other.

ï¿½ By working collaboratively, each could better understand what the other
does and why, reducing bureaucratic friction.

ï¿½ Cooperative relations between the two could foster regional approaches to
stewardship issues and provide greater benefits than those obtained
individually. (Examples at the depot could include balancing public access
with Native American's concern about sacred site security and depot concerns
about water purity.)

The handbook also lists three concerns about joint management:

ï¿½ Conflicting agency missions on withdrawn lands can create disagreement
between the agencies.

ï¿½ How resources and costs are apportioned can create problems. Even if there
is a compelling need for increased cooperation, agency budgets are not
likely to be increased to address it.

ï¿½ There are not enough models for developing unique management agreements.

The Bureau's withdrawal review termination is continuing. While differing
approaches have been proposed by the Army depot and the Bureau for managing
the Mount Grant watershed, differences of opinion still exist on how to
manage the land. Other community and state groups have also voiced various
opinions on this issue. A joint cooperative agreement approach has been used
in resolving land management issues in the past. Our past work has shown
that there are both advantages and disadvantages to this approach.

Given the differing views that exist over the land management approaches, we
recommend that the Secretaries of the Army and of the Interior direct the
Hawthorne Army Depot and the Nevada field offices (the Carson City field
office and the Reno state office) of the Bureau of Land Management to set
specific goals and milestones to resolve the differences in the proposed
approaches and complete the withdrawal review process. The goals should
include review of the advantages and disadvantages of a joint cooperative
agreement approach to determine whether such an approach would be useful in
this situation. In their review, they should consider guidebooks such as the
draft Interagency Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or
Permitted Federal Lands Used by the Military to determine the most effective
land use management plan for Mount Grant.

The Departments of Defense and Interior provided written comments on a draft
of this report (see apps. III and IV). The Department of Defense concurred
with the report's recommendation and stated that it looks forward to working
with the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau's Carson City field office
to ensure protection for the Mount Grant watershed. The Department of
Interior generally agreed with the findings in the report and provided us
with additional information on the Bureau's withdrawal review authorities.
We added this information to the report.

We will provide copies of this report to the Honorable William Cohen,
Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
Interior; the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable
Tom Fry, Director, Bureau of Land Management; and representatives from the
State of Nevada. We will also provide copies to other interested parties on
request.

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512-8412. Other contacts and major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,
David R. Warren
Director, Defense Management Issues

Information on Lands and Resources at the Hawthorne Army Depot

Mount Grant contains several creeks that together make up the depot's
watershed. The infrastructure that is used to gather and deliver surface
water from the mountain consists of a small dam, four reservoirs, four catch
basins, and 35 miles of pipe. Water is moved using gravity from the creeks,
catch basins, and upper reservoirs to a main reservoir, where the water is
stored. From here, the water is chlorinated and used by the depot. The depot
uses about 26 miles of roads to maintain water delivery systems on the
mountain as well as other facilities to pump and control the water. The Army
estimates the current value of this infrastructure at $25 million.

Figures 4 through 7 show portions of the Hawthorne Army Depot and its
watershed. Figure 4, taken from near the top of Mount Grant, shows Walker
Lake and the depot (to the right) in the background and portions of the area
to be released (including Rose Creek Reservoir) in the foreground.

The depot also has two active drinking-water wells on the depot. According
to depot officials, however, these are incapable of providing all of the
depot's potable water needs. The watershed supplied three quarters (about
245 million gallons) of the depot's water needs in fiscal year 1999. The two
potable water wells supplied about 79 million gallons. The depot also
purchased about 9 million gallons from Mineral County when one of its wells
was down for extended repair. Unused water is released into Walker Lake, a
desert terminus lake (i.e., having no outlet) next to the depot. In fiscal
year 1999, 285 million gallons were discharged from the depot into Walker
Lake. Since 1996, when records were first kept on discharge from the depot
to the lake, an annual average of about 488 million gallons have been
discharged. Figure 8 shows the amount of surface water from Mount Grant used
by the depot and discharged into Walker Lake in 1996-99.

Source: GAO photo.

Source: GAO photo.

Source: GAO photo.

Source: GAO photo.

Source: Hawthorne Army Depot.

The Chairwoman of the Mineral County Board of Commissioners expressed
concern about Walker Lake's health because Mineral County and the Town of
Hawthorne's economy is enhanced by recreational activities associated with
the lake, and the lake's health is a major concern in Nevada in general. The
lake has dropped in volume by about 80 percent during the last century,
mainly because of the diversion of water from the Walker River basin to the
agricultural economies of California and Nevada. The low volume of water
flowing into the lake and the desert climate have increased salinity levels
in the lake, degraded the lake's ecosystem, and eliminated its potential for
use as a source of potable water. The aquatic species in the lake are
important sport fishing species and waterfowl prey, especially the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout. This trout is a federally listed threatened and
state-protected species whose survival in Walker Lake depends on artificial
stocking efforts.

The Bureau of Land Management, along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, are currently
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to study water or water rights
obtained for Walker Lake from willing sellers in the Walker River basin.
According to Bureau of Land Management officials, a draft statement should
be completed in November 2000 and a final statement issued in August 2001.

While the impact statement is the most comprehensive analysis of Walker Lake
now under way, numerous other efforts are either ongoing or planned. Mineral
County, with the Walker Lake Working Group and other nonprofit conservation
groups, has begun efforts to purchase water rights in the river basin. The
Walker River Paiute Indian Tribe, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Bureau, are working on a Tamarisk removal program near the lake to reduce
the water used by these nonnative trees. The Forest Service holds some basin
water rights that it has agreed to designate to benefit the lake. The Nevada
Division of Wildlife is considering doing the same with its water rights.
Finally, the Nevada Division of Water Planning has discussed the development
of a basinwide plan for the river with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
According to a Bureau field office, official water for Walker Lake will
probably be a key point in the plan.

No formal efforts are under way to obtain additional water for Walker Lake
from Mount Grant's surface water. Walker River is the main source of water
for the lake, and according to depot officials, all the water from Mount
Grant not used by the depot is already going into Walker Lake. Water from
Mount Grant would provide only a limited amount of water for the lake.
According to the depot's Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, annual
evaporation from the lake is about 42 billion gallons, and the mountain
supplies less than 1 billion gallons annually. However, Bureau officials in
Nevada would like the Army at Hawthorne to seek additional underground water
from a source south of the depot outside of the withdrawn area and send some
of the water they now collect from the mountain to Walker Lake.

About 123 contaminated sites have been identified on the withdrawn lands at
the depot. Through 1999, the Army has spent approximately $22 million to
cleanup these sites and estimates spending about $52 million more to
complete cleanup by 2009.17 Four sites on Mount Grant have been identified
as containing contamination due to military activities, and one historic
mining site on Mount Grant is a possible source of mercury contamination. In
addition, the southern end of Walker Lake has been contaminated through the
military firing live ammunition into the lake waters, and two contaminated
water plumes north of the munitions storage buildings pose an unknown hazard
to the lake.

According to an Army installation assessment performed at the depot and
issued in August 1977, the four sites on Mount Grant contaminated from
military activities are

ï¿½ the Marine Corps Rifle Range,

ï¿½ the Police Pistol Range,

ï¿½ the Naval Inshore Operations Training Command Maneuver Area, and

ï¿½ the Cottonwood Canyon/Camp Dixie Marine Maneuver Areas.

The assessment states that all of these areas contain small arms debris,
including live ammunition, spent cartridges, blanks, and ball ammunition.
The Naval Inshore area (which lies between the rifle and pistol ranges) is
considered to be the most dangerous and hazardous unexploded ordnance area
at the depot (one death has been recorded because of intrusion into this
posted area). The Naval Inshore area, which has not been used since the
early 1970s, is reported to contain high-explosive grenade and mortar rounds
in addition to other dangerous ordnance. Army records indicate that, at
least on one occasion, munitions other than small arms debris were removed
from the Cottonwood Canyon/Camp Dixie area, and reportedly dynamite has also
been found in the area, left over from mining operations existing when the
lands were originally purchased by the military (between 1929 and 1955).

As Walker Lake has receded, it created a beach at the southern shore, where
from the 1940s through the early 1980s the military tested live ammunition
(mostly ground-launched rockets). The Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection has placed the area, including part of the lake surface, off
limits because of the danger of unexploded ordnance. Many munitions have
been removed, and the Army, on the basis of an agreement with the Division,
performs quarterly sweeps of the beach area. Navy divers have surveyed the
southern portion of the lake and found that additional large quantities of
munitions still remain. According to an Army study of the lake, water,
sediment, and fish tissue samples collected from the impact area and a
control area in the lake did not show any adverse environmental effects from
the munitions testing.18 In addition, two depot groundwater plumes south of
the lake and north of the munition storage buildings contain nitrate and
hydrocarbons, posing uncertain contamination risk to the lake.

Most of the contaminated sites are on depot lands that the Bureau proposes
to remain withdrawn. The Naval Inshore area and the rifle and pistol ranges,
while in the area the Bureau proposes to terminate will not be transferred
to the Bureau. However, the Bureau's proposal does call for the Cottonwood
Canyon/Camp Dixie area to be transferred. This area encompasses a large part
of the western side of Mount Grant.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to identify the status of a land withdrawal termination
proposal made by the Carson City field office of the Bureau of Land
Management and the different management approaches that could be adopted for
the disputed land.

To identify the status of the proposal by the Bureau's field office, we
obtained current Bureau and Army documents, including a copy of the field
office's withdrawal review report and the Army's response to the report. We
interviewed Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management
officials in Washington, D.C., and officials in the Bureau's state office in
Reno, Nevada, and in its field office in Carson City, Nevada. For the Army's
response, we interviewed officials from the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Environmental Security's office, the Assistant Chief of Staff of
the Army for Installation Management's office, and the Army Material
Command; the Army Corps of Engineers' offices in Sacramento, California; and
Army representatives from Hawthorne Army Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada.

To identify the current and proposed land uses and management approaches for
the disputed acreage, we reviewed legislation and regulations governing how
public and withdrawn lands can be managed. We reviewed documents such as the
Bureau's withdrawal review field report and the Army's response to the
report, the Hawthorne Army Depot's Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plan and its Cultural Resources Management Plan, and the draft Interagency
Handbook for the Joint Stewardship of Withdrawn or Permitted Federal Lands
Used by the Military. We interviewed Department of Defense, Department of
the Interior, and State of Nevada officials. For additional information and
opinions on joint management, we interviewed Bureau officials at the field
office, Las Cruces, New Mexico; Army officials at Fort Bliss, Texas; Walker
River Paiute Indian Tribe representatives in Schurz, Nevada; and the Chair
of the Mineral County Commission, Hawthorne, Nevada.

We performed our review from December 1999 through September 2000 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Comments From the Department of Defense

Comments From the Department of the Interior

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Charles Patton, Jr. (202) 512-8412
Uldis Adamsons (202) 512-4289

In addition to those named above, Brad Hathaway, Richard Meeks,
Rudolfo G. Payan, and Mark Dowling made key contributions to this report.

(709441)

Figure 1: Hawthorne Army Depot and the Surrounding Area 9

Figure 2: Army and Bureau Proposals for the Withdrawn Lands 10

Figure 3: Number of Visitors to Mount Grant Over the Last
6 Years 14

Figure 4: Walker Lake, Depot (to right), and Rose Creek
Reservoir From the Top of Mount Grant 23

Figure 5: Rose Creek Reservoir 23

Figure 6: Cat Creek Dam and Reservoir 24

Figure 7: Black Beauty Reservoir 24

Figure 8: Mount Grant Surface Water Used by the Depot
Versus Discharged to Walker Lake 25
  

1. The total would be about 208,000 acres if the part of the withdrawn area
covered by Walker Lake was included. The lake is directly north of the
depot.

2. Natural Resources: Defense and Interior Can Better Manage Land Withdrawn
for Military Use (GAO/NSIAD-94-87 , Apr. 26, 1994).

3. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Interior
stated that the Bureau has two distinct withdrawal review authorities. One
is the general withdrawal authority of the Secretary as provided in Sec. 204
(a) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 and delegated to
the Bureau, with policy guidance, in Part 603 of the Department Manual. A
withdrawal revocation may be processed under this authority only with the
consent of the agency for which the lands were withdrawn. The other
authority is the stand alone statutory authority in Sec. 204 (l) of the act
that allows the Department of Interior to make a recommendation for
termination even if the agency with the withdrawn lands disagrees with the
Department's recommendation. It is this authority that is being used by the
Carson City field office to review the Hawthorne Army Depot withdrawal.

4. P.L. 94-579.

5. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

6. The Cottonwood Creek watershed is a large part of the Mount Grant
watershed.

7. E.O. 6958 (Feb. 4, 1935).

8. E.O. 4531 (Oct. 27, 1926); E.O. 5664 (July 2, 1931); and E.O. 5828 (Mar.
30, 1932).

9. Coliforms refer to animal or human waste; turbidity refers to sediment or
foreign particles.

10. 62 Fed.Reg. 5839-03.

11. P. L. 105-85, Div.B, Title XXIX (Nov. 18,1997).

12. Signers of the letter include the leaders of the following
organizations: National Airspace Coalition; Nevada Trappers Association;
Rural Alliance for Military Accountability, Military Land and Airspace;
Citizens Alert Northern Nevada; Nevada Wildlife Federation; Great Basin
Green Alliance; Lahontan Audubon Society; Military Toxics Project; Nevada
Public Land Access Coalition, Inc.; Public Resource Associates; League of
Women Voters of Nevada; Friends of Nevada Wilderness; Pacific Studies
Center; Sierra Club, Great Basin/High Desert Ecoregion Task Force; and
Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association.

13. P. L. 99-606, Secs. 1-15 (Nov. 6, 1986) as amended.

14. Natural Resources: Defense and Interior Can Better Manage Land Withdrawn
for Military Use (GAO/NSIAD-94-87 , Apr. 26, 1994).

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Environmental Restoration Annual Report to
Congress, Department of Defense.

18. Receiving Water Biological Study 32-EE-2435-95 Environmental Sampling of
Hawthorne Firing Range on Walker Lake, Hawthorne Army Depot, Hawthorne,
Nevada, Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine ( May
1995).
*** End of document. ***