GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Honorable Harry Reid, U.S. 

Senate

September 2000 FEDERAL 

FACILITIES

Further Review of 

Hawthorne Army 

Depot Land 

Management 

Proposals Needed

GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes 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

Figures 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Figure 2: Army and Bureau Proposals for the Withdrawn Lands 10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
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-285864 Letr

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referred to as withdrawn, indicating the lands are withheld from public use 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 Today, the withdrawn land totals about 113,000 acres because 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 The withdrawn land in question has 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 

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.
B-285864

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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.

Results in Brief 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.
B-285864

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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. 

2 Natural Resources: Defense and Interior Can Better Manage Land Withdrawn for Military 

Use (GAO/NSIAD-94-87, Apr. 26, 1994).
B-285864

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Background 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 

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.
B-285864

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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.

No Agreement on 

Proposed Termination

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 
B-285864

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

detailed plan for managing the Mount Grant area for multiple uses such as 

recreation, mining, and livestock grazing.

Withdrawn Land 

Termination Proposal

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.
B-285864

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Figure 1: Hawthorne Army Depot and the Surrounding Area 

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. 

Town of

Hawthorne

Walker 

River

Paiutes

Indian

Reservation

Schurz

Walker

River

Hawthorne Army

Depot

El 4,320

E. Walker 

River

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Walker

River

W. Walker 

River

Wassuk Range

Withdrawn land Bureau proposes to terminate

Withdrawn land Bureau proposes to continue

Mt Grant

El 11,245

Walker Lake

Nevada

359

95 ALT

95

839

95

Walker River Paiutes Indian Reservation

Current boundaries of depot
B-285864

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Figure 2: Army and Bureau Proposals for the Withdrawn Lands

Note: All boundaries are approximate.

a

The 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.

Mount

Grant

Potential contamination

Withdrawn land the Bureau and the Army both propose to terminate

Withdrawn land that only the Bureau proposes to terminate

Lands owned by the Defense Department that the Bureau proposes to transfer to Bureau management

Portion of Walker Lake that the Bureau proposes to remove from future withdrawala
B-285864

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Depot Response to Proposal 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. 

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.
B-285864

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Public Comments on the 

Proposals to Terminate the 

Withdrawal

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. 

10 62 Fed.Reg. 5839-03.
B-285864

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Proposals for 

Managing Mount Grant 

Lands 

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. 

Army’s Proposed Land 

Management Approach

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 
B-285864

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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.

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

Source: Hawthorne Army Depot.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400 Visitors

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
B-285864

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Bureau’s Proposed Land 

Management Approach

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: 

• Continue the withdrawal of 69,037 acres used by the Army for depot 

purposes and add mineral restrictions to prevent future mining claims.

• 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.

• 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.

• Open the lands to the public without restrictions except where needed 

to protect the depot’s water.

• 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.

• Delegate management of wildlife, including fisheries, to the Nevada 

Division of Wildlife. This would be similar to current Army management.

• Allow Walker River Paiute Indians unrestricted access to their spiritual 

sites.

• 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.

11 P. L. 105-85, Div.B, Title XXIX (Nov. 18,1997).
B-285864

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

• Exclude livestock from grazing in unique ecological areas and in areas 

with water quality concerns.

• 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.”

• Assess suitability of the area, and possibly of Walker Lake, for a special 

designation to further protect natural resources. 

Community and Public 

Opinions on Army and 

Bureau Management 

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. 

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. 
B-285864

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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.

Another Approach to Land 

Use Management

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.
B-285864

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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

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.
B-285864

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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: 

• Each could save limited funds and reduce equipment purchases by 

sharing information and resources with the other.

• By working collaboratively, each could better understand what the other 

does and why, reducing bureaucratic friction.

• 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:

• Conflicting agency missions on withdrawn lands can create 

disagreement between the agencies.

• 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. 

• There are not enough models for developing unique management 

agreements.

Conclusions 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.
B-285864

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Recommendation 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.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation 

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. 
B-285864

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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
Page 22 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the Apendxies

Hawthorne Army Depot ApendxiI

Mount Grant 

Watershed

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.
Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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

Mount Grant 

Source: GAO photo.

Figure 5: Rose Creek Reservoir

Source: GAO photo.
Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Figure 6: Cat Creek Dam and Reservoir

Source: GAO photo.

Figure 7: Black Beauty Reservoir

Source: GAO photo.
Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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

Walker Lake

Source: Hawthorne Army Depot.

Walker Lake 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 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1996 1997 1998 1999

Gallons in millions

Surface water used by the depot

Surface water discharged to Walker Lake
Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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. 
Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Environmental 

Contamination on 

Withdrawn Lands

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 2009.1

 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 

• the Marine Corps Rifle Range,

• the Police Pistol Range,

• the Naval Inshore Operations Training Command Maneuver Area, and

• 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). 

1

 Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Environmental Restoration Annual Report to Congress, 

Department of Defense. 
Appendix I

Information on Lands and Resources at the 

Hawthorne Army Depot

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

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.2

 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.

2 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). 
Page 29 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

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. 
Page 30 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Defense ApendxiI
Page 31 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of the 

Interior

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities
Page 33 GAO/NSIAD/RCED-00-251 Federal Facilities

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contacts Charles Patton, Jr. (202) 512-8412

Uldis Adamsons (202) 512-4289

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Brad Hathaway, Richard Meeks, 

Rudolfo G. Payan, and Mark Dowling made key contributions to this report.

(709441) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00