a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Public Lands and Forests, Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 

Senate

February 2008 NATURAL 

RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Opportunities Exist to 

Enhance Federal 

Participation in 

Collaborative Efforts 

to Reduce Conflicts 

and Improve Natural 

Resource Conditions

GAO-08-262
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2008

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation 

in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and 

Highlights of GAO-08-262, a report to the Improve Natural Resource Conditions

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands 

and Forests, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

Conflict over the use of our

nation’s natural resources, along 

with increased ecological

problems, has led land managers to

seek cooperative means to resolve 

natural resource conflicts and 

problems. Collaborative resource 

management is one such approach

that communities began using in

the 1980s and 1990s. A 2004

Executive Order on Cooperative 

Conservation encourages such

efforts. 

GAO was asked to determine 

(1) experts’ views on collaborative

resource management, (2) how 

selected collaborative efforts have

addressed conflicts and improved 

resources, and (3) challenges that 

agencies face as they participate in

such efforts and how the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative

has addressed them. GAO reviewed

experts’ journal articles, studied

seven collaborative groups, and 

interviewed group members and 

federal and other public officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that CEQ 

and the Departments of the Interior

and Agriculture take several

actions to develop a long-term plan, 

guidance, and tools that could 

enhance their management and

support of collaborative efforts. 

GAO provided a draft report for 

comment to CEQ, Interior, and 

Agriculture. Interior and 

Agriculture generally concurred 

with the conclusions and 

recommendations. CEQ did not 

provide comments. 

Experts generally view collaborative resource management that involves

public and private stakeholders in natural resource decisions as an effective 

approach for managing natural resources. Several benefits can result from 

using collaborative resource management, including reduced conflict and 

litigation and improved natural resource conditions, according to the experts. 

A number of collaborative practices, such as seeking inclusive representation, 

establishing leadership, and identifying a common goal among the participants 

have been central to successful collaborative management efforts. The 

success of these groups is often judged by whether they increase participation

and cooperation or improve natural resource conditions. Many experts also 

note that there are limitations to the approach, such as the time and resources 

it takes to bring people together to work on a problem and reach a decision. 

Most of the seven collaborative resource management efforts GAO studied in

several states across the country were successful in achieving participation 

and cooperation among their members and improving natural resource 

conditions. In six of the cases, those involved were able to reduce or avoid the 

kinds of conflicts that can arise when dealing with contentious natural 

resource problems. All the efforts, particularly those that effectively reduced 

or avoided conflict, used at least several of the collaborative practices 

described by the experts. For example, one effort obtained broad community 

representation and successfully identified a common goal of using fire, after 

decades of suppression, to restore the health of a large grasslands area 

surrounding the community. Also, members of almost all the efforts studied 

said they have been able to achieve many of their goals for sustaining or 

improving the condition of specific natural resources. However, for most of 

these efforts no data were collected on a broad scale to show the effect of 

their work on overall resource conditions across a large area or landscape. 

Federal land and resource management agencies—the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

National Park Service, and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service—

face key challenges to participating in collaborative resource management 

efforts, according to the experts, federal officials, and participants in the 

efforts GAO studied. For example, the agencies face challenges in determining 

whether to participate in a collaborative effort, measuring participation and 

monitoring results, and sharing agency and group experiences. As a part of the 

interagency Cooperative Conservation initiative led by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), the federal government has made progress in 

addressing these challenges. Yet, additional opportunities exist to develop and 

disseminate tools, examples, and guidance that further address the challenges, 

as well as to better structure and direct the initiative to achieve the vision of 

Cooperative Conservation, which involves a number of actions by multiple 

agencies over the long term. Failure to pursue such opportunities and to 

create a long-term plan to achieve the vision may limit the effectiveness of the 

federal government’s initiative and collaborative efforts. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-262. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 9

Experts Generally View Collaborative Resource Management as an 

Effective Approach for Improving the Management of Natural 

Resources, but a Few Question Collaboration Involving Federally 

Managed Lands 18

Most Collaborative Efforts We Studied Reduced or Averted 

Resource Conflicts, Completed Projects, and Improved Natural 

Resource Conditions to an Extent That Could Not Be

Determined 26

Cooperative Conservation Policies and Actions Address Some of the 

Challenges Faced by Federal Agencies Participating in 

Collaborative Efforts, but Opportunities Exist for Further 

Action 40

Conclusions 57

Recommendations for Executive Action 58

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 59

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 61

Appendix II: Collaborative Resource Management Groups and Successful 

Collaboration Practices 69

Blackfoot Challenge 69

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative 74

Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management 80

Malpai Borderlands Group 85

Onslow Bight Conservation Forum 91

Steens Mountain Advisory Council 97

Uncompahgre Plateau Project 104

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior 111

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 119

Bibliography 120

Tables Table 1: Natural Resource Problems and Common Interest 

Solutions of Seven Collaborative Resource Management 

Efforts 27
Contents

Page ii GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Table 2: Natural Resource Accomplishments, Improvements, and 

Monitoring by Seven Collaborative Resource Management 

Efforts 36

Table 3: Cooperative Conservation Actions, Proposed and Initiated, 

That Can Address Challenges Federal Agencies Face in 

Collaborating 50

Table 4: Description of the Benefits, Limitations, and Critiques of 

Collaboration 63

Table 5: Number of Statements in the Components of Each 

Category 64

Table 6: Collaborative Resource Management Groups Selected as 

Case Examples 66

Table 7: Description of the Challenges Associated with 

Collaboration Identified by the Experts 67

Table 8: Number of Statements in the Challenges 68

Figures Figure 1: Location of the Seven Collaborative Efforts We Studied 5

Figure 2: Land Ownership and Management in the United States 13
Contents

Page iii GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

Challenge Blackfoot Challenge

Council Steens Mountain Advisory Council

CMPA Cooperative Management and Protection Area

Day 2 report White House Conference report, Supplemental Analysis of 

Day Two Facilitated Discussion Sessions

Forum Onslow Bight Conservation Forum

GIS Geographic Information System

Initiative Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative

Interior Department of the Interior

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Steens Act Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection 

Act

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

February 12, 2008 Letr

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Chairman

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

For decades, the consumption and use of our nation’s natural resources has 

been a source of controversy and contention among many diverse public 

and private interests. These interests range from using the resources for 

various economic purposes, such as agricultural, residential, or 

commercial development, mining, ranching, and logging, to recreational 

uses, such as hiking, hunting, and off-road vehicle use. At the same time as 

groups with these interests compete with one another to use the resources, 

other groups have interests in preserving the resources in their natural 

state. Demographic and economic changes across the country have caused 

these competing interests to grow increasingly divergent, resulting in 

controversy and sometimes litigation. Further complicating the groups’ use 

of these resources are ecological problems, such as invasive species, loss 

of wildlife and plant diversity, and wildland fires. These problems often 

cover a landscape, or a large area of land with a physical environment that 

supports distinct communities of plants, animals, and other organisms; 

transcend ownership boundaries; and threaten the various groups’ ability 

to use the resources, or the overall loss of these resources. 

A current situation, involving 11 western states, illustrates the kind of 

conflicts that can occur.1

 A surge in development for such uses as housing, 

oil and gas resources, as well as continued livestock grazing, is degrading 

vast areas of an important western ecosystem—the sagebrush range—

which supports a wide variety of wildlife species. This has led some groups 

to litigate in favor of additional protection under federal law for two bird 

species, the greater sage grouse and the Gunnison sage grouse. Similarly, 

the effects of development in wildlife migration corridors within the 

sagebrush habitat have led hunters and wildlife advocates to seek controls 

on such activities in undeveloped corridors. On the other hand, some 

1

The 11 states are California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Page 2 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

developers, ranchers, and oil and gas companies fear that additional 

protection would severely limit their activities. More specifically, greater 

protection would increase the scrutiny of activities that occur in sagebrush 

that have effects on species and possibly curtail development of housing 

areas, limit livestock grazing, or restrict oil and gas development activities. 

From past experience, some groups have realized that litigation to resolve 

competing interests over natural resource use has undesirable 

consequences and may not produce the best results for the parties 

involved. Some fear that the initial lawsuit and subsequent appeals can 

result in impasse and delay projects or regulations from taking effect. 

Moreover, some landowners have realized that, although their land 

management objectives may differ from those of other landowners, they 

face common ecological problems that can only be solved by working with 

other landowners, either public or private. For example, landowners in an 

area with an outbreak of a particular invasive species cannot eradicate or 

control the species on their land without coordinating with adjacent 

landowners because the species may spread from adjacent lands that a 

landowner does not treat. 

To develop proactive solutions to common land and natural resource 

management problems and avoid the potentially adverse consequences of 

litigation, many land managers and interested parties have sought 

approaches for more cooperatively resolving natural resource problems 

and conflicts. One such approach described by academic, public, and 

nonprofit experts is collaborative resource management. This approach 

involves multiple parties—including federal land and resource 

management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest 

Service—joining together voluntarily to identify environmental and natural 

resource problems and goals, such as improving natural resource 

conditions, and to design management activities and projects to achieve 

these goals.2

The collaborative resource management approach—which is also called 

collaborative conservation, community-based conservation, communitybased initiatives, watershed management, and grassroots ecosystem 

2

While the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs within Interior also manage 

lands, we focused this study on the four largest land management agencies. 
Page 3 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

management—evolved in the 1980s and 1990s when many grassroots 

groups of diverse stakeholders, including federal land and resource 

management agencies, organized to focus on local environmental and 

natural resource problems. These grassroots initiatives coincided with an 

effort by federal agencies to adopt an ecosystem management policy, an 

approach that recognized that plant and animal communities are 

interdependent and interact with their physical environments to form 

ecosystems spanning federal and nonfederal lands. We reported on 

ecosystem management as a promising approach for managing federal 

lands in 1994 and identified constraints on collaboration among federal and 

nonfederal parties as one of the key barriers impeding implementation of 

that approach.3

In 2004, to encourage federal agencies to use collaboration and other types 

of cooperative management efforts, such as partnerships, in carrying out 

environmental and natural resource laws, the President issued an 

Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation and designated the 

Chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to 

gather reports on implementation of the initiative. The order also directed 

the Chair of CEQ to hold a White House Conference on Cooperative 

Conservation. The conference, held in August 2005, highlighted many 

voluntary, collaborative groups involved in conservation activities. As a 

result of the Executive Order, an interagency policy team and task force 

were created; these groups helped organize the conference and respond to 

suggested actions for the agencies to take related to partnering and 

collaboration. 

In this context, you asked us to determine (1) experts’ views of 

collaborative resource management as an approach for addressing 

complex natural resource management problems; (2) the extent to which 

selected collaborative resource management efforts have addressed land 

use conflicts and improved natural resource conditions; and (3) what 

challenges, if any, federal land and resource management agencies face in 

participating in collaborative resource management efforts and how the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed the challenges.

To determine experts’ views of collaborative resource management as an 

approach for addressing natural resource problems, we interviewed 

3

GAO, Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a 

Promising Approach, GAO/RCED-94-111 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 1994).
Page 4 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

experts and reviewed a series of journal articles on the subject and 

conducted a content analysis of statements taken from the articles on 

benefits, practices, and limitations associated with collaboration. To 

determine the extent to which selected efforts have addressed land use 

conflicts and improved natural resource conditions, we identified seven 

examples of collaborative resource management efforts with different 

membership, organizational structure, geographic location, and other 

attributes and conducted field visits and semistructured, detailed 

interviews with multiple members of the groups to gain an understanding 

of each group’s efforts and results. We considered conflicts to exist if two 

or more participants had different interests to achieve and considered 

conflicts to be reduced or averted if the group implemented a common 

interest solution. The seven examples and their geographic locations are 

shown in figure 1. We also obtained and reviewed any related 

documentation of each group’s activities and results, but did not 

independently verify these data. 

Finally, we identified challenges associated with the collaborative resource 

management approach from our literature review and interviews with 

members of the collaborative resource management groups we studied. To 

determine how efforts under the Cooperative Conservation initiative 

address challenges associated with federal land and resource management 

agencies’ participation in collaborative resource management, we analyzed 

reports summarizing the White House Conference and interviewed federal 

officials, including CEQ and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

officials. We conducted this performance audit from October 2006 through 

February 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides further 

details about the scope and methodology for our review, appendix II 

describes the seven collaborative resource management efforts we studied 

in detail, and the bibliography lists the journal articles that we reviewed.
Page 5 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Figure 1: Location of the Seven Collaborative Efforts We Studied

Results in Brief The experts whose work we reviewed generally consider collaborative 

resource management as an effective approach for managing natural 

resources, although they identify a few limitations to its use. According to 

the experts, collaborative resource management can be effective in 

reducing and averting conflict and litigation, while at the same time 

producing better natural resource conditions and strengthening community 

relationships. The experts noted that successful collaborative efforts use 

similar practices such as (1) developing open and transparent decisionmaking processes among the participants, (2) finding leaders of the group, 

(3) identifying a common goal, and (4) leveraging resources, including 

funds. Overall, experts considered collaborative efforts successful if they 

broadened participation and increased cooperation in managing natural 

resources, or improved natural resource conditions. However, according to 

many experts, collaboration does have some limitations, such as the fact 

that building relationships and reaching consensus take time and 

Steens Mountain Advisory Council

Malpai Borderlands Group

Onslow Bight Conservation Forum

Blackfoot Challenge

Uncompahgre Plateau Project

Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners

in Ecosystem Management

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative

Sources: GAO analysis; Map Resources (map).
Page 6 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

resources. While many experts see collaboration as an effective approach, 

a few of the experts question federal agencies’ involvement in such efforts, 

arguing that it can favor local over national interests, allow particular 

interests to dominate over others, result in a “least common denominator” 

decision that inadequately protects natural resources, or inappropriately 

transfer federal authority to local groups. 

Of the seven collaborative efforts we studied, most have reduced or 

averted conflicts in managing natural resource problems and several have 

achieved site-specific resource results. Specifically, through participants’ 

cooperation, most of these groups were able to avert conflicts that arose—

or that might have arisen—from efforts to solve such natural resource 

problems as threatened and endangered species, lack of wildland fire, 

invasive species, and degraded wildlife habitat. The efforts that reduced or 

averted conflicts used many of the collaborative practices identified by the 

experts, including finding a common goal, using incentives to carry out 

activities, leveraging available funding, and gathering and using common 

information. For example, after decades of fire suppression, the Malpai 

Borderlands Group in southern Arizona and New Mexico successfully 

reintroduced fire to help regenerate grasses and reduce shrubs in its 

grassland ecosystem, and dealt with concerns about endangered species 

surviving such fires. The group worked together to develop a common 

vision and goal for restoring fire and then sought funding for research to 

demonstrate that the effects of fire on such species as the lesser long-nose 

bat and its food source, the agave plant, were not detrimental. 

Furthermore, several of the collaborative efforts we studied said that they 

are monitoring different natural resources and are achieving their goals for 

improving natural resource conditions. However, the extent of the resource 

improvements and progress toward solving overall landscape-level 

problems was difficult to assess because some efforts have not yet initiated 

management activities, while others lack sufficient landscape-level data. 

For example, the Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem 

Management group in Michigan created ecological maps for its planning 

area but has not monitored any changes in ecological conditions at a 

landscape level since it has been working together. The participants said 

that, because the group’s primary purpose is to share information to help 

participants plan their own work, the group does not need to conduct 

landscape-level monitoring. 

Federal land and resource management agencies face several challenges in 

participating in collaborative resource management efforts, according to 

the experts, federal officials, and participants in collaborative efforts whom 
Page 7 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

we interviewed. Key challenges that the agencies face fall within the 

following major areas: 

• Improving employees’ collaborative skills. Often, federal employees 

are technical experts and may not have the skills and experience to 

collaborate. Collaborative skills include the ability to conduct meetings, 

involve relevant stakeholders, resolve disputes, and share technical 

information to make it accessible to groups. Federal participants in 

collaborative groups we studied said that federal staff need to have such 

skills, in addition to their technical skills, to work effectively with such 

groups. Improving federal employees’ collaborative skills can enable 

them to work more effectively with a collaborative group. 

• Determining whether to participate in a particular collaborative 

effort. Collaborative resource management efforts often begin with 

local communities, and federal agencies can determine what role they 

can have in the effort. External factors, such as a community’s 

collaborative capacity and the amount of controversy involved, often 

affect whether a group may succeed. Federal participants we 

interviewed said that opportunities to collaborate continually emerge as 

community members initiate efforts. However, without understanding 

the external factors that may affect success, federal land and resource 

management agencies may become involved and invest resources in a 

collaborative effort that has little chance of succeeding. 

• Sustaining federal employees’ participation over time. According 

to some groups and federal participants we interviewed, federal 

participation in collaborative efforts is critical to getting work 

accomplished. In particular, the agency employees can contribute 

scientific and technical expertise, such as habitat identification and 

mapping skills, to help plan and focus the group’s work. However, 

federal land and resource management agency field offices that we 

visited have downsized in the last several years, leaving fewer staff 

available for collaborative efforts. Federal participants in collaborative 

efforts we interviewed stated that with fewer staff, less time and effort 

can be spent on collaboration. Limited participation by federal agencies 

may constrain the amount of work that can be planned and therefore 

accomplished by both the agency and the group. 

• Measuring participation and monitoring results to ensure 

accountability. Participation in and natural resource results of 

collaborative efforts are difficult to measure and collaborative efforts 
Page 8 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

often lack a systematic approach for monitoring the results. Federal 

participants we interviewed noted that there are no effective methods 

available to measure and account for participation in collaborative 

efforts, making it difficult for them to show the results of the time and 

resources expended working with collaborative groups. A lack of 

measuring or monitoring data may make it difficult for agencies and 

their partners to demonstrate and be accountable for their results and 

justify their continued participation. 

• Sharing agency and group experiences with collaboration. 

Collaborative groups are unique in their makeup, organization, 

circumstances, and abilities, but can face similar problems working 

together and with federal agencies. Groups are scattered throughout the 

United States, and do not have many opportunities to meet and share 

experiences. Although Web sites and guidebooks exist to share 

information, without venues to bring collaborative groups together, it is 

more difficult for group members to learn and benefit directly from each 

other’s experience. 

• Working within the framework of federal statutes and agency 

policies to support collaboration. Experts and collaborative groups 

have identified some federal laws and agency policies as being 

inconsistent with collaboration. For example, USDA and Interior have 

implemented federal ethics rules differently in determining whether 

their staff could be members of the nonprofit board managing the 

Blackfoot Challenge group in Montana, causing some confusion and 

concerns among the partners. Others identified federal advisory 

committee rules, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act as being inconsistent with collaboration. These 

authorities and policies reflect processes established to support good 

government practices, such as transparency and accountability. Without 

evaluating the laws and policies involved, the federal agencies cannot 

determine the changes needed to better balance collaboration with good 

government practices.

Through the federal interagency task force charged with pursuing 

proposed actions raised by participants at the 2005 White House 

Conference on Cooperative Conservation, the federal government has 

developed policies and taken actions that have made progress in 

addressing several of these challenges. For example, to enhance federal 

employees’ collaborative skills, the agencies recently identified personnel 

competencies that encourage collaborative behavior and experience-based 
Page 9 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

training that includes collaboration. In addition, to address difficult and 

time-consuming aspects of the federal law that directs how federal 

agencies work with advisory groups—the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act—agencies are considering ways to simplify the implementation of its 

requirements. While the policies and actions implemented so far help 

address several of the challenges that agencies face, the task force has yet 

to develop and disseminate guidance, tools, and examples that will further 

address the challenges, such as sharing agency and group experiences with 

collaboration. Furthermore, the CEQ officials responsible for the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative recognized that it is a long-term effort 

that will require the coordinated actions of several interagency teams, 

departments, and agencies to achieve the vision of cooperative 

conservation. Yet, the task force is a temporary, voluntary group that has 

not developed a plan to lay out long-term goals for cooperative 

conservation and determine how the actions taken to date and in the future 

will help reach these goals and support collaborative resource management 

as an approach for managing federal natural resources. 

We are making recommendations to the Chairman of CEQ and the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to take several actions that can 

enhance federal agencies’ participation in and support of ongoing and 

future collaborative efforts, as well as help structure and direct the 

interagency effort for the long term. The actions that we are recommending 

include, among others, disseminating tools for assessing collaborative 

opportunities; developing criteria for others to use in monitoring 

collaborative efforts particularly at the landscape level; and developing a 

long-term plan for carrying out cooperative conservation activities 

including collaborative resource management. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, Interior and USDA concurred with our conclusions and five of 

six recommendations. The departments neither agreed nor disagreed with 

our recommendation that they should develop a joint policy to consistently 

implement ethics rules governing employee participation in nonprofit 

boards. USDA’s Office of General Counsel noted that while such a policy 

might be desirable, it may not be feasible. CEQ did not provide comments 

on the draft report. 

Background Federal efforts to use collaboration, broadly, and collaborative resource 

management more specifically have their roots in natural resource and 

environmental law, litigation, and alternative efforts to resolve 

environmental conflicts. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s as 

environmental concerns over species, wilderness preservation, and air and 
Page 10 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

water pollution heightened and legislation to protect different resources 

followed, litigation over land and resource use became more common. In 

the 1980s and 1990s, a number of factors, including court decisions and 

regulatory and economic changes, resulted in decreased timber harvests 

and increased scrutiny of grazing on public lands. In the 1990s, concerns 

over pollution and resource problems that cross property lines—such as 

water quality or endangered species—increased, and sometimes resulted in 

litigation. Also during this time, development of private lands posed 

increased threats to habitat, water quality, rural lifestyles, and wildlife, 

including threatened and endangered species.

Over the same time frame beginning in the 1970s, environmental conflict 

resolution began to evolve as an alternative way of dealing with 

environmental disputes outside of the courts. This approach uses 

facilitation, mediation, and other methods to negotiate solutions among 

disputing parties. It also involves collaborative efforts to solve problems 

and conflicts before they have a chance to fully develop. In the 1990s, as 

these alternatives to litigation became more established, two laws were 

enacted authorizing their use by federal agencies and the U.S. District 

Courts—the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 and the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998. Also in 1998, legislation created 

the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a federal institute 

to assess, and assist in resolving, conflicts related to federal land, natural 

resource, or environmental management. 

Throughout the 1990s, some communities facing natural resource 

problems decided to use alternative approaches to solving associated 

conflicts, forming grassroots groups of diverse stakeholders to discuss the 

problems and develop solutions. The collaborative groups that formed 

often included federal land and resource management agency 

representatives as participants. Recognizing the value of these groups, the 

federal land and resource management agencies began developing 

programs in support of such efforts. The agencies have been working 

collaboratively with communities for a long while, but placed increased 

emphasis on collaboration in the 1990s. Specifically, in 1997, the Forest 

Service began a partnership program to gather guidance and information 

on how best to work with local communities. In 2003, Interior began an 

effort to focus on working cooperatively with local communities on 

conservation activities, both on public and private lands. In addition, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a program, called Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife, to work with private landowners to provide technical and financial 

assistance in protecting threatened and endangered species on their lands. 
Page 11 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

More recently, the federal land and natural resource agencies have been 

authorized by specific legislation to collaborate with nonfederal parties on 

specific resource problems. For example, both BLM and the Forest Service 

received authority to use stewardship contracts—which allow them, for 

example, to use the value of products sold, such as timber, to offset the 

cost of contracted services such as removing small trees and brush from 

the forest—to achieve national forest land management goals that meet 

local and rural community needs.4

In 2004, the President signed Executive Order 13352 introducing the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative to increase the use of collaboration 

and other processes for managing land, natural resource, and 

environmental issues. The order directed the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, and the Interior, and the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency to carry out natural resource and 

environmental laws in a manner that facilitates “cooperative conservation.” 

The order defined this as “actions that relate to the use, enhancement, and 

enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the environment, or both, 

and involve collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, and tribal 

governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions, other 

nongovernmental entities and individuals.” The Executive Order is being 

carried out by CEQ, in its role coordinating federal environmental efforts 

and working with agencies in the development of environmental policies 

and initiatives. Also involved is OMB, in its role overseeing the preparation 

of the federal budget and supervising executive branch agencies. OMB 

evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, 

as well as ensuring that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed 

legislation are consistent with the President’s budget and with 

administration policies. In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the 

administration’s procurement, financial management, information, and 

regulatory policies. 

While collaboration refers broadly to the way different groups work 

together to achieve a common goal, collaborative resource management 

efforts involve multiple parties joining together voluntarily to identify 

environmental and natural resource problems and goals and to design 

4

The Forest Service initially received stewardship contracting authority first as a pilot 

program in 1998, while BLM received it in 2003. For a description of agency use of 

stewardship contracting authority, see GAO, Federal Land Management: Additional 

Guidance on Community Involvement Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship 

Contracting, GAO-04-652 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004).
Page 12 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

activities and projects to resolve the problems and achieve their goals. The 

federal agencies work with collaborative resource management groups 

using partnership tools, which are cooperative or voluntary agreements 

among the federal and nonfederal groups to share resources and achieve 

the objectives of all parties.5

 Each of the four major federal land and 

resource management agencies—BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service within Interior and USDA’s Forest Service—has a 

complex mix of legislative authorities that allow it to create and fund 

partnerships. In the simplest form, a partnership can exist without any 

exchange of funds or items of value from the federal agency to a nonfederal 

group and a memorandum of agreement or understanding is used to 

describe the details of the arrangements. In cases when federal funds or 

property are provided to nonfederal entities as part of a partnership, the 

agencies use different instruments such as grants or cooperative 

agreements to document the agreement and work to be done.6

Collaborative resource management efforts can involve any mix of the 

nation’s 2.3 billion acres of federal, state, local, private, or tribal land. 

Historical settlement and development of the nation resulted in the 

intermingling of lands among these different entities. As shown in figure 2, 

about 60 percent of the nation’s land, or almost 1.4 billion acres, is privately 

owned and managed, while more than 27 percent, or about 628 million 

acres, is managed by the four federal land and resource management 

agencies. More than 43 million acres, representing almost 2 percent of the 

nation’s land, are owned and managed by the federal government for 

purposes such as military installations and water infrastructure. About 8 

percent of the nation’s land, or 195 million acres, is owned and managed by 

state and local governments and more than 2 percent, or about 56 million 

acres, is held in trust by the federal government for Native American tribes. 

5

The Forest Service also uses collaboration in forest planning. This involves people working 

together to share knowledge and resources to describe and achieve desired conditions for 

National Forest System lands and for associated social, ecological, and economic systems in 

a plan area. 

6

The Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreement Act directs federal agencies to use grants 

when the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer value to a nonfederal recipient 

to carry out a public purpose rather than to acquire property or services for the benefit of 

the federal government. Agencies are to use cooperative agreements when the agency will 

be substantially involved in carrying out the agreement, and grants if such involvement is 

not expected. 
Page 13 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Figure 2: Land Ownership and Management in the United States

Note: Percentages do not add due to rounding.

Collaborative efforts are governed by a framework of federal, state, and 

local laws, as well as federal Indian law and tribal law, that determine how 

management activities, including collaborative management activities, are 

carried out. These efforts often involve coordinated decision making for 

management activities that the collaborative groups undertake. Each land 

and resource manager or landowner, including federal agencies, retains 

decision-making authority for the activities that occur on their respective 

lands and follow applicable requirements to implement them, although the 

federal agencies may work with other group members to develop and 

consider plans and gather information and community input. When 

collaborative activities occur on private lands, individual landowners make 

decisions about the activities that occur subject to applicable federal, state, 

and local laws, and decide whether and how to share information related to 

their lands with members of the group. 

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service and USDA data.

State and local governments

Four major federal land and resource

management agencies

2%

Other federal agencies (including

Department of Defense)

2%

Native American trust

Private landowners

8%

27%

60%
Page 14 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Laws Governing 

Collaborative Efforts on 

Federal Lands

Collaborative management activities on federal lands are governed by 

federal resource and environmental laws. Overall, the four federal land 

management agencies manage their lands for a variety of purposes, 

although each agency has unique authorities that give it particular 

responsibilities. Specifically, both BLM and the Forest Service manage 

lands under their control for multiple uses and to provide a sustained yield 

of renewable resources such as timber, fish and wildlife, forage for 

livestock, and recreation. On the other hand, the National Park Service’s 

mission is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife 

of the national park system so that they will remain unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of current and future generations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, under its authorities, manages refuges for the conservation, 

management—and where appropriate—restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States, for the benefit 

of present and future generations. 

Other federal agencies—including the military services in the Department 

of Defense and the power marketing administrations in the Department of 

Energy—have land and resource management responsibilities that may 

cause them to become involved in collaborative efforts. The military 

services—the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force—use their lands 

primarily to train military forces and test weapon systems, but are required 

under the Sikes Act of 1960 to provide for the conservation and 

rehabilitation of natural resources on military lands. The power marketing 

administrations—which include the Western Area Power Administration, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, 

and Southeastern Power Administration—sell and deliver power within the 

United States on hundreds of miles of transmission lines across public and 

private land using rights-of-way. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

transmission owners, including the power administrations, must maintain 

the reliability of their transmission systems, which includes establishing 

and maintaining the vegetation on these rights-of-way so that power lines 

are not compromised. Lines may be at risk from trees falling on them, 

electrical arcing from a power line to a tree or other objects in the right-ofway, or forest fires. Other agencies, such as the Department of 

Transportation and state transportation agencies, conduct activities that 

affect land and resources, and collaborate with agencies such as the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the effects on wildlife and habitat.

Management activities that occur on federal lands, including those 

developed by a collaborative group are subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act 
Page 15 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

of 1973. NEPA requires that federal agencies evaluate the likely 

environmental effects of proposed projects and plans using an 

environmental assessment or, if the action would be likely to significantly 

affect the environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement. 

The scope of actions being analyzed under NEPA may encompass a broad 

area, such as an entire national forest, or a specific project such as 

treatment of invasive species on several acres of land. The federal agencies 

are mandated to include the public in the NEPA process through efforts 

such as providing public notice of meetings, making related environmental 

documents available to the public, and considering public comments. 

Under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are required to consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any activities they 

carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 

endangered species or destroy or harm any habitat that is critical for the 

conservation of the species.7

Laws Governing 

Collaborative Efforts on 

State, Local, Private, and 

Tribal Lands

Collaborative activities that occur on state, local, and private lands are 

subject to state and local laws that provide authority for numerous 

agencies to manage state and local lands and programs to protect and 

conserve natural resources, as well as generate revenue from these 

resources. Many states have trust lands that were granted to them at 

statehood by the federal government. These lands, which constitute 46 

million acres of the continental United States, are typically managed to 

produce revenue for beneficiaries such as schools and other public 

institutions. As a result, the primary uses of these state lands are activities 

that may generate revenue such as livestock grazing, oil and gas leasing, 

hard rock mining, and timber. In addition, states regulate land and natural 

resource use through a variety of programs, such as wildlife management 

or forestry programs. Each state manages fish and wildlife through various 

programs, and these state wildlife programs typically manage certain 

species of wildlife as game for recreation purposes. These programs may 

also own and manage land with habitat particularly suited for game 

species, and sometimes provide protection for particular species of 

concern. State forestry agencies, which are also in every state, can manage 

their state forests for uses such as timber or recreation. 

7

The agencies are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service for actions 

that may affect threatened and endangered species under the service’s jurisdiction. These 

include marine mammals, marine turtles, marine and anadromous fish, and marine 

invertebrates and plants.
Page 16 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Private landowners determine how, or whether, to implement collaborative 

activities on their lands, consistent with applicable federal, state, and local 

laws and zoning restrictions that regulate the types of activities that can 

occur on particular areas of land including open space, agricultural, 

residential, commercial, and industrial lands. For example, a nonprofit 

organization, such as The Nature Conservancy, can own land solely for 

conservation purposes, while a timber company uses its lands to harvest 

timber for profit. Private activities must also be consistent with applicable 

federal environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act. Under the 

act, private landowners are not required to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on activities they conduct on their land, but the act 

prohibits them from “taking” a threatened or endangered species.8

 In 

certain cases, private landowners may obtain permits for taking species if 

the taking is incidental to a lawful activity. To obtain such a permit, a 

landowner must submit a habitat conservation plan to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service that specifies the likely effect of the landowner’s activities 

on a listed species and mitigation measures that the landowner will 

implement. Landowners may also enter into voluntary safe harbor 

agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in which landowners 

manage habitat for endangered species in return for assurances that no 

additional restrictions will be imposed as a result of their conservation 

actions.

Land use activities, such as harvesting trees for timber, applying fertilizer 

and pesticides for agriculture, and diverting water for irrigation or other 

use, can degrade air and water quality and habitat for wildlife. However, 

undeveloped lands used for forestry, livestock grazing, and agriculture—in 

addition to producing the nation’s food and fiber—are vital to the 

protection of the nation’s environment and natural resources. To encourage 

conservation on private lands used for agricultural and natural resource 

production, USDA operates approximately 20 voluntary conservation 

programs that are designed to address a range of environmental 

concerns—soil erosion, surface and ground water quantity and quality, air 

quality, loss of wildlife habitat and native species, and 

8

The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Regulations implementing the act 

define “harm” to mean an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include 

significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by 

impairing essential behavior patterns. 
Page 17 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

others—by compensating landowners for taking certain lands out of 

production or using certain conservation practices on lands in production.9

Among these programs, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service 

manages the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which promotes 

agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national 

goals and provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and 

ranchers to address soil, water, air, and related natural resource concerns 

and to comply with environmental laws, and the Wetlands Reserve 

Program, which authorizes technical and financial assistance to eligible 

landowners to restore, enhance, and protect wetlands. Since its beginning 

as the Soil Conservation Service more than 70 years ago, the service has 

delivered its assistance to farmers and ranchers through partnerships with 

locally led conservation districts. 

Resource and land use decisions on Indian lands are governed by federal 

Indian law and tribal law. Federal Indian law includes relevant provisions 

of the Constitution, treaties with Indian tribes, federal statutes and 

regulations, executive orders, and judicial opinions that collectively 

regulate the relationships among Indian nations, the United States, and 

individual state governments. Tribal law includes the constitutions, 

statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, and tradition and customs of 

individual tribes. 

9

The total number of conservation-related programs can be defined in several ways. The 

Congressional Research Service describes some programs as having subprograms, while 

others were created by administrative action. In addition to the 20 programs, Congress has 

authorized other discretionary programs that often have a specific geographic focus. 
Page 18 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Experts Generally 

View Collaborative 

Resource Management 

as an Effective 

Approach for 

Improving the 

Management of Natural 

Resources, but a Few 

Question Collaboration 

Involving Federally 

Managed Lands

Experts whose literature we reviewed consider collaborative resource 

management to be effective in managing natural resources because it can 

reduce or avert conflict and litigation, while at the same time improving 

natural resource conditions and strengthening community relationships. 

The experts note that successful groups that are able to achieve these 

benefits use various collaborative practices. In addition, many experts cite 

limitations to collaboration and others question collaborative resource 

management efforts involving federally managed land, arguing that 

collaborative efforts can favor local interests over national interests, be 

dominated by particular interests over others, result in a “least common 

denominator” decision that inadequately protects natural resources, or 

inappropriately transfer federal authority to local groups.

Experts View Collaboration 

as an Effective Approach for 

Improving Natural Resource 

Management

Experts view collaborative resource management as an effective approach 

for addressing natural resource problems compared with more traditional 

approaches, such as independent and uncoordinated decision making or 

litigation. They note, based on their research of many collaborative efforts, 

that collaborative resource management offers several benefits, including 

(1) reduced conflict and litigation; (2) better natural resource results; 

(3) shared ownership and authority; (4) increased trust, communication, 

and understanding among members of a group; and (5) increased 

community capacity, such as fostering the ability for community members 

to engage in respectful dialogue. In addition, experts say that effective 

collaboration can have different structures and processes, but use similar 

practices. 

According to the experts, collaboration can reduce conflict and litigation 

because it provides a way for people to become directly involved in 

resolving issues through face-to-face discussions and move beyond the 

impasse associated with more adversarial approaches. Experts say that the 

lawsuits, administrative appeals, and lobbying campaigns that have been 

associated with natural resource management in the past can be expensive 

and divisive and lead to delays in getting land management activities and 

projects accomplished. Such was the case in the Applegate watershed in 

northern California and southwestern Oregon in the early 1990s when years 

of adversarial conflict between environmentalists, the timber industry, and 

government agencies over forest management issues and litigation related 
Page 19 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

to these issues had resulted in policy gridlock, with neither side able to 

effectively achieve its goals. In this case and in many others cited by the 

experts, stakeholders were driven to try collaboration because they were 

frustrated with a lack of progress through other means. Through face-toface discussions, parties may be able to define solutions that meet their 

mutual interests and avert potentially costly litigation that requires winners 

and losers and, in some cases, results in delays. For example, according to 

one of the participants of the Blackfoot Challenge, one of the collaborative 

efforts we studied, the group was able to prevent litigation by an 

environmental group over water flows in the Blackfoot River in Montana by 

implementing conservation programs during drought that increased water 

levels in the river for fish. 

The experts noted that, in addition to reducing conflict, collaboration can 

lead to better natural resource results than traditional approaches. A 

collaborative process, with a range of stakeholders—from local citizens to 

agency technical specialists, and from environmentalists to industry 

representatives—incorporates a broad array of knowledge, which may 

include specialized local knowledge or technical expertise that would not 

be available to particular stakeholders or agencies if they were working 

alone. With input from a wide variety of stakeholders, collaborative efforts 

are often able to identify creative solutions to natural resource problems 

and make better, more-informed decisions about natural resource 

management. Because these decisions are made collaboratively and have 

concurrence from multiple affected stakeholders, solutions are frequently 

easier to implement with less opposition. A second collaborative effort we 

studied, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, started in 2006 to involve 

multiple stakeholders in developing and implementing solutions to 

conserve sagebrush habitat.

Another benefit noted by experts is that collaborative resource 

management creates shared ownership of natural resource problems 

among the stakeholders. The experts recognize that many of the nation’s 

natural resource problems that cross ownership boundaries are not 

amenable to traditional centralized government solutions through 

regulation and cannot be solved by single organizations. For example, 

problems such as the spread of invasive species, the decline of threatened 

and endangered species, the loss of open space from development and 

urban sprawl across agricultural landscapes, and non-point-source water 

pollution—pollution from diffuse sources—are just a few of the numerous 

challenges resulting from the independent actions of countless individuals. 

Collaborative efforts bring many of these individuals together, making 

Blackfoot Challenge

The Blackfoot Challenge collaborative effort 

was built around the 1.5 million acre 

Blackfoot River watershed in west-central 

Montana. The group, which formally joined 

together in 1993, is working to preserve 

wildlife habitat and maintain a rural way of 

life. 

This watershed has intermingled lands, 57 

percent of which are public lands, 27 percent 

are private lands, and 16 percent are owned 

by a timber company. To carry out their 

efforts, the members formed a nonprofit 

group that includes federal agencies, state 

and local agencies, and private landowners.

Sources: GAO presentation of Blackfoot Challenge data.
Page 20 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

progress toward resolving the problems possible. In addition, through 

collaboration, federal and state programs can be made locally relevant and 

decision making and progress are able to transcend political boundaries. 

Consequently, local stakeholders feel consulted and may view federal 

agencies as partners, and programs encourage joint stewardship of public 

lands.

Experts also noted that collaborative resource management can increase 

communication, trust, and understanding among different stakeholders. 

The collaborative process can bring together stakeholders with divergent 

interests who may have no prior direct experience working together or 

have an adversarial relationship. As they work together to address a 

particular common natural resource problem, these stakeholders often 

begin to develop trust and increase communication. Furthermore, through 

such communication, stakeholders can become more informed about each 

other and the natural resource problem and develop an enhanced 

understanding of its complexities. For example, environmental and 

industry groups with divergent opinions about natural resource use may be 

represented in a particular collaborative effort. Through working together 

in collaborative groups and opening lines of communication, these 

stakeholders may learn to appreciate each other’s perspective by focusing 

on interests that they have in common. Experts have noted examples in 

which environmentalists learned to appreciate ranchers’ needs to earn a 

living through grazing livestock, timber companies acknowledge the value 

of healthy ecosystems, and federal agency technical experts recognized the 

importance of using traditional knowledge in land management practices. 

One of the collaborative efforts we studied, the Eastern Upper Peninsula 

Partners in Ecosystem Management, has shared information to improve 

forested habitat, including on private timber lands. 

In addition to improving relationships within a collaborative group, experts 

identify collaboration more broadly as a means to increase the social 

capacity of a community. Increased community capacity can include 

developing networks between the public and private sectors and enhancing 

the public’s engagement in issues affecting the community. The experts 

note that through increasing community capacity, collaborative groups may 

enable the community to deal better with future problems that arise. 

Collaborative groups that are able to achieve these benefits can be 

organized differently and have different decision making and 

organizational processes, but use similar practices that distinguish them 

from more traditional groups and make their efforts more effective and 

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative

The Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative is a

collaborative group that began in 2006 to 

focus on enhancing the sagebrush range, 

which spans 11 western states. The 

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative 

incorporated into a nonprofit organization in 

2007. 

Participants in the effort include 

representatives from federal agencies such 

as BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, and Natural Resources

Conservation Service; nonprofit groups such 

as the Sand County Foundation and the 

North American Grouse Partnership; energy 

companies such as Encana Oil and Gas, 

Peabody Energy, and Shell Oil; and private 

landowners.

Sources: GAO analysis of U.S. Geological Survey data.
Page 21 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

potentially more successful. A collaborative group can be organized 

formally—such as a legislatively mandated advisory group or an 

incorporated nonprofit organization—or less formally, with loosely 

organized members and simple written agreements. Collaborative groups 

may also employ a variety of processes to manage their meetings and 

organizations and may strive to achieve different desired outcomes, such 

as sharing information on what each member is doing, partnering on 

particular management activities, or seeking agreement on how to manage 

natural resource problems. 

While group structure and process may differ, many experts identified 

collaborative practices that groups share and that can contribute to 

effective collaboration.10 The experts primarily identified the following 

practices through studying various existing collaborative resource 

management efforts: 

• Seek inclusive representation. Most of the experts who wrote about 

collaborative practices noted that all stakeholders—individuals and 

organizations whose interests are affected by the process or its 

outcome—should be included in the process by participating or being 

represented. One expert suggested that such stakeholders may include 

those affected by any sort of agreement that could be reached, those 

needed to successfully implement an agreement, and those who could 

undermine an agreement if not included in the process. Some experts 

added that participation should be voluntary.

• Develop a collaborative process. Many experts noted that a 

collaborative process should be designed by the participants to fit the 

needs and circumstances of their situation. Some experts recommended 

that groups employ the assistance of a neutral facilitator with 

experience in building collaborative processes. According to some 

experts, the process should include decision and process rules to govern 

how the group operates. For example, collaborative groups may use 

consensus to make decisions, described by several experts as a process 

in which discussion proceeds until all viewpoints are heard and the 

stakeholders, or most of the stakeholders, are willing to agree to a 

conclusion or course of action. When using consensus, some experts 

10These sources include our report: GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That 

Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners

in Ecosystem Management

The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in 

Ecosystem Management collaborative group 

formed in 1992 with the idea of managing 

neighboring lands in Michigan’s eastern 

Upper Peninsula in a complementary way by 

sharing information. 

The eastern Upper Peninsula includes

forests that have historically been managed 

for timber. The group focuses on about 4 

million acres that span the Hiawatha National 

Forest, the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, state 

land, and privately-owned land. The partners

include the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

The Nature Conservancy, and companies

owning private forest land.

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 22 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

note that a group should agree on what consensus means and what the 

responsibilities are for parties who disagree, such as providing an 

alternative. In addition to establishing decision rules, one expert noted 

that participants need to identify the roles and responsibilities for 

implementing an agreement and obtain commitment from the 

participants that an agreement will be implemented.

• Pursue flexibility, openness, and respect. According to many 

experts, flexibility, transparency, and respect should be built into the 

collaborative process. Flexibility is important in the process in order to 

accommodate changing timetables, issues, data needs, interests, and 

knowledge. Transparency and open communication are essential for 

maintaining trust and can be achieved through maintaining a written 

record of proceedings and decisions and ensuring that all parties have 

equal access to relevant information. Having a respectful process is also 

necessary to attain civil discourse in which participants listen to one 

another, take each participant’s perspectives seriously, and attempt to 

address the concerns of each participant. Building respect and openness 

involves accepting the diverse values, interests, and knowledge—

including local knowledge—of the parties involved.

• Find leadership. Several experts identified the need for collaborative 

groups to find a credible leader who is capable of articulating a strong 

vision. According to the experts, a leader should have good 

communication skills, be able to work on all sides of an issue, and 

ensure that the collaborative process established by the group is 

followed. Experts noted that neutral facilitators can also function as 

leaders for a group. In addition, experts said that it is important to build 

leadership skills within the organizations participating in a group so that 

these leaders can effectively represent the interests of their 

organizations.

• Identify or develop a common goal. Most of the experts who wrote 

about collaborative practices noted the importance of groups having 

clear goals. In a collaborative process, the participants may not have the 

same overall interests—in fact they may have conflicting interests. 

However, by establishing a goal based on what the group shares in 

common—a sense of place or community, mutual goals, or mutual 

fears—rather than on where there is disagreement among missions or 

philosophies, a collaborative group can shape its own vision and define 

its own purpose. When articulated and understood by the members of a 
Page 23 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to participate 

in the process.

• Develop a process for obtaining information. Some experts noted 

that effective collaborative processes incorporate high-quality 

information, including both scientific information and local knowledge, 

accessible to and understandable by all participants. As one expert 

noted, conflict over issues of fact is capable of incapacitating a 

collaborative process. Therefore, it is important to develop a common 

factual base, which can be accomplished by all participants jointly 

gathering and developing a common understanding of relevant data. 

This process allows the stakeholders to accept the facts themselves, 

rather than having the facts disseminated to them through experts.

• Leverage available resources. Many of the experts emphasized that 

collaboration can take time and resources in order to accomplish such 

activities as building trust among the participants, setting up the ground 

rules for the process, attending meetings, conducting project work, and 

monitoring and evaluating the results of work performed. Consequently, 

it is important for groups to ensure that they identify and leverage 

sufficient funding to get the group started and to accomplish the 

objectives. One expert noted that many collaborative groups are 

successful in attracting sufficient funding for restoration projects but 

have difficulty in securing funding for administration of the group. 

• Provide incentives. Some experts note that economic incentives can 

help collaborative efforts achieve their goals. For example, by 

purchasing conservation easements, a group can give landowners 

incentives to help achieve the goal of preserving open space. A 

conservation easement is a restriction placed on a parcel of land that 

limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place 

in order to protect the resources associated with the land. By 

purchasing easements and thus creating an incentive for a landowner to 

keep the land in its current land use, the groups are able to keep the land 

from being developed, preserving open space and providing other 

ecological benefits.

• Monitor results for accountability. According to many experts, to be 

effective, the participants in groups need to be accountable to their 

constituencies and to the process that they have established. In 

addition, organizations supporting the process expect accountability for 

the time, effort, money, or patience they invested in the group. As a 
Page 24 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

result, experts note the importance of designing protocols to monitor 

and evaluate progress toward a collaborative group’s goals, from both 

an environmental and a social perspective. Some experts recommend 

that collaborative groups use monitoring as a part of an adaptive 

management approach that involves modifying management strategies 

or project implementation based on the results of initial activities.

While experts noted that these practices are commonly shared by 

successful collaborative groups, one expert said that the use of the 

collaborative practices does not guarantee a group’s success. To measure 

whether groups are successful, experts noted that two criteria can be used: 

(1) whether the groups were able to increase participation and cooperation 

and (2) whether they improved natural resource conditions. The first 

criterion measures success based on organizational factors and social 

outcomes, such as improved relations and trust among stakeholders. In 

many instances, the groups studied by one expert identified factors such as 

improved communication and understanding as their greatest success. 

Factors used by some experts to evaluate success in this respect include 

the perceived effects of the collaborative effort in building relationships, 

the extent of agreement reached, and educating and outreaching to 

members of the community. The second criterion for success is based on 

whether groups have been able to improve natural resource conditions as 

measured by specific indicators, such as water quality, ecosystem health, or 

species recovery. Some experts note that to evaluate progress toward 

improving resource conditions, monitoring needs to be performed over a 

period long enough for change to occur and focus on indicators that are 

associated with a group’s natural resource goals. 

Many Experts Identified 

Limitations of Collaboration 

and a Few Raise Questions 

about Using It on Federally 

Managed Lands 

Although collaborative resource management is generally viewed by the 

experts as an effective approach for addressing natural resource problems, 

many experts discussed two limitations to its use. First, the process of 

collaboration, which involves bringing people together to work on a 

problem and moving the group forward to reach a decision, can be difficult 

and time-consuming, particularly in the initial stages when the group is 

getting started, and thus require large amounts of resources, including staff 

and money. Even after a group has been working together for a period of 

time, there may be inefficiencies with the process as new group members 

need to be brought up to speed. 

Second, collaboration does not always work in providing the solution to all 

natural resource problems. In some instances, for example when there are 
Page 25 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

irreconcilable differences among group members, agreement may not be 

possible. In other instances, one particular stakeholder may derail the 

process by refusing to cooperate. As a result, collaborative resource 

management is not applicable everywhere, and collaborative efforts may 

not be replicable. For example, collaboration may not work in a community 

deeply divided over a particular natural resource issue that has generated a 

long history of controversy and litigation even though a collaborative effort 

dealing with the same issue was successful in another community. 

Furthermore, some experts question whether collaborative resource 

management groups are equitable; have balanced power; produce solutions 

that are protective of the environment; and are accountable to the public, 

particularly in circumstances where federally managed lands are involved. 

A number of experts raised concern over the equity of collaboration, noting 

that it can remove discussions from the public arena and empower those 

who are involved in the group at the expense of those who cannot, or 

choose not to, participate even though they have a legitimate interest. By 

their nature, collaborative groups tend to be primarily made up of local 

stakeholders. Yet, others who may not live in the community but have an 

interest in the lands because they recreate there, use water originating 

there, or value endangered species living there are sometimes left out of 

the process because they are unaware it is occurring or do not have the 

means or the resources to participate. For example, national environmental 

organizations cannot always participate in local efforts because they may 

not have people at these locations or be able to bear the expense of 

traveling there. 

Some experts also question collaboration on the grounds that public 

processes may be co-opted by parties with particular interests who manage 

to control the agenda of the group. Many experts raising this question were 

concerned about local economic interests taking over a process and, 

because of their influence, overriding other interests. Yet, one expert noted 

concerns that the process could also be co-opted by environmental 

interests. Furthermore, some experts critical of collaborative resource 

management raised concerns about the efforts focusing on reaching a 

consensus decision. By trying to reach consensus, they argued, 

compromises are made that can result in a “least common denominator” 

solution, which some may view as less protective of the natural resources.

Finally, a few experts criticize collaborative efforts designed to make 

decisions about management activities on federal lands because they 

believe collaboration reduces federal agencies’ accountability to the 
Page 26 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

broader public. Specifically, some of these experts say that collaboration 

effectively transfers the authority to make land management decisions 

from the federal land management agencies to local citizens. Consequently, 

these experts argue that when collaborative groups make decisions related 

to federal land, the land and resource management agencies do not carry 

out their legal responsibilities to manage the public land and are not 

accountable to the public. 

In response to such questions raised about collaboration, other experts 

note that a well-designed and implemented collaborative process can avoid 

some of the outcomes with which the critics of collaboration are 

concerned. For example, a process that is inclusive will incorporate both 

local and national interests, and a process that uses the leadership of a 

neutral facilitator can help to ensure that all viewpoints are considered and 

prevent any one group from taking over the process. Furthermore, one 

expert notes that a well-designed collaborative process that includes 

debate over the facts of an issue can avoid a “least common denominator” 

solution. Finally, according to an expert, when participating in 

collaborative groups that are transparent, federal agencies can show that 

they are not improperly transferring authority to local communities.

Most Collaborative 

Efforts We Studied 

Reduced or Averted 

Resource Conflicts, 

Completed Projects, 

and Improved Natural 

Resource Conditions to 

an Extent That Could 

Not Be Determined

Overall, the collaborative resource management efforts that we studied 

were successful in achieving participation and cooperation among their 

members and sustaining or improving natural resource conditions, the two 

criteria the experts identified to gauge the success of collaborative groups. 

Six of the seven collaborative efforts we studied have reduced or averted 

the kinds of conflicts that often arise when dealing with contentious 

natural resource problems, particularly those that cross property 

boundaries, such as threatened and endangered species, lack of wildland 

fire, invasive species, degraded wildlife habitat, or similar problems. 

However, the extent of resource improvement across broader landscapes 

that the efforts were working in was difficult to determine because the 

landscape-level data needed to make such determinations were not always 

gathered. 
Page 27 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Most Collaborative 

Resource Management 

Efforts Reduced or Averted 

Conflicts through 

Cooperation among 

Participants 

The seven efforts we studied managed natural resource problems that can 

often cause conflict and controversy, and sometimes litigation. As shown in 

table 1, the natural resource problems undertaken by the seven efforts we 

studied ranged widely from fragmented riparian habitat for fish and lack of 

wildland fire in rangeland ecosystems to predator interactions with 

livestock, travel access in wilderness areas, and nature-related outdoor 

activities. 

Table 1: Natural Resource Problems and Common Interest Solutions of Seven Collaborative Resource Management Efforts

Collaborative resource 

management effort Natural resource problem Common interest solution 

Blackfoot Challenge • Runoff from sawmill into Blackfoot River

• Development of private ranches and timberland 

• Fragmented riparian habitat for fish 

• Grizzly bear and wolf interaction with livestock 

• Drought conditions 

• Negotiated to keep sawmill in business and to 

take measures to stop runoff.

• Purchased conservation easements to keep 

land open. Some are managed by state and 

federal agencies, some by The Nature 

Conservancy.

• Worked with Trout Unlimited to develop a 

watershed plan for restoring habitat and 

reconnecting tributaries across private land.

• Developed carcass removal program and 

fencing program for spring calving season.

• Wrote water-sharing plan for drought 

conditions.

Cooperative Sagebrush 

Initiative

• Managing sagebrush habitat for species at risk, 

including sage grouse

• Expanding the planning scale of sagebrush habitat 

conservation to address critical habitat areas of key 

species being affected by permitted development 

activities

• Developed conceptual plan for sagebrush 

restoration credits market. 

• Identified policy assurances that are needed for 

private landowners to provide habitat for 

potentially threatened and endangered 

species.

• Solicited pilot projects for restoration of 

sagebrush habitat. 

Eastern Upper Peninsula 

Partners in Ecosystem 

Management

• Sustainable ecological management at the landscape 

scale hindered by lack of cooperation across ownership 

boundaries

• Homogenous (same age and size) forest across 

landscape that does not provide for wildlife such as 

neotropical birds 

• Developed a common system to classify 

ecosystem forest types across the eastern 

Upper Peninsula.

• Shared information on ongoing work and 

projects. As members find common projects, 

they work on them together.
Page 28 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Source: GAO analysis.

a

BLM completed a travel management plan for the area in November 2007. 

Malpai Borderlands Group • Lack of wildland fire to regenerate grasslands 

• Effects of fire on threatened and endangered species 

• Development of open land 

• Potential overuse of range during drought 

• Threatened and endangered species habitat on private 

land

• Developed fire plans with federal agencies to 

allow wildland fire to be used to manage range 

vegetation.

• Resolved threatened and endangered species 

issues to allow several burns to occur. 

Developing habitat conservation plan to allow 

more burning and protection of species. 

• Purchased conservation easements to protect 

ranches from development.

• Developed a grassbank to allow ranchers to 

graze livestock during drought.

• Protected the habitat of threatened frogs 

through drought by trucking in water. Used safe 

harbor agreement with Fish and Wildlife 

Service to document habitat requirements on 

private and nonfederal land.

Onslow Bight Forum • Development of forest lands and wetlands 

• Lack of wildland fire to restore habitat and ecosystem 

processes 

• Increase in vehicle/wildlife accidents due to 

improvements and expansion of transportation system 

• Developed plan to identify key areas and 

habitats for acquisition, restoration, and 

protection. 

• Held workshops to discuss using wildland fire 

to manage native vegetative communities and 

to identify areas in which to use fire.

• Identified opportunities to use wildlife-friendly 

underpasses during construction of new or 

improved highways.

Steens Mountain 

Cooperative Management 

and Protection Area 

(CMPA) Advisory Council

• Multiple different management requirements in Steens 

Mountain CMPA, including travel access in wilderness 

areas 

• Juniper encroachment into sagebrush and grasslands 

• Provided input on a Cooperative Management 

Plan to BLM. The plan does not deal with travel 

access in the area.a 

• Provided recommendations for recreation and 

juniper management in the area.

Uncompahgre Plateau 

Project 

• Homogenous vegetation and lack of understory 

affecting habitat for mule deer and other species 

• Power transmission lines and public/private structures 

threatened by possible wildland fires

• Lack of native species for large-scale restoration, 

rehabilitation, and enhancement projects

• Invasive species alter ecology and crowd out native 

species 

• Assessed the condition of vegetation across 

the Plateau. Identified areas where vegetation 

could be treated and enhanced and the 

cumulative effects of such projects, which can 

be used to assess overall ecosystem 

conditions.

• Identified ways to incorporate vegetation 

treatments within areas such as utility 

corridors.

• Developed a program to gather and propagate 

native plants. Developed methods for 

propagation to transfer to nurseries.

• Developed a program to map, monitor, control, 

and prevent invasive species.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Collaborative resource 

management effort Natural resource problem Common interest solution 
Page 29 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Each of the natural resource problems the efforts managed, or are 

managing, involves many different interests that can potentially lead to 

conflict among the different members of the group. For example, in the 

Blackfoot Challenge case, federal agencies are required to protect 

threatened and endangered species such as the grizzly bear and the gray 

wolf, yet ranchers fear these large predators because of the harm they can 

cause to livestock. Or, in the Uncompahgre Plateau example, as a result of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, transmission line operators must ensure that 

their power lines remain reliable, which traditionally involved clear cutting 

the rights-of-ways involved, even on public lands. Meanwhile, natural 

resource managers seek to provide habitat for lynx and deer and to prevent 

large openings in the forest that may come with utility corridors. The 

natural resource problems and potential or actual conflicts managed by 

each of the groups are described in more detail in appendix II.

As table 1 shows, six of the seven efforts were able to identify solutions to 

their natural resource problems that met their common interests. For 

example, by developing the concept of a credit system, the Cooperative 

Sagebrush Initiative has identified a way to encourage—and pay for—

preservation and restoration of sagebrush habitat while also allowing for 

the development of sagebrush in areas that are economically or otherwise 

important. In another example, the Onslow Bight Forum identified lands 

that were important to preserve and restore as habitat for different species 

and purchased these from willing landowners. Because the groups can pool 

their funds, they are able to purchase more properties and more expensive 

properties, and by purchasing the land on the free market from willing 

owners, the group provides the landowners with the value of their property, 

thereby not harming their economic interests. While the seventh group—

the Steens Mountain Advisory Council—was able to provide advice on a 

cooperative management plan and vegetation treatment plans, it did not 

provide input on a travel management plan for the area, a key management 

issue.

All seven efforts we studied used several of the collaborative practices 

identified by the experts—such as seeking inclusive participation; using 

collaborative processes; pursuing flexibility, openness, and respect; and 

finding leadership—and six of the efforts were successful in reducing or 

averting conflicts. These six groups were able to cooperate and focus on 

their common interests and goals, despite different perspectives and 

interests among the members. In addition to identifying common goals, 

several of the successful efforts were able to use other practices, such as 

obtaining scientific and other information to inform their decisions, 
Page 30 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

leveraging funds, and providing incentives. The one effort that has been 

less successful in dealing with conflict used several of the collaborative 

practices, but does not have a common goal and does not have funding to 

gather information, leverage resources, or provide incentives. 

Seek Inclusive Participation. The seven groups each have members that 

have multiple different perspectives such as private landowners, 

conservation groups, natural resource land management agencies, and 

wildlife agencies. Most of the groups include representatives from federal 

agencies such as BLM, the Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and several include USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. All but one of the groups we studied were primarily organized 

around landowners and managers who can make decisions about their 

respective lands, including members of conservation-oriented groups such 

as The Nature Conservancy and local conservation groups such as the 

North Carolina Coastal Land Trust and North Carolina Coastal Federation. 

Two groups, the Blackfoot Challenge and the Malpai Borderlands Group, 

focus primarily on private lands and the surrounding public lands. On the 

other hand, the Uncompahgre Plateau, Onslow Bight Forum, and the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management include large 

areas of public lands, with the exception of lands owned by the land 

conservancy groups in North Carolina and several forest companies in 

Michigan. While the groups are open to other participants such as 

environmental groups, according to several participants, they may not seek 

them out or the environmental groups may not participate. All but one of 

the groups have self-selected membership, which means that they attract 

members who are interested in working on the problems identified by the 

group and are willing to find solutions to these problems, which may not be 

the case with certain organizations. Only one group, the Steens Mountain 

Advisory Council, is required by law to include certain members, including 

representatives of the ranching and environmental communities, including 

one local and one national representative from each. 

Develop a Collaborative Process. The seven groups we studied are 

organized differently but are each organized to collaborate. Three of the 

groups—the Blackfoot Challenge, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, 

and the Malpai Borderlands Group—have incorporated as nonprofit 

organizations, each with a board of directors, and one—the Uncompahgre 

Plateau Project—has a separate nonprofit financial management group. 

According to members of one group, being incorporated allows the group 

the autonomy to raise funds and complete management projects on its 

own, without relying on the federal or state agencies. Also, incorporating 

Steens Mountain Advisory Council

The Steens Mountain collaborative effort is

located in southeastern Oregon. The effort is

focused on about 496,000 acres of high 

desert mountain area that has great 

ecological diversity and varied wildlife. The 

primary resource concerns at Steens

Mountain include issues related to livestock 

grazing, wilderness, travel access, and 

management of junipers that have 

encroached into sagebrush and grassland 

areas. 

In 2000, the Steens Mountain Cooperative 

Management and Protection Act established 

the area and tasked the Steens Mountain 

Advisory Council with providing innovative 

and creative suggestions to the BLM on how 

to manage the natural resources on Steens

Mountain in a manner that would alleviate 

conflict. The Steens Mountain Advisory 

Council includes local ranchers, 

recreationists, and environmental 

representatives.

Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
Page 31 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

puts the groups on equal footing with the agencies as they identify projects 

with mutual benefits. Of the remaining three groups, two are less formally 

organized and one is more formally organized. The Onslow Bight Forum 

and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group function as information-sharing 

groups that allow the individual members to determine what actions they 

will take independently. The Onslow Bight Forum uses a memorandum of 

understanding to identify the role of each member and the group, while the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula group does not have any organization documents 

and operates informally. Finally, the last group—the Steens Mountain 

Advisory Committee—is a legislatively organized advisory group for BLM 

and has written protocols to describe its organization and processes. 

All but one of these groups uses a consensus process to make decisions. 

This process involves all participants, focuses on solutions, and proceeds 

until agreement is reached. For example, participants of one group, the 

Blackfoot Challenge, said that its members followed the 80-20 rule—they 

worked on 80 percent of the items they could agree on and left the 20 

percent they could not agree on at the door. The participants said that as 

they worked together longer, the 20 percent of items that cause 

disagreement have been reduced as well. Two groups—the Onslow Bight 

Forum and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group—do not make formal 

decisions, but use a consensus process in discussing and agreeing on a plan 

of action that members can decide to take or not. One group, the Steens 

Mountain Advisory Council, uses a voting process to make certain 

decisions rather than a consensus process. To make a recommendation to 

BLM, the advisory council is required to have 9 of its 12 members vote in 

favor of it. According to the members, unfilled positions and poor 

attendance at council meetings have made it difficult to achieve the 

number of votes needed to make recommendations to BLM. 

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect. All but one of the groups 

have flexible and open processes that allow the members to discuss their 

positions. Two of the groups—the Onslow Bight Forum and the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula group—would not likely exist without the openness that 

allowed the members to retain their own missions and land management 

goals rather than the group subsuming them. Several of the groups, such as 

the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, use Web sites and plans to communicate 

with each other and the community. On the other hand, the Steens 

Mountain Advisory Council is different from the other groups in that it was 

legislatively created, and the act that created both the Steens Mountain 

Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) and the council 

resulted from lengthy negotiations among several parties, some of whom 
Page 32 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

are, or have been, represented on the council. The group has used 

facilitators to overcome some of the conflict that developed through the 

negotiations, but some acknowledge that the council established by the act 

has not yet resolved key conflicts over management of the area. Yet, some 

of the members we interviewed were hopeful that a change in members 

that occurred recently might help to invigorate the group. 

Find Leadership. All of the groups have benefited from the availability of 

community leaders or agency employees who could lead the group. Several 

of the groups were started by local community leaders who energized and 

engaged others to work with them, although the federal agency staff were 

working alongside the community leaders to support the efforts. In 

particular, the Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands Group, and 

Uncompahgre Plateau projects were started and sustained by community 

leaders, but they recognize the important contribution of the federal 

agency employees who were involved as well. On the other hand, federal 

and state agency employees took the lead in starting the Eastern Upper 

Peninsula group and were also important in the Cooperative Sagebrush 

Initiative, and federal agency staff worked with staff from The Nature 

Conservancy to start the Onslow Bight Forum. One community leader on 

the Steens advisory council has attempted to focus the group on its role 

and keep it on track for making recommendations to BLM. 

Identify a Common Goal. Of the seven groups we studied, six identified 

and shared a common goal. For example, the Onslow Bight Forum brought 

together diverse members with similar interests in preserving open space 

and habitat—the U.S. Marine Corps has an interest in preserving open 

space around its installations for safety reasons and to help save 

endangered species, and land conservation groups seek to preserve habitat 

corridors and prevent development of the rural landscape. Similarly, the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula group focused on the need to facilitate 

complementary management of public and private lands, for all 

appropriate land uses, and to sustain and enhance representative 

ecosystems in the Eastern Upper Peninsula. On the other hand, the Steens 

Mountain Advisory Council does not share a common goal for management 

of the Steens Mountain area, with some members advocating motor vehicle 

access through wilderness areas for historical uses such as livestock 

grazing and others advocating for more wilderness areas to be set aside in 

the planning area and greater conservation requirements instituted in those 

wilderness areas already existing. The Steens Mountain act established a 

cooperative management area, the purpose of which is to conserve, 

protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain 

Onslow Bight Conservation Forum

The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum is a

collaborative group focused on the long-leaf 

pine forests, estuaries, wetlands, and 

pocosins (wetlands on a hill that form 

because of accumulated peat) in coastal 

North Carolina. The group formed in 2001 

around issues such as increasing 

development and its effects on wildlife 

habitat, particularly that of the endangered 

red-cockaded woodpecker, and water quality. 

The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum is an 

information-sharing partnership of federal 

and state agencies and nonprofit groups who 

have signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding to identify opportunities to 

work together to conserve the natural 

resources of the Onslow Bight landscape. 

The members include the Marine Corps, 

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 

The Nature Conservancy, the North Carolina

Coastal Federation, and the North Carolina

Coastal Land Trust.

Sources: GAO analysis of The Nature Conservancy data.
Page 33 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

for present and future generations. To further this purpose, the act directed 

BLM to manage the area to achieve five objectives.11 Several participants 

indicated that the issue will need to be litigated to clarify the act’s 

requirements.

Develop a Process for Obtaining Common Information. Each of the 

seven collaborative groups has established a group or process to jointly 

develop and use scientific information as part of their decision making, 

although some groups have done so more than others. For example, the 

Malpai Borderlands Group has a scientific advisory board to develop 

research projects on fire to support the group’s efforts to restore fire, 

which had been suppressed for decades, to the ecosystem to help restore 

healthy grasslands. It also holds annual science conferences to bring 

together the relevant scientific findings on rangelands, fire, threatened and 

endangered species, and other issues. The group also works with USDA, 

Forest Service, and university researchers on vegetation and fire studies. 

On the other hand, rather than develop its own scientific information, the 

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative relied on data produced by the U.S. 

Geological Survey on sagebrush habitat and studies completed by the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to assess the status of 

sage grouse and the sagebrush ecosystem in the 11 western states involved. 

Several groups developed landscape maps to show different information. 

For example, the Onslow Bight Forum used habitat and biological 

information, and other information, to develop a landscape map of the key 

areas for habitat and preservation purposes. Finally, some groups, such as 

the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, reported that using scientific 

information, including field trips to demonstrate effects of their 

management activities, helped them to communicate their efforts to 

outside parties who may have otherwise been critical. 

Leverage Available Resources. Five of the groups have been able to 

generate funding from various sources, such as federal and private 

11The five objectives are: (1) maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative management 

projects, programs, and agreements between tribal, public, and private interests in the 

CMPA; (2) promote grazing, recreation, historic, and other uses that are sustainable; 

(3) conserve, protect, and ensure traditional access to cultural, gathering, religious, and 

archaeological sites by the Burns Paiute Tribe on federal lands and to promote cooperation 

with private landowners; (4) ensure the conservation, protection, and improved 

management of the ecological, social, and economic environment of the CMPA, including 

geological, biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic resources; and (5) promote and foster 

cooperation, communication, and understanding and to reduce conflict between Steens 

Mountain users and interests.

Uncompahgre Plateau Project

The Uncompahgre Plateau Project 

collaborative group is located in 

southwestern Colorado. The group focuses

its efforts on the Uncompahgre Plateau, 

which spans 1.5 million acres, 75 percent of 

which is public land. The plateau is home to 

abundant wildlife species, including 

populations of mule deer. The group formed 

in 2001 to protect and restore the ecosystem 

health of the plateau. In addition, key 

electrical transmission lines that connect the 

eastern and western United States cross the 

plateau, creating the need for vegetation 

management near these lines. 

The partners in the Uncompahgre Plateau

Project include the Forest Service, BLM, 

Public Lands Partnership, Colorado Division 

of Widlife, Western Area Power 

Administration, and Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association, Inc. The partners

signed a Memorandum of Understanding and 

established an Executive Committee to guide 

its overall direction; a Technical Committee 

and contract employees, to carry out its

activities; and a nonprofit organization to 

handle its finances.

Sources: GAO presentation of Uncompahgre

Plateau Project data.
Page 34 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

foundation grants, and to use these funds in conjunction with federal 

partners’ funding to leverage the amount of work that could be done by the 

group. For example, the Blackfoot Challenge recently received an Ash 

Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation12 award of $100,000, 

the Uncompahgre Plateau Project received $500,000 from the state of 

Colorado and $620,000 from the Ford Foundation,13 and the Malpai 

Borderlands Group received $8.5 million from its different fundraising 

efforts. According to the Onslow Bight Forum, its members have raised as 

much as $75 million since 2001 from state and federal funds to acquire land, 

a process helped by the existence of the forum. On the other hand, the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula project and the Steens Mountain Advisory 

Council do not generate funding. The Eastern Upper Peninsula project 

members said they did not intend to raise funds because they did not intend 

to conduct joint projects, and the Steens group is not organized to raise 

funds. The federal legislation that created the Steens Mountain Advisory 

Council authorized $25 million to be appropriated to BLM to work with 

local ranchers, landowners, and others to conduct work in the cooperative 

management area; however, these funds have not been provided. Some 

members said that, if provided, these funds could be used to pursue 

activities such as purchasing private inholdings, which are privately owned 

lands within the boundary of a national park, forest, or other land 

management unit. 

Provide Incentives. Several of the groups we studied that have dealt 

successfully with conflict used different types of incentives to gain 

cooperation and participation. Such incentives include conservation 

easements, payments for projects or damages caused by wildlife, and 

different agreements related to threatened and endangered species. The 

Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands Group, and Eastern Upper 

Peninsula project have arranged, or helped arrange, conservation 

easements to protect either rangeland or forested land that could have 

been developed for housing, otherwise. The Malpai group also used 

another type of payment to help reduce conflict over livestock losses 

caused by predators, supporting a predation fund to pay ranchers when it 

can be proved a predator—the jaguar in New Mexico and Arizona—has 

killed livestock. 

12This is part of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

13The Ford Foundation grant was to the Public Lands Partnership, which funded the 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project from that amount.

Malpai Borderlands Group

The Malpai Borderlands Group collaborative 

effort is located on the border with Mexico in 

southern New Mexico and Arizona. The 

group formed a nonprofit organization in 

1994 to work on restoring the natural fire 

regime, preserve large open space, and 

maintain a rural lifestyle in the approximately 

800,000 acres of desert grassland region that 

includes a mix of federal, state, and private 

land. 

The Malpai Borderlands Group was initiated 

by a group of ranchers and environmentalists. 

Federal agencies, including the Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service; 

Arizona and New Mexico state agencies; and 

conservation groups, such as The Nature 

Conservancy, have played a role in the 

group’s efforts.

Sources: GAO analysis of Malpai Borderlands Group data.
Page 35 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

A third type of incentive, safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation 

plans, has been used by the Malpai Borderlands Group. Safe harbor 

agreements seek to assure landowners that if they restore or enhance 

habitat, they will not incur new restrictions if their actions result in a 

threatened or endangered species taking up residence. In order to obtain a 

permit to take a species incidental to lawful land management activities, a 

landowner must complete a habitat conservation plan, which specifies 

measures the landowner will undertake to minimize and mitigate the effect 

on the species. These agreements encourage private landowners to 

conduct projects that will protect species on their property, while also 

protecting their use of the land should they “take” one of the species—

either by killing it or degrading its habitat. According to one group these 

agreements can be complex and time-consuming to arrange, and thus, it 

may be more efficient for the group to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service through the process than for each individual landowner. In addition 

to these types of arrangements, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative wants 

to develop a related incentive, a conservation credit bank in which one 

party would pay to protect sagebrush habitat, or conduct restoration of 

habitat, and another party would purchase credits to develop land that 

would degrade sagebrush habitat or kill a species. The group is still 

considering how to measure the conservation value of different sagebrush 

species and habitat they provide and how to monitor those values. 

Collaborative Efforts Have 

Improved Natural Resource 

Conditions, but Determining 

the Extent of Improvement 

Was Difficult Because of 

Limited Landscape Data

Through cooperating, five of the seven efforts we studied have 

accomplished multiple management activities and projects that have 

helped sustain or improve natural resource conditions in their areas. 

Officials of the five efforts that have completed resource management 

projects to date said that this work had improved resource conditions and 

helped to accomplish the goals the groups hoped to achieve. The 

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative has not yet accomplished its work, as it 

started in September 2006 and is just developing demonstration projects. 

And, although the Steens Mountain Advisory Council has helped BLM to 

develop a management plan for the Steens Mountain CMPA, it did not deal 

with the most contentious issues that relate to travel access, wilderness 

areas, and wilderness study areas in the plan issued in November 2007. 

Table 2 shows the work accomplished by the different efforts that we 

studied.
Page 36 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Table 2: Natural Resource Accomplishments, Improvements, and Monitoring by Seven Collaborative Resource Management 

Efforts

Collaborative resource 

management effort Work accomplished

Improved natural resource 

conditions Monitoring conducted

Blackfoot Challenge 90,000 acres of easements 

acquired 

38 miles on 39 tributaries 

restored and 62 miles of 

riparian habitat restored; fish 

populations increasing

Carcass removal program—

340 carcasses removed in 

2005; fencing for spring 

calving

75 irrigators involved and 60 

cubic feet per second of 

water saved in 2005

• Prevent development of private 

ranches and timberland, maintain 

open space

• Protect riparian habitat, including for 

endangered bull trout

• Limit grizzly bear and wolf conflicts 

with livestock 

• Conserve water particularly during 

drought conditions

Site-specific:

Monitoring of riparian projects

Landscape-level:

Fish population monitoring in 

Blackfoot River

Water quality and quantity

Cooperative Sagebrush 

Initiative

Three ecosystem-scale, 

integrated projects in 

development in four states, 

1 million acres of sagebrush 

habitat involved 

• Demonstrate ability to manage 

sagebrush habitat at a large scale 

for species at risk, including sage 

grouse 

None yet

Eastern Upper Peninsula 

Partners in Ecosystem 

Management

Land-type associations 

created

Fostered communication 

among National Park 

Service, state, and private 

timber company about 

timber management in buffer 

zone 

Conflict over road across 

land owned by The Nature 

Conservancy resolved

Joint cross-country ski trail 

developed across lands with 

different ownership

• Create single land-type 

classification for all lands to facilitate 

complementary management

• Cooperatively manage National 

Park Service buffer zone including 

timber harvests

• Maintain and manage public and 

private forests in a complementary 

way

• Develop joint projects

None as a group, agency 

monitoring of various projects, 

species, and habitat conditions 

as appropriate
Page 37 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Malpai Borderlands Group 69,000 acres of land burned 

Conservation easements 

protecting 77,000 acres

Grassbank created, allows 

ranchers to move their cattle 

during drought to lessaffected area

Chiracahua leopard frog 

habitat protected on private 

land

In 2007, paid $500 to 

rancher to compensate for 

jaguar predation

• Reintroduce wildland fire to 

grasslands

• Prevent development of private 

ranches, maintain open space

• Protect lands and financial stability 

of ranchers

• Protect habitat for endangered 

species

Site-specific:

290 transects (a sample path) 

to monitor condition of range in 

that area

Research project monitoring

Species counts before and 

after projects (such as fires)

Onslow Bight Forum 57,000 acres of wetlands 

and other lands acquired, 

restoration underway

60,000 acres burned (some 

as part of regular agency 

programs)

• Acquire lands, protect habitat for 

endangered species

• Acquire lands, prevent loss of open 

space and restore habitat

• Manage wildland fire to restore 

habitat and ecosystem processes

• Use habitat corridors and wildlifefriendly highway underpasses to 

protect bears and other species

None as a group, agencies 

monitor projects, species, and 

habitat conditions as appropriate

Steens Mountain CMPA 

Advisory Council

Management plan 

completed, travel plan 

completed in November 

2007

Juniper management area 

with numerous test plots to 

demonstrate different ways 

to remove large trees to 

enable fire to move more 

naturally through thick 

juniper stands

• Advise on management plan for 

CMPA

• Advise on cooperative management 

activities in CMPA

• Advise on treating juniper 

encroachment 

Monitoring plan for CMPA 

developed by BLM with review 

and feedback from the Council

(Continued From Previous Page)

Collaborative resource 

management effort Work accomplished

Improved natural resource 

conditions Monitoring conducted
Page 38 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Source: GAO analysis.

As shown in table 2, the efforts’ accomplishments ranged widely, from 

developing joint plans and scientific information, to changing vegetation 

conditions and managing species habitat. For example, some of the groups 

developed landscape maps of vegetation and potential habitat that 

integrated information for each of the members in the group. The groups 

also accomplished numerous activities to keep landscapes open and usable 

for natural resource purposes, such as grazing or timber harvesting. At the 

same time, the groups worked on several projects to help conserve 

threatened and endangered species habitat. The two efforts that have not 

completed projects—the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative and the Steens 

Mountain Advisory Council—have not moved beyond planning work. 

As shown in table 2, three of the groups—the Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai 

Borderlands Group, and Uncompahgre Plateau Project—have employed 

monitoring programs that demonstrate the effect of their activities on sitelevel natural resource conditions. Monitoring environmental or natural 

resource characteristics is typically conducted at the site level—the area 

involved in a management activity, such as a vegetation treatment—to 

determine what effect the management activity has, or at the landscape 

level—a broad area—to determine the overall conditions across that area. 

Monitoring can also be conducted over time to indicate the trend in 

conditions at a site or landscape. Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, one of the partners involved in the Blackfoot Challenge, 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project Integrated GIS maps and 

developed plan and projects 

for two entire watersheds, 

including BLM and Forest 

Service land

Treated 50,000 acres of 

agency land

Gathered native seeds for 

more than 50 plants and 

developed methods for 

propagating these

Treated invasive species on 

more than 100,000 acres

• Restore wildlife habitat on the 

Plateau

• Reduce vegetation to reduce fire 

threats

• Develop native seed program to 

provide vegetation conditioned to 

the area 

• Reduce invasive species on public 

and private lands

Site-level: 

Condition of vegetation in 

project areas after treatment

Landscape-level:

Location of vegetation 

treatments and burns to show 

overall openings and continuity 

of trees and vegetation

(Continued From Previous Page)

Collaborative resource 

management effort Work accomplished

Improved natural resource 

conditions Monitoring conducted
Page 39 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

conducts fish surveys in the Blackfoot River to determine how populations 

are faring. This work measures the benefits provided by the group’s 

riparian projects for fish populations, including endangered bull trout. The 

Malpai Borderlands Group conducts range monitoring on 290 sites in its 

area and conducts monitoring of some species to determine how they have 

been affected by group projects. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project maps 

its vegetation treatments and fires, and thus shows areas of different 

vegetation ages, types, and the habitat it provides across the broad area 

managed by several agencies. Because the agencies’ mapping data are not 

compatible, however, staff said that they had to develop ways to merge the 

data, which was is time-consuming and expensive. Through January 2008, 

the agencies, with the help of the group, had pulled together data for two 

large watersheds and had begun working on two more. The other groups 

do not conduct monitoring as a group, although the resource management 

agencies do track resources in some cases. 

Two of the seven groups—Blackfoot Challenge and the Uncompahgre 

Plateau Project—monitor the results of some of their projects across the 

larger landscape to determine the effect of their work across the broad 

landscapes that they are trying to affect; however, the other groups do not 

conduct landscape monitoring. According to two groups, they are not able 

to monitor across a larger area for two primary reasons. First, according to 

participants, it is time-consuming and expensive to monitor multiple sites 

regularly across a large area, and this is what is necessary to understand 

the effects of multiple projects in that large landscape. For example, even 

though the Malpai Borderlands Group monitors 290 sites for the effects of 

grazing, climate, and other factors on the condition of the grasslands that 

are useful for assessing the condition of that pasture or smaller area, 

according to the group’s scientists, the group does not collect comparable 

data across different pastures or smaller areas that allow comparison 

across the broader landscape. Data must be collected at a different, 

broader scale and need to be collected consistently at specified locations to 

determine the condition of the hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland 

that the group is helping to manage. Currently, the group and its scientific 

advisory board are considering what data to collect. 

The second reason that the groups do not collect data is that they either 

have not agreed to collect such data or they have not agreed on the work 

that they will conduct and monitor. Two groups—the Onslow Bight Forum 

and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group—do not monitor because both of 

these groups organized to share information, not to develop joint projects 

and monitoring. According to some Onslow Bight members, it would be 
Page 40 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

useful to track the results that individual members have accomplished with 

the group’s information, but the group has not decided to do this jointly or 

to dedicate the resources to it. According to the members of the Eastern 

Upper Peninsula group, their purpose has never been to jointly manage 

projects and therefore there is no need to monitor results. The group’s 

purpose is to share information about natural resource problems, such as 

invasive species, and effective ways to treat them, without requiring the 

participants to work together. The group gives members a place to find 

common problems with other agencies and then each agency or participant 

can conduct its work and monitor results accordingly. 

Finally, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative and the Steens Mountain 

Advisory Council do not conduct any monitoring because the groups are 

just beginning projects that warrant monitoring. The Cooperative 

Sagebrush Initiative recognizes the need for monitoring and has considered 

including the cost of monitoring in each project to ensure that it is 

conducted, but the group has not yet conducted any projects, nor have they 

conducted pilot projects to ensure that they can correctly measure the 

benefits achieved by restoration projects. At Steens Mountain, BLM has 

drafted an overall monitoring plan for the Steens Mountain area that may 

serve to monitor work accomplished. However, BLM has not yet conducted 

some of the key work identified as needed by the Advisory Council because 

the agency is still conducting studies to determine how to best clear juniper 

in wilderness areas and wilderness study areas because mechanical tools—

the method that has been proven effective for removing large juniper 

trees—cannot be used to cut down trees prior to burning. 

Cooperative 

Conservation Policies 

and Actions Address 

Some of the Challenges 

Faced by Federal 

Agencies Participating 

in Collaborative 

Efforts, but 

Opportunities Exist for 

Further Action 

Federal land and resource management agencies face several challenges to 

participating in collaborative resource management efforts, according to 

the experts, federal officials, and participants in collaborative efforts we 

interviewed. Key challenges that the agencies face include improving 

federal employees’ collaborative skills and working within the framework 

of existing laws and policies. The 2004 Executive Order and 2005 White 

House Conference on Cooperative Conservation set in motion an 

interagency initiative, including a senior policy group, an executive task 

force, and working groups, to develop policies and take actions that 

support collaborative efforts and partnerships. The policies and actions 

taken as part of the initiative have made progress in addressing the 

challenges agencies face. However, additional opportunities exist to 

develop tools, examples, and guidance that would strengthen federal 
Page 41 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

participation in collaborative efforts and better structure and direct the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative to achieve its vision. 

Federal Land and Resource 

Management Agencies Face 

Several Challenges to Their 

Participation in 

Collaborative Resource 

Management Efforts

As the federal land and resource management agencies work to collaborate 

with state, local, private, and tribal entities, they face several challenges. 

The key challenges identified by experts, federal officials, and participants 

in collaborative efforts we interviewed include (1) improving federal 

employees’ collaborative skills; (2) determining whether to participate in a 

particular collaborative effort; (3) sustaining federal employees’ 

participation over time; (4) measuring participation and monitoring results 

to ensure accountability; (5) sharing agency and group experiences with 

collaboration; and (6) working within the framework of federal statutes 

and agency policies to support collaboration. 

Improving Federal Employees’ 

Collaborative Skills

The first challenge agencies face involves improving their employees’ skills 

in collaboration, as well as increasing their use. Such skills include 

improving communication, identifying and involving relevant stakeholders, 

conducting meetings, resolving disputes, and sharing technical information 

and making it accessible. Federal participants and others we interviewed 

indicated that federal employees are often technical experts and improving 

their collaborative skills may enable them to work more effectively with a 

collaborative group. They indicated that such skills are important to work 

effectively with neighboring landowners and community members who are 

interested in the projects and lands. Many participants emphasized that 

hiring new people with collaborative skills is one way to improve the level 

of collaboration by federal agencies and also said that training in 

collaboration for employees is important to improve skills. Some federal 

agency officials said that hands-on training in collaborative efforts, 

involving participants from other groups, is most helpful.

Furthermore, to encourage the use of collaboration by federal employees, 

several participants we interviewed said that management should support 

field staff in their collaborative efforts. For example, one participant stated 

that management needs to identify those employees with collaborative 

skills and assign them according to these skills. Some participants said that 

senior employees may be better at collaboration because they have 

developed a relationship with the group or are more comfortable in 

interpreting laws and policy to apply in specific situations that might arise. 

Others said that new employees have enthusiasm and only need to be 

shown how they can best work with groups. Several participants said that 

federal agencies need to allow their staff to become acquainted with a 
Page 42 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

community to work better with local groups, and others said that providing 

flexibility for the employees to work with the groups is needed. Finally, one 

participant we interviewed said that collaborative efforts will fail if federal 

management officials reverse the decisions made by the federal 

representatives working with a collaborative group because the group will 

no longer trust the federal agencies to do what they have agreed on. 

Determining Whether to 

Participate in a Particular 

Collaborative Effort

A second challenge agencies face in working with collaborative groups is 

determining whether or not to participate in a particular group. 

Collaborative efforts are commonly started by concerned citizens 

interested in the management of their public lands and, as a result, the 

federal agencies can choose whether to be involved and what role to play. 

If they make an uninformed choice, they risk becoming involved in a group 

that might take great effort and expend considerable staff resources with 

few results. Various external factors affect a collaborative group’s ability to 

cooperate and succeed, including a community’s collaborative capacity and 

the amount of controversy involved. If federal agencies do not understand 

these contributing factors, as well as the nature of the controversy related 

to a problem, federal staff may become involved in a collaborative effort 

that has little chance of working, potentially leading to increased conflict 

and costs.

Part of determining whether to be involved is what role the agencies can 

play. Participants we interviewed indicated that it is important for federal 

agencies to be involved in collaborative efforts because they are such large 

landowners, and, in many areas, natural resource problems cross their 

boundaries onto other lands. However, several participants—including 

federal agency officials—indicated that the agencies should “lead from 

behind,” letting the group take a lead in determining what work can be 

done. One participant said that by doing this, the community works out 

their issues and comes to a common understanding among themselves—

without the agency staff brokering the discussion. In such cases, the 

agencies can help the groups by providing planning assistance, technical 

information, funding, and even administrative support. In other cases, the 

federal agencies may want to use a collaborative group to provide input on 

a management plan or project, and in these cases, the agencies need to 

determine which groups to involve and what their particular natural 

resource management concerns are. Regardless of the federal role in 

collaboration, experts and participants emphasized the need for federal 

agencies to clarify how a group’s agreed-upon ideas could affect decisions 

about federal land. 
Page 43 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Sustaining Federal Participation 

over Time 

Once federal staff have become involved in a collaborative effort, a third 

challenge becomes sustaining employees’ participation over time. This is 

particularly important because of limited resources available in the field 

offices and the staff’s limited ability to participate while also conducting 

their work for the agency. Experts and participants we interviewed said 

that, to be effective, federal participation should be consistent and ongoing 

throughout the collaboration, which can be for many years. For example, 

participants of the Blackfoot Challenge and the Malpai Borderlands Group 

indicated that their groups had benefited from agency staff acting as 

liaisons to the groups for several years. These groups were highly 

organized in their efforts and worked with agency officials to create these 

relationships. However, at many of the field offices we visited, federal 

agencies were experiencing staffing limitations that made their work with 

existing collaborative efforts more difficult and limited. In particular, the 

federal agencies’ field offices had experienced recent downsizing in the last 

several years and were one or two people below their normal staffing 

levels. As a result, the remaining staff members were spread thinly across 

existing programs to accomplish their work and achieve targets set by the 

agencies. According to the officials, these federal employees sometimes 

continued to participate in collaborative efforts but devoted less time and 

attention to them. For example, in North Carolina, federal officials for the 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge, and Forest 

Service had been involved in the Onslow Bight Forum efforts to map key 

habitat, but as their biologists left the agencies, the agencies became less 

involved and attended fewer meetings. 

Another issue related to staffing and federal agency support of 

collaborative efforts is the agencies’ practice of transferring people 

frequently from one field location to another. Participants said that 

longevity and a “sense of place”—or commitment to an area—is important 

for collaborating with groups whose participants may have been in an area 

for generations. A few participants thought that changing staff helped to 

bring in new people with energy and new ideas, but, according to several 

other participants, moving staff frequently creates a gap in the support for a 

group, which may hinder progress if a federal participant for a project 

moves at the wrong time. Some participants thought that the transition 

between outgoing and new federal staff could be eased by the outgoing 

staff member writing a memo to describe all the relevant details of the 

group, its members, its issues, and its projects, among other things, but 

others thought that it would be better to rely on the other staff in the office 

or group members for knowledge about the group, community, and other 

factors that would affect the agency’s participation. 
Page 44 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Measuring Participation and 

Monitoring Results to Ensure 

Accountability

Once a collaborative effort has begun, an important challenge faced by 

federal agencies and the members of the group is measuring participation 

and monitoring the results of the efforts. Measurement and monitoring 

allow members, both federal and nonfederal, to be accountable to each 

other and to the public. In the case of the federal agencies, measuring 

participation and monitoring results help show how an agency’s 

participation in a group has helped to achieve some important resource 

management goal for the agency. According to federal officials we 

interviewed, agencies will be involved in collaborative efforts to the extent 

that the group can help them achieve federal land management goals and 

targets for work they are required to do. However, according to experts, 

federal officials, and participants, it is difficult to measure the results of 

collaboration because there is no direct measure or “widget” produced 

from participating or collaboration. For example, according to one 

participant, counting the number of meetings held does not measure 

collaboration, and, in fact, the number of meetings needed for a well-run 

group may decrease over time. Participants also said that it may take a few 

years to build a group and relationships before any work is accomplished, 

which may not fit with agency performance targets that are set annually. 

Moreover, experts said that monitoring the natural resources results of 

collaborative management is also difficult because of the long-term nature 

of ecological change. For example, it can take several years before the 

results of a management project can be seen or measured; at the same time, 

natural fluctuation in drought, vegetation, and species can mask the effects 

of management actions. To counter these difficulties, according to some 

participants we interviewed, groups need to have an overall plan for the 

improvements in natural resources they are working to achieve and 

monitor according to those goals. Even then, as the examples we studied 

show, collaborative groups have a difficult time monitoring because of the 

time and cost involved. 

Sharing Agency and Group 

Experiences with Collaboration

A fifth challenge that the federal agencies face in participating in 

collaborative efforts involves sharing agency and group experiences with 

collaboration. By their nature, collaborative groups are decentralized and 

localized, with their members focused on the group’s management plans 

and activities. According to experts and participants, these groups are each 

unique in their makeup, organization, circumstances, and abilities, yet can 

experience similar problems working together and with federal agencies. 

Some participants who had been involved in the White House Conference 

on Cooperative Conservation and other conferences stated that such 

forums are useful for giving groups the opportunity to share practical 
Page 45 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

experiences of working together and with federal agencies. The types of 

lessons include the fact that groups can benefit from paid staff, even parttime, or a director to keep the group organized between meetings. 

Working within the Framework 

of Federal Statutes and Agency 

Policies to Support 

Collaboration

Finally, agencies face the challenge of collaborating within the existing 

framework of federal statutes and agency policies that establish a 

management culture within each agency. In addition to the framework of 

natural resources and environmental laws and policies described above, 

agencies have a set of laws and policies for working with nonfederal 

entities or groups, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act, policies 

on ethics related to working with groups, and financial assistance 

requirements. Some experts and participants in collaborative groups 

identified aspects of federal laws and agency policies as being inconsistent 

with collaboration. However, aspects of the policies reflect processes 

established to support good government practices such as transparency 

and accountability. The federal agencies have not, in all cases, evaluated 

the laws and policies involved to determine how best to balance 

collaboration with the need to maintain good government practices. A 

short description of these laws and policies follows.

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Some experts and collaborative 

groups assert that the Federal Advisory Committee Act inhibits 

collaborative management by imposing several requirements on interaction 

between federal and nonfederal participants. For example, the act requires 

that all committees have a charter, and that each charter contain specific 

information, including the committee’s scope and objectives, a description 

of duties, the period of time necessary to carry out its purposes, the 

estimated operating costs, and the number and frequency of meetings. The 

act generally requires that agencies announce committee meetings ahead 

of time and give notice to interested parties about such meetings. With 

some exceptions, the meetings are to be open to the public, and agencies 

are to prepare meeting minutes and make them available to interested 

parties.14 By making the process bureaucratic, some experts and others say 

that the act limits groups’ abilities to work together spontaneously to solve 

problems or get work done. USDA officials indicated that they have a 

14Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972 in response to two principal 

concerns: (1) federal advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review, 

oversight, or accountability and (2) certain special interests had too much influence over 

federal agency decision makers. The act generally applies to committees established or used 

by federal agencies for the purpose of obtaining advice or recommendations. 
Page 46 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

budget limit on what they can spend on groups working under the act. 

Some participants of collaborative groups we interviewed said that the fact 

that the act’s requirements do not apply to privately led efforts is one 

reason for communities to lead collaborative efforts with assistance from 

federal agencies. Other participants said that the act’s requirements caused 

their groups to focus their goals solely on information sharing, because the 

group’s purpose would not be to offer advice regarding agency decisions, 

and therefore the group would not be subject to the act. 

Ethics rule: USDA and Interior implement federal ethics’ rules on federal 

employees’ participation on the board of directors of an outside 

organization differently, resulting in their staff members participating in 

different capacities on a group’s nonprofit board. The ethics rules generally 

prevent a federal employee from serving as a board member while serving 

in an official capacity for the federal agency because of concerns over 

conflicts of interest. Waivers may be granted under limited circumstances; 

however, according to USDA and Interior officials, USDA rarely grants 

waivers, while Interior has granted some waivers. As a result of different 

implementation of the rule, in the Blackfoot Challenge case, a Forest 

Service member serves as a nonvoting board member, while BLM and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service members serve as voting members. Several 

of the participants of the group expressed confusion and some distrust 

over the different federal agency interpretations, saying that they raised 

some questions about the Forest Service’s commitment to participate. 

Other groups that form nonprofit boards may face this same inconsistency. 

Financial requirements: Some groups receive federal grants or 

cooperative agreements that enable them to conduct activities that provide 

for a public purpose. Nonfederal participants in collaborative efforts 

identified federal agency financial procedures for these grants and 

cooperative agreements that make it difficult for them to work 

collaboratively with the agencies. For example, some grants require that 

any interest earned be returned to the federal government, others require 

the group to raise funds to meet a share of costs, or others do not allow the 

group to be paid up front, which is difficult for small organizations without 

much funding. In addition, several participants indicated that it is difficult 

to pull together funding over the long term from the numerous sources 

available—foundations, agencies, and fundraising activities—and that this 

is an ongoing struggle for groups. However, because federal agencies need 

to seek competing offers or applications for many types of grants and 

agreements, the agencies may not be able to provide stable funding to 

groups for very long. For example, the participants of one group we 
Page 47 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

interviewed recently learned that they would have to compete with others 

to renew their agreement, even though the group has ongoing management 

plans and projects with BLM and other agencies to provide long-term 

vegetation management across the agencies’ lands. The result of this action 

is that the group was uncertain if they would be able to carry out these 

long-term plans and projects because they rely on this stream of funding to 

pay for part-time staff to organize the group and provide support for 

planning projects and reporting the results. 

One specific type of funding agreement that can help make collaboration 

work, identified by some federal officials we interviewed, is the watershed 

restoration and enhancement agreement. Under this authority the Forest 

Service can use appropriated funds to enter into agreements with other 

federal agencies; states, tribal, and local governments; or private entities to 

protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and other resources 

on public or private land. However, the authority that allows this for the 

Forest Service—the Wyden Amendment—is set to expire in 2011.15 In 

addition, Interior officials stated that they do not have general authority to 

use their funds to restore or enhance resources on nonfederal land; 

however, they indicated that BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the National Park Service can fund projects on nonfederal land related to 

reducing the risk of damage from wildland fire. The agency officials that 

discussed these funding sources said that the ability to spend some of their 

funds on nonfederal lands enhances—or would enhance—their ability to 

work with partners in the community. 

Endangered Species Act requirements for listing species:

Participants in the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative identified several 

aspects of the Endangered Species Act that make collaboration difficult for 

them. They have identified and proposed areas where they believe 

Endangered Species Act policies could be made more consistent with their 

collaborative effort. In particular, the group is planning to conduct 

restoration projects for sagebrush habitat, but, according to one 

participant, these restoration projects are scrutinized as much as a 

destructive project is in terms of the effect the project may have on a 

potentially endangered species such as the sage grouse. The group has 

proposed to Interior that the policy for listing species as endangered—the 

Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts—would apply to their 

15S. 232, a bill pending in the Senate, would extend this authority permanently for the Forest 

Service. 
Page 48 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

restoration actions because such actions might make listing unnecessary, 

or listing requirements might be less restrictive. This policy identifies 

criteria the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will use in determining whether 

formalized conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or to show 

effectiveness contribute to making listing a species as threatened or 

endangered unnecessary. The group has also proposed other changes to the 

Endangered Species Act regulations and policies that they say would 

support collaboration and their particular effort. For example, under 

current policies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service treats the two types of 

species (threatened and endangered) in the same manner with regard to 

prohibitions on the taking of a species. The group has proposed that 

Interior relax the prohibition on the taking of threatened species, arguing 

that the Endangered Species Act allows for threatened species to be 

treated in a different manner from endangered species. 

National Environmental Policy Act: Experts and participants have 

stated that NEPA hinders collaboration by essentially duplicating the 

public participation that occurs through collaborative efforts. 

Collaborative groups may develop a plan or project that they would prefer. 

For federal projects having a significant environmental effect, NEPA 

requires the development and analysis of a reasonable range of alternative 

actions, including the agency’s preferred alternative action, in an 

environmental impact statement. It also requires public participation in the 

development of the environmental impact statement. Because 

collaborative groups often include many of those interested in the natural 

resources or management being conducted, several participants said that 

the collaborative group provides the agencies with its preferred alternative 

and a good sense of the public’s opinion of the project. They believe, for 

this reason, that NEPA requirements are redundant in these cases. 
Page 49 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Cooperative Conservation 

Policies and Actions Have 

Made Progress in 

Addressing the Challenges 

Agencies Face, but 

Additional Opportunities 

Exist to Strengthen Federal 

Participation in 

Collaborative Efforts

Building on the agencies’ earlier efforts to develop their partnership 

programs and abilities to work collaboratively, the 2004 Executive Order 

and 2005 White House Conference heightened attention to partnerships 

and collaboration across the federal government. After the White House 

Conference, a report entitled Supplemental Analysis of Day Two 

Facilitated Discussion Sessions (Day 2 report) was written summarizing 

the comments of numerous participants in collaborative groups and 

highlighting actions that the federal agencies could take to improve 

cooperation and partnerships.16 In response to the Day 2 report, a senior 

policy team—composed of the Chairman of CEQ, Director of OMB, and 

selected Deputy Secretaries of the departments—identified issues to be 

further addressed by an executive task force and working groups.17 The 

task force formed—or incorporated—working groups to address several 

overall themes identified in the Day 2 report: personnel competencies, 

training and development, legal authorities for cooperative conservation, 

conflict resolution, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, education, federal 

financial assistance, measuring and monitoring, volunteers, engaging the 

public, and Web site development. Table 3 shows the challenges we 

identified with input from experts, federal officials, and participants in our 

review; proposed actions from the Day 2 report that are responsive to the 

challenges; and the policies or actions taken by the task force working 

groups that address the challenge. 

16John R. Ehrmann and Juliana E. Birkhoff, Supplemental Analysis of Day Two Facilitated 

Discussion Sessions, White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation (Dec. 28, 

2005).

17The policy group provides overall policy direction to an executive-level task force that 

manages the initiative. 
Page 50 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Table 3: Cooperative Conservation Actions, Proposed and Initiated, That Can Address Challenges Federal Agencies Face in 

Collaborating 

Challenge

Day 2 report proposed actions to implement 

Cooperative Conservation

Cooperative Conservation working group 

actions

Improving employees’ 

collaborative skills

Assess personnel policies and hiring practices to ensure 

that staff members possess good communication and 

collaborative skills; train agency staff in collaboration and 

skills associated with establishing and maintaining 

partnerships and integrate skills into leadership and 

management training programs.

Increase capacity to use joint fact-finding approaches 

that involve stakeholders in the development of 

questions; teach scientists how to communicate and 

problem solve with groups.

Ensure personnel hiring, promotion, and reward policies 

provide incentives for collaboration, problem-solving, and 

risk-taking.

The personnel competencies working group 

developed competencies for agencies to 

consider as part of human capital policy. 

Agencies have developed human capital 

policies that discuss hiring and rewarding 

collaboration.

The training and development working group 

reviewed and organized training programs for 

all agencies to identify those that include 

collaboration and make them widely 

available.

OMB and CEQ issued guidance on 

collaborative problem-solving principles 

based on a report by an interagency task 

force convened by the U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution. 

Determining whether federal 

agencies should participate

None. None.

Sustaining federal participation 

over time

None. None.

Measuring participation and 

monitoring results 

Create an interagency task force to develop project 

monitoring protocols and final project evaluation. 

Develop and implement effective measures of progress 

and look for opportunities to address cooperative 

conservation in agency performance measures.

The measuring and monitoring working group 

gathered and analyzed different tools to help 

groups demonstrate the leveraging effect of 

partnerships and collaboration. Some of 

these tools can help groups monitor their 

results. 

Sharing agency and group 

experiences with collaboration

Communicate success stories and lessons learned and 

capture and publish best management practices.

Work with other people engaged in cooperative 

conservation to create models and “how to” guidance 

about communicating risk and scientific information to 

citizens.

Facilitate the development of a network of people familiar 

with cooperative conservation.

Organize and support annual conservation conferences 

and regional cooperative conservation conferences.

The Web site working group developed the 

Cooperative Conservation Web site, which 

includes lessons learned and examples of 

collaboration. Cooperative Conservation 

America also publishes examples online.

The Collaborative Action Team, including 

members of national nonprofits, created the 

Western Collaboration Assistance Network 

(WestCAN) that seeks to broaden the 

community of people working together on 

public lands issues. It provides technical 

assistance, best practices, lessons learned, 

and mentoring services.
Page 51 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Source: GAO analysis.

As shown in table 3, several actions have been taken, including 

development of policies, that have resulted in progress toward addressing 

several of the challenges agencies face participating in collaborative 

efforts, but other opportunities exist to take actions that further address 

the challenges. 

The challenge of improving federal employees’ collaborative skills is being 

addressed by the personnel competencies working group. Through 2007, 

with the input of the Office of Personnel Management, this working group 

developed a set of collaborative behaviors for federal employees that some 

of the agencies have made part of their strategies to hire and train 

employees to improve their collaborative skills. According to Interior and 

Forest Service officials, senior executive service managers in the agencies 

are already rated on their ability to collaborate and collaborative behaviors. 

Interior agencies are now considering how to incorporate these into 

personnel rating systems for other federal officials and staff, and the Forest 

Service has revised its employee rating system and incorporated the 

collaborative competencies into the new system for both managers and 

employees. In addition, the training and development working group 

identified and published appropriate training courses offered by each of the 

land and resource management agencies. For example, BLM and the Forest 

Service offer a series of courses that include collaborative behavior, and 

BLM offers one course that visits a community and trains community and 

Working within legal and 

cultural framework

Assess existing legal incentives and disincentives that 

can influence collaborative efforts, including the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, NEPA, and the Endangered 

Species Act.

Analyze agency procedures for grants and contracting to 

remove barriers to partnerships and landscape-level 

management and collaboration. 

Create incentives, processes, and policies to 

communicate across fragmented agencies to overcome 

boundaries between agencies and programs.

Review personnel policies that move staff frequently.

The Legislative working group, with agencies, 

prepared legal primers on agencies’

authorities to collaborate.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act working 

group is working on streamlining internal 

procedures, providing consistent legal 

advice, and other actions, but is not done.

The Federal financial assistance working 

group has delegated this task to 

departments.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Challenge

Day 2 report proposed actions to implement 

Cooperative Conservation

Cooperative Conservation working group 

actions
Page 52 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

agency members on how to work as a group.18 According to a member of 

the working group, the idea of an experience-based training, in which staff 

would visit and work with an experienced group, has been developed but 

none of the agencies have adopted this at the time of our review. 

Furthermore, in 2005, CEQ and OMB issued joint guidance, developed by a 

broad interagency task force convened by the U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution, to encourage agencies to use 

collaborative problem-solving and elaborate on the principles of 

collaboration.19 According to officials, the institute also offers a series of 

courses on collaboration that federal agencies can take. 

The twin challenges of determining (1) whether to participate in a 

particular collaborative effort and (2) how to sustain federal employees’ 

participation over time have not been addressed by policies or actions of 

the task force or its working groups. However, BLM published a 

collaborative guidebook in 2007 that includes a discussion of factors to 

consider in determining whether to collaborate. Similarly, the Forest 

Service’s Web site links to various partnership assessment tools created by 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service and private companies. In 

addition, the Forest Service developed an assessment document that 

guides an office through an analysis of its workload and how much time it 

can devote to a collaborative effort. The results of this analysis can help 

determine whether an office will be able to sustain their participation in a 

group. Finally, the Forest Service has adopted a tool developed with the 

Collaborative Action Team, called a transition memo, which allows an 

employee transferring locations to leave detailed documentation about the 

community, groups, leaders, and other information for the person coming 

into the position. While these separate tools are available to the individual 

agency that developed them, they have not been shared or adopted more 

broadly among the federal agencies to help them in making decisions 

whether and how much to participate in particular collaborative efforts. 

Without tools to assess these aspects of collaboration, particularly as the 

agencies increase their ability and efforts to participate in collaborative 

efforts, agencies may be more likely to get involved in unsuccessful efforts.

18BLM recently determined that it would review this series, as it is almost 10 years old. 

According to Interior and BLM officials, the agency is determining the most effective way to 

deliver the training. 

19An interagency task force, convened by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict 

Resolution at the request of CEQ in 2003, developed the principles included in the guidance. 

The task force effort paralleled the development of the Cooperative Conservation initiative.
Page 53 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

The challenge of measuring participation and monitoring results of 

collaborative efforts, as shown in table 3, has been partly addressed by the 

measuring and monitoring working group. Through September 2007, the 

working group gathered, reviewed, and analyzed tools that measure and 

monitor how cooperative conservation activities help achieve 

environmental protection and natural resource management goals. For 

example, the working group discussed different means to demonstrate the 

leveraging power of partnerships and collaboration. Some of these tools 

can also help people engaged in partnerships and collaborative efforts 

monitor how they are doing and improve their efforts during the process. In 

addition, the working group identified a few resources that discuss, in 

general, monitoring of natural resource conditions. In October 2007, the 

group posted a variety of tools on the Cooperative Conservation Web site, 

which is an initial step to address this challenge.20 However, actions that 

would more fully address natural resource monitoring—the Day 2 report 

indicated that project monitoring protocols would be useful—have not 

been taken by the task force or working groups. CEQ officials indicated 

that an ongoing effort on key national indicators might help to address this 

aspect of the challenge. However, until guidance or protocols on natural 

resource monitoring for collaborative groups is provided, federal agencies 

and groups will be unable to track and relate their progress to Congress, 

the communities, or other interested parties.

The challenge of sharing experiences among agencies and groups has been 

partly addressed through the actions of the outreach working group, which 

has developed an official Web site and examples of collaborative 

experiences. In addition, in 2007, the Collaborative Action Team started 

WestCAN, facilitating the development of a network of people familiar with 

cooperative conservation. Other actions identified in the Day 2 report that 

could be taken and would address this challenge include organizing and 

supporting annual conservation conferences. As of October 2007, the 

agencies had held nationwide listening sessions, but had not held or 

proposed any further conferences on cooperative conservation either 

nationally or regionally. Federal officials indicated that such meetings can 

be expensive and time-consuming to organize and that they would like 

others to take the lead in organizing them. They also indicated that it is 

important to have clear goals and objectives for such meetings and that the 

meetings should lead progressively to achieving these goals and objectives. 

Individual agencies have held conferences in the past; they also meet 

20For the Web site, see http://cooperativeconservation.gov.
Page 54 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

regularly with nonprofits interested in the collaborative approach through 

the Collaborative Action Team. However, these meetings and tools may not 

provide the opportunity for the different agencies and groups to meet and 

share information and possible solutions, or the face-to-face experiences 

that participants in the conference found valuable. Without such meetings, 

it would be difficult for the groups to be able to meet periodically to 

generate ideas and share information or develop a cooperative 

conservation network. 

The challenge of working within the agencies’ legal framework is being 

addressed, as shown in table 3, by several actions. At a broad level, the 

legal authorities working group worked with the agencies to publish a 

compendium, for each department, of the authorities that allow and 

support collaboration, which will help agency staff who are working with 

collaborative groups to understand the requirements that they face. More 

specifically, the status of actions to resolve perceived inconsistencies 

between the authorities and collaboration include the following:

• The Federal Advisory Committee Act working group is streamlining 

requirements for federal advisory groups, which is one of the primary 

pieces of legislation that agencies and participants in collaborative 

efforts have identified as inconsistent with collaboration. According to 

CEQ officials, the Federal Advisory Committee Act team has determined 

that flexibility exists within the current law and policy for groups and is 

developing the best way to share this information with agency staff and 

group participants, such as training. 

• A legal analysis of the incentives and disincentives affecting 

collaborative groups—particularly those associated with the 

Endangered Species Act and NEPA—was an action proposed by the Day 

2 report that has not been addressed by the task force or working 

groups. In addition, USDA’s and Interior’s different implementation of 

ethics rules resulted in inconsistent decisions regarding federal 

employees serving on nonprofit boards. While no specific actions have 

been taken by the task force, Interior is evaluating regulatory and policy 

changes to the Endangered Species Act in response to the concerns 

raised during listening sessions held in 2006, and by the Cooperative 

Sagebrush Initiative. As of October 2007, Interior had not proposed any 

regulatory or policy changes to the Endangered Species Act. Also, in 

October 2007, CEQ issued guidance on collaboration within the NEPA 

process that discusses using a collaborative group’s option as the 
Page 55 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

preferred alternative in a NEPA analysis.21 The guidance resulted from 

the recommendation of a federal task force in 2003 and followed the 

issuance in 2005 of a report by the National Environmental Conflict 

Resolution Advisory Committee concluding that one way to achieve 

NEPA goals is for the federal agencies to use environmental conflict 

resolution practices, including collaboration.22 However, no evaluation 

or action has occurred as of October 2007 to resolve the inconsistent 

application by USDA and Interior of federal ethics rules.

While these actions are addressing the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and NEPA, the federal financial assistance 

working group did not complete its task of evaluating the extent to which 

cooperative funding authorities could be enhanced to better assist 

collaboration. Because of the number and complexity of funding 

authorities, the working group determined that each department should 

undertake an analysis of its own financial assistance to collaborative 

groups. Through December 2007, Interior was considering its use of 

cooperative agreements and whether they can be used to support partners 

to conduct work that is mutually beneficial to the group and Interior 

agencies. In such situations, both the partners and the federal agencies 

bring resources to the table and both sides benefit from the work jointly 

conducted. However, an Interior official noted that laws related to federal 

contracting may limit the agencies’ ability to use these agreements in the 

absence of specific statutory authority to do so.23 In September 2007, an 

Interior official stated that the type of authority needed is reflected in 

authorities provided to the Natural Resources Conservation Service and 

other agencies that allow them to work with partners on mutually 

beneficial activities. Through September 2007, the Forest Service had 

21Council on Environmental Quality, Collaboration in NEPA: A Handbook for NEPA 

Practitioners (Washington, D.C.: October 2007). According to Forest Service officials, the 

agency is in the process of putting its NEPA policy into federal regulations, which will 

emphasize collaboration in alternative development as well as other aspects of the NEPA 

process. 

22National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee, Final Report Submitted 

to the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution of the Morris K. Udall 

Foundation (Tucson, Ariz.: April 2005).

23For example, the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act provides, in pertinent 

part, that an executive agency must use a procurement contract when: (1) the principal 

purpose of the instrument is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services 

for the direct benefit or use of the U. S. government; or (2) the agency decides in a specific 

instance that the use of a procurement contract is appropriate.
Page 56 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

authority to use cooperative agreements with private and public 

organizations, including nonprofit groups, to perform forestry protection 

activities and other types of cooperative projects that provide mutual 

benefits other than monetary considerations to both parties. In addition, 

the agency has authority to work on mutually beneficial restoration 

projects under the Watershed Enhancement and Restoration Act or Wyden 

authority, but this authority is not permanent, extending only to 2011. 

In late December 2007, Congress passed, and the President signed, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, which included two 

provisions related to the agencies and cooperative agreements. The first 

provision authorizes Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with 

state or local governments, or not-for-profit organizations, if the agreement 

will (1) serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying 

out Interior’s programs and (2) all parties will contribute resources. The 

second provision extended through 2010 the Forest Service’s authority to 

enter into cooperative agreements with state, local, and nonprofit groups if 

the agreement serves the mutual benefit (other than monetary 

consideration) of the parties carrying out programs administered by the 

Forest Services and all parties contribute resources. However, the overall 

problem of facilitating collaborative partnership projects for collaborative 

groups and partners—in terms of interest, cost share, and other 

administrative matters—remains. For this reason, an overall evaluation of 

federal funding assistance and tools available for collaborative groups 

could help to identify the situations across agencies that hinder 

collaboration and the potential legal and policy changes that could be 

made. 

Overall, the working groups and agencies have made some progress in 

developing policies and taking actions that address the challenges they face 

in working with collaborative groups. However, these challenges will not 

be fully addressed or solved in the short term. As indicated in the Day 2 

report, the actions to be taken by federal agencies would require a 

sustained effort and a senior policy team with an overall strategy to 

sequence the many actions that need to be taken by multiple different 

federal agencies. While the Cooperative Conservation initiative is being 

coordinated by a task force and working groups, both are temporary, 

formed by federal agency personnel interested in the cooperative approach 

but who, for the most part, have other full-time responsibilities. Because of 

this, the structure and direction—which includes goals, actions, time 

frames, and responsibilities—of the initiative as it moves forward are 

uncertain. According to CEQ and agency officials, the task force working 
Page 57 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

groups were organized to propose actions that could be taken in the short 

term; CEQ officials said that the senior policy team would meet to assess 

the status of actions and progress toward the vision laid out for the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative. As of December 2007, the policy team 

had not met, but CEQ officials expected they would meet after the issuance 

of the second annual report on the implementation of the Cooperative 

Conservation initiative. Currently, the task force is developing the report, 

which was expected to be issued in January 2008.

Conclusions Collaborative resource management offers federal land and resource 

management agencies a promising tool with which to approach the ongoing 

and potential conflicts that arise in managing the nation’s land and 

resources. Compared with the alternatives—such as litigation or individual 

landowners making independent, potentially conflicting decisions about 

their separate parcels of land—collaboration provides groups a way to 

integrate multiple interests and achieve common goals. To date, federal 

land and resource management agencies have had some success in 

working with collaborative efforts. Moreover, the policies put in place 

through the Cooperative Conservation initiative move the federal 

government and agencies forward in supporting collaborative resource 

management efforts. However, based on the challenges that the agencies 

face in working with collaborative efforts, additional opportunities exist to 

enhance and effectively manage federal agencies’ participation in and 

support of ongoing and future collaborative efforts. Specifically, because 

federal agencies have limited resources and time, yet at the same time have 

multiple opportunities to collaborate, they need to be judicious in their 

decisions about collaborating with particular efforts and could benefit from 

guidance on how this can be done. This would involve dissemination of 

tools that already exist for field offices to assess a community’s capacity for 

collaborating, and the federal ability to participate. In addition, because the 

agencies are accountable to Congress and the public for achieving their 

land and resource management goals, it is important for them to be able to 

demonstrate the results that have been accomplished through collaborative 

efforts. This means that agencies and groups should be able to measure 

participation and monitor their progress, including monitoring the broader 

landscape-level effects that result from their collaborative efforts and 

projects. 

Furthermore, collaborative resource management is just beginning to 

emerge as one approach for federal land and resource agencies to work 

with local groups in ways that can reduce conflict and improve resources. 
Page 58 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

In addition to developing capability among agency personnel, federal 

agency support for this approach entails helping to create networks, 

identifying best practices, and generating new ideas. These outcomes can 

be achieved though facilitating the exchange of information and lessons 

learned among collaborative groups, as was done at the White House 

Conference. Federal support also involves an ongoing commitment to 

identify practicable legal and policy changes that could enhance 

collaboration. In particular, CEQ, OMB, and other federal agencies can 

evaluate and identify possible changes to federal financial assistance 

authorities and policies that make it difficult to work with partners. Also, 

USDA and Interior can identify a way to achieve more consistent results in 

determining participation by USDA and Interior employees on nonprofit 

boards. In the future, as the agencies participate in different collaborative 

efforts, additional situations may arise in which agencies need to seek ways 

to implement laws or policies in a manner that enhances collaboration. 

Finally, because collaborative resource management involves multiple 

departments and agencies facing common challenges and will take a 

sustained effort to implement, it is important that the effort has structure 

and long-term direction to ensure that it is ongoing and completed. 

Structure could be provided by continuing such an interagency effort as the 

Cooperative Conservation task force and its working groups. One way this 

could be accomplished would be by developing a memorandum of 

understanding between participating agencies. Long-term direction to 

address common challenges could be provided by the memorandum of 

understanding, or through another organizational document or plan that 

will steer the task force, working groups, and agencies toward realizing the 

vision of the initiative. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To enhance the federal government’s support of and participation in 

collaborative resource management efforts, we recommend that the 

Chairman of CEQ, working with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior, direct the interagency task force to take the following actions:

1. Disseminate, more widely, tools for the agencies to use in assessing and 

determining if, when, and how to participate in a particular 

collaborative effort and how to sustain their participation over time. 

2. Identify examples of groups that have conducted natural resource 

monitoring, including at the landscape level, and develop and 
Page 59 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

disseminate guidance or protocols for others to use in setting up such 

monitoring efforts. 

3. Hold periodic national or regional meetings and conferences to bring 

groups together to share collaborative experiences, identify further 

challenges, and learn from the lessons of other collaborative groups. 

4. Identify and evaluate, with input from OMB, legal and policy changes 

concerning federal financial assistance that would enhance 

collaborative efforts. 

5. Identify goals, actions, responsible work groups and agencies, and time 

frames for carrying out the actions needed to implement the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative, including collaborative resource 

management, and document these through a written plan, 

memorandum of understanding, or other appropriate means.

Furthermore, to ensure that federal agencies can work well with 

collaborative groups, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior 

and Agriculture take action to develop a joint policy to ensure consistent 

implementation of ethics rules governing federal employee participation on 

nonprofit boards that represent collaborative groups. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation 

We provided CEQ, Interior, and USDA with a draft of this report for review 

and comment. Interior concurred with the conclusions and five of the six 

recommendations in the report, providing written comments that included 

additional information describing actions the department and its agencies 

are taking that they believe are responsive to our recommendations, some 

of which have been finalized since they received the draft report. We made 

changes to the report as appropriate to include this information, but 

underscore the fact that the recommendations apply more broadly to the 

federal agencies implementing the Cooperative Conservation initiative (see 

app. III). USDA provided oral comments also concurring with the 

conclusions and five of the six recommendations in the report. CEQ did not 

provide comments on the report. 

The departments neither agreed nor disagreed with our sixth 

recommendation that the Secretaries take action to develop a joint policy 

to ensure consistent implementation of ethics rules governing federal 

employee participation on nonprofit boards that represent collaborative 

groups. USDA’s Office of General Counsel, however, expressed concerns 
Page 60 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

that such a policy might be desirable, but not feasible. The office said that 

the two departments may provide waivers based on each agency’s interests 

and distinct relationship with the collaborative group, and therefore it is 

not practicable to have a joint policy in advance of a particular request and 

consultation may not make the waivers more uniform. While we 

understand these concerns, we believe that such a consultation would have 

either resulted in a consistent recommendation in the case of the Blackfoot 

Challenge, or if it did not, would have at least provided a transparent 

response to the group and field offices seeking the waivers. We continue to 

believe that the departments should make a good faith effort to develop 

and implement a process that would be more transparent to the groups 

with which they work. Therefore, we did not change our recommendation. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense, Chairman of CEQ, and 

Director of OMB, as well as other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has any questions regarding this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 61 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

The objectives for this study were to determine (1) experts’ views of 

collaborative resource management as an approach for addressing 

complex natural resource management problems; (2) the extent to which 

selected collaborative resource management efforts have addressed land 

use conflicts and improved natural resource conditions; and (3) what 

challenges, if any, federal land and resource management agencies face in 

participating in collaborative resource management efforts and how the 

Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed the challenges.

For the first objective, to determine experts’ views of collaborative 

resource management as an approach for addressing natural resource 

problems, we examined the academic literature related to the topic. To 

identify relevant articles in the literature, we first interviewed experts who 

have studied collaborative resource management. Following GAO’s 

methodology for identifying experts, we started with knowledgeable 

individuals and agency personnel and asked them for referrals to experts. 

In an iterative process, we contacted these experts and asked them for 

nominations of other knowledgeable individuals. We interviewed over 20 

individuals who could be considered experts, based on the nominations of 

others in the field. We asked these experts for references to articles on the 

collaborative resource management approach. We also identified articles 

through a search of four academic databases including Agricola, a database 

of articles relating to aspects of agriculture, forestry, and animal science; 

ProQuest Science Journals, a database of science and technology journals 

that includes literature on biology and earth science; ECO, a database of 

scholarly journals; and BasicBIOSIS, a database of biology and other life 

science-related journals. We searched these databases using the terms 

“ecosystem management policy” and “collaborative resource management 

policy,” which produced over 950 articles in the four databases. Abstracts 

of these articles were reviewed and only those articles appropriate for our 

work were retained for a literature review. This process yielded over 130 

articles (the full article was used, not just the abstract).

To perform the literature review, one of two analysts (A, B) read and 

reviewed each of the articles and indicated whether or not the contents 

included themes related to our objectives, that is, the common practices, 

benefits, limitations, and critiques of collaboration. The analysts 

summarized information from the articles that was relevant to these 

themes and recorded it as statements in a database. To verify that the two 

analysts were extracting similar information from the articles, the analysts 

randomly selected 10 percent (13) of the total articles. For each of these 13 

articles, if Analyst A had originally summarized and categorized relevant 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 62 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

information in the article, then Analyst B independently performed the 

same tasks. Similarly, Analyst A reviewed the articles originally reviewed 

by Analyst B. For each article, the verification work was compared with the 

original and it was determined whether both analysts agreed or disagreed 

on the presence of information in the article related to each theme. This 

analysis indicated that the two analysts were extracting comparable 

information from the articles.

A content analysis was then performed on the statements. Each analyst 

classified the statements from the articles read as a benefit, limitation, or 

critique associated with collaborative resource management. The analysts 

then exchanged data and examined the other analyst’s categorizations to 

determine whether there was agreement on classifying each statement 

from the literature review into the benefits, limitations, and critiques 

categories. The two analysts reviewed the statements they had placed into 

these categories and either concurred with the classification or noted the 

basis of disagreement. For items where there was disagreement, the 

disagreement was resolved so that agreement was 100 percent. 

Once the analysts had established a unified set of statements under each 

category—benefits, limitations, and critiques—each analyst independently 

grouped the statements under each category into similar components. The 

analysts’ lists of components for each category were compared, discussed, 

and merged into one set. The components we agreed upon for each 

category and a description of them are noted in table 4.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 63 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Table 4: Description of the Benefits, Limitations, and Critiques of Collaboration

Source: GAO analysis.

After developing the categories and components, we independently 

assigned each of the statements to one of the components. After the 

statements were independently assigned a component, the analysts 

discussed every statement for which they had assigned different 

components and reached agreement on the category for each of the 

statements. As a result, the analysts attained 100 percent agreement on the 

Components Description

Category: Benefits

Reduction in Conflict and Litigation Conflict is reduced and better managed, which may prevent parties resorting to litigation.

Better Natural Resource Results More creative solutions are identified and better decisions are made because a broad array of 

knowledge, including local information, is incorporated into decisions. Solutions are easier to 

implement because there is typically less opposition, sometimes leading to a cost savings.

Shared Ownership and Authority Ownership and responsibility for a problem are shared and state and federal agencies become 

partners with local agencies and groups. Such joint stewardship can make federal and state 

programs more locally relevant and can increases fairness in the process.

Increased Trust Increased trust among participants, between organizations, and between decision makers.

Improved Communication Communication is improved and becomes more open and honest.

Increased Understanding Participants learn about and gain an understanding and appreciation of the natural resource 

problem and of other participants’ perspectives, including local knowledge.

Increased Community Capacity Increased community capacity involves increased public engagement and awareness, social 

networks, and community ability to engage in dialogue.

Category: Limitations

Process Difficult/Time-Consuming The process can be inefficient, slow, and require large amounts of resources.

Process Does Not Always Work There are circumstances in which collaboration or reaching consensus is not possible for 

reasons such as irreconcilable differences, particular groups derailing the process, or a 

resistance to change. 

Category: Critiques

Process Is Not Equitable Power is not equally balanced among participants, placing some at a disadvantage and 

making the process undemocratic. Not all groups who have a legitimate interest may be able to 

participate, which may mean that their concerns are not addressed. For example, national 

environmental groups cannot participate in all local efforts.

Results in One, or More, Groups Being 

Co-opted 

The collaborative group is taken over or assimilated by a more powerful or established interest. 

May Produce Least Common 

Denominator

The focus on consensus as an end result can lead to a solution that is a compromise that may 

not necessarily reflect the best science or the view of any group.

Reduced Accountability Lessened accountability to the public or individual constituencies occurs through aspects of 

the process such as devolving federal authority to collaborative groups and removing 

discussion from the public eye.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 64 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

assignment of statements to components. Table 5 reports the number of 

statements that were assigned to each component.

Table 5: Number of Statements in the Components of Each Category

Source: GAO analysis.

The literature review was also used to identify what the experts viewed as 

common practices of successful collaborative groups. Such practices were 

described in 15 of the articles from the literature review and one GAO 

report that described practices to sustain collaborative efforts among 

federal agencies.1

 To develop a comprehensive list to summarize the 

practices described in all of these sources, two analysts independently 

generated lists based on commonalities of those described in the literature. 

A third analyst reconciled the two lists and all three analysts discussed the 

results and agreed on the following final list of practices:

Components

Number of 

statements

Benefits

Better Natural Resource Results 31

Shared Ownership and Authority 21

Increased Understanding 14

Increased Community Capacity 12

Reduction in Conflict and Litigation 11

Increased Trust 6

Increased Communication 5

Limitations

Process Does Not Always Work 18

Process Difficult/Time-Consuming 14

Critiques

Reduced Accountability 26

Process Is Not Equitable 23

Results in One, or More, Groups Being Co-opted 18

May Produce Least Common Denominator 9

1

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 65 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

• Seek inclusive representation.

• Develop collaborative processes.

• Pursue flexibility, openness, and respect.

• Establish leadership.

• Identify or develop a common goal.

• Develop a process for obtaining information.

• Leverage available resources.

• Provide incentives.

• Monitor results for accountability.

For the second objective, to determine the extent to which selected efforts 

have addressed land use conflicts and improved natural resource 

conditions, we identified seven examples involving collaborative resource 

management efforts. The examples were identified using referrals made by 

experts and citations in the literature. The seven examples we chose to 

study were judgmentally selected based on several criteria, as shown in 

table 6, designed to capture groups with (1) a significant amount of federal 

land involved, (2) participation of multiple stakeholders, (3) locations 

across the United States, and (4) different types of groups, from nonprofit 

groups, to an advisory council, to loosely organized information-sharing 

groups. Although there are many collaborative efforts dealing with water 

issues, we confined our examples to land management efforts to limit the 

scope of our work. The examples we selected included both new and 

experienced groups, made up of multiple participants including federal 

agencies, from rural areas. The groups chosen and the states in which they 

are located are shown in table 6. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 66 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Table 6: Collaborative Resource Management Groups Selected as Case Examples

Source: GAO analysis.

To gather information on each group’s organization, efforts, and results, we 

conducted field visits and detailed, semistructured interviews with several 

key participants of the group, and in some cases, interested parties who 

Collaborative 

effort

Year group 

started Location

Approximate acres of land 

involved (federal lands 

involved) Group type Stakeholders

Blackfoot 

Challenge

1993 West-central 

Montana

1.5 million acres (Lolo and 

Helena National Forests, 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM] land)

Nonprofit 

organization

Forest Service, BLM, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

state and local agencies, 

businesses, foundations, 

nonprofit organizations, 

private landowners, schools, 

communities

Cooperative 

Sagebrush 

Initiative

2006 11 western states (Federal land in the western 

United States)

Nonprofit 

organization

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

BLM, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey, nonprofit 

organizations, energy 

companies, private 

landowners

Eastern Upper 

Peninsula 

Partners in 

Ecosystem 

Management

1992 Eastern Upper 

Peninsula of 

Michigan

4 million acres (Hiawatha 

National Forest, Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge, Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore)

InformationsharingForest Service, National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, a state agency, a 

nonprofit organization, and 

companies owning private 

forest land

Malpai 

Borderlands 

Group

1994 Southern Arizona 

and New Mexico

800,000 acres (Coronado 

National Forest, BLM land, San 

Bernardino National Wildlife 

Refuge)

Nonprofit 

organization

Forest Service, BLM, Natural 

Resources Conservation 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, state agencies, 

nonprofit organizations, 

private landowners

Onslow Bight 

Conservation 

Forum

2001 Coastal North 

Carolina

(Marine Corps Base Camp 

Lejune, Marine Corps Air 

Station Cherry Point, Croatan 

National Forest)

Memorandum of 

understanding, 

informationsharing

Department of Defense, 

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, state 

agencies, nonprofit 

organizations

Steens 

Mountain 

Advisory 

Council

2000 Southeastern 

Oregon

496,000 acres (Steens 

Mountain Cooperative 

Management and Protection 

Area)

Legislatively 

created advisory 

council

BLM, nonprofit organizations, 

recreationists, private 

landowners

Uncompahgre 

Plateau 

Project

2001 Southwestern 

Colorado

1.5 million acres (Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 

National Forest; BLM land)

Memorandum of 

understanding

BLM, Forest Service, a state 

agency, a community group, 

electric utilities
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 67 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

were not participating in the group. We obtained related documentation of 

each group’s activities and results and in some instances observed the 

groups’ projects in the field. We did not independently verify data related to 

the groups’ results. In analyzing the groups, we considered conflicts to 

exist if two or more participants had different interests to achieve and 

considered conflicts to be reduced or averted if a common solution or 

interest was identified.

For the third objective, we identified challenges associated with the 

collaborative resource management approach described by the experts in 

the literature and by members of the collaborative resource management 

groups we studied. The components of the challenges described by the 

experts in the literature were identified using the literature review and 

content analysis that is explained above. Table 7 describes the challenges. 

Table 7: Description of the Challenges Associated with Collaboration Identified by the Experts

Source: GAO analysis.

As with the benefits, limitations, and critiques, each statement identified as 

a challenge in the literature review was assigned to a component. The 

number of statements that were assigned to each challenge component is 

listed in table 8.

Challenge Description

Improving Federal Employees’

Collaborative Skills

Skill and experience interacting and communicating with the public and conflict resolution skills.

Determining Whether to Participate 

in a Collaborative Effort

Evaluating particular factors that will affect whether a collaborative effort is likely to succeed in a 

particular circumstance. Such factors include the capacity for the community to engage in such 

efforts, which may depend on the community having leaders, social networks, and local 

infrastructure and institutions that facilitate civic involvement; and external conditional factors that 

may include an issue that has a history of litigation and viewpoints rooted in the community that 

participants bring with them into a collaborative effort such as stereotypes or a history of distrust 

among community members.

Sustaining Participation Achieving and sustaining the consistent participation of all relevant stakeholders and people with 

collaborative, leadership, and technical skills and being able to build trust and equal footing among 

the participants. Also includes a lack of sufficient time, money, or people to fully support a 

collaborative effort.

Measuring and Monitoring for 

Accountability

Achieving and demonstrating accountability through measuring participation and monitoring 

natural resources given the long time horizons of natural resource results.

Working within Federal Laws and 

Agency Policies 

Agency support of collaboration through culture, funding, laws, and policies, and relationships with 

other agencies and organizations.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 68 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Table 8: Number of Statements in the Challenges 

Source: GAO analysis.

An additional challenge related to sharing experiences with collaboration 

was identified through semistructured interviews with collaborative group 

participants. Many participants we interviewed mentioned that aspects of 

their collaborative group were unique, yet the groups share similar 

problems and could benefit from sharing experiences with other groups. 

This challenge reflects the personal experiences of participants working 

within a specific collaborative group. 

To identify how efforts under the Cooperative Conservation initiative 

address challenges associated with federal land and resource management 

agencies’ participation in collaborative resource management, we 

interviewed federal officials from organizations responsible for 

implementing the Cooperative Conservation initiative, including the 

Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, 

Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture. In addition, we 

reviewed Cooperative Conservation documents and agency guidance 

related to partnerships and Cooperative Conservation. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2006 through February 

2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Challenge

Number of 

statements

Sustaining Participation 58

Determining Whether to Participate in a Collaborative Effort 49

Working within Federal Laws and Agency Policies 35

Measuring and Monitoring for Accountability 21

Improving Federal Employees’ Collaborative Skills 10
Page 69 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices ApendxiI

To understand the purpose and nature of collaborative resource 

management groups, we selected seven such groups for detailed study. We 

met with participants of these groups individually or, at times, together to 

discuss the natural resource problems and conflicts the group was 

managing and the practices used by the group that enabled them to 

successfully alleviate conflict and improve resource conditions. To various 

degrees, the seven groups we studied used the collaborative practices 

identified by experts that successful groups commonly use. Experts 

emphasized that while these practices are commonly used by successful 

groups, the use of these practices does not guarantee success for all 

groups. Collaborative groups are unique and can succeed or fail depending 

on the nature of the problem or conflict involved. The following describes 

each of the collaborative groups, the natural resource problems or conflicts 

they managed, and the extent to which they used collaborative practices.

Blackfoot Challenge The Blackfoot Challenge (Challenge) is a landowner-based nonprofit group 

working in the 1.5-million-acre Blackfoot River watershed in Montana. 

Although it began much earlier, the group was officially established as a 

nonprofit group in the early 1990s, with a board including private 

landowners and federal and state agency personnel.1

 The participants of 

the group sought to create an organization that could resolve natural 

resource issues, such as the reintroduction of threatened and endangered 

species and their effect on private landowner livelihoods, before they 

became conflicts. 

Of the total acres in the watershed, about 57 percent is publicly managed 

by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the state of 

Montana. The remaining lands in the watershed are owned by timber 

companies and private citizens. The area has had a long history of mining, 

logging, and ranching. More recently, the area has increasing numbers of 

people, which has increased development and recreation. The ecosystem is 

also home to threatened and endangered species including the bull trout, 

grizzly bear, and gray wolf. 

1

The Blackfoot Challenge was established in 1991 and formally chartered in 1993.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 70 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Natural Resource Problems Participants of the Challenge identified several natural resource problems 

and conflicts that the group has managed, and is continuing to manage, 

including the following: 

• In 2000, the Challenge responded to a conflict that arose over low water 

flows in the Blackfoot River that threatened the survival of fish and 

other river species and organisms. The Challenge formed a Drought 

Response Committee, which has since expanded to address long-term 

water conservation and recreation issues. The committee met with the 

Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited, which had concerns about 

fish populations and habitat; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks; and water users to develop an emergency drought plan for the 

river. The plan, based on the idea of “shared sacrifice,” provided more 

in-stream flow as water users voluntarily reduced the amount of water 

they withdrew, allowing more water to be left in the stream. In 2005, this 

plan helped save 60 cubic feet per second of water.2

• Riparian habitat for fish in the Blackfoot River is fragmented by 

culverts, roads, and other infrastructure on both public and private land 

that block tributaries and creeks flowing into the river. Wildlife agencies 

have noticed the reduction in fish populations, including the threatened 

bull trout. Many groups, including federal agencies, fishermen and 

women, and ranchers, are interested in reconnecting streams that have 

been blocked to provide better fishing and wildlife habitat 

opportunities. However, some ranchers are hesitant about making 

improvements or working with federal agencies. The group has worked 

with willing ranchers and the local chapter of Trout Unlimited to 

develop a plan for restoring riparian areas and tributaries across the 

watershed. Over time, the groups have protected and restored 38 miles 

on 39 tributaries and 62 miles of riparian habitat. 

• In 2002, the Challenge responded to concerns throughout the valley 

about increased grizzly bear activity by creating a Wildlife Committee to 

exchange information and coordinate efforts. The Blackfoot watershed 

is nearby three wilderness areas and is considered a prime wildlife 

corridor for wolves and grizzly bears, whose populations are increasing. 

Local landowners are concerned about increased human and livestock 

2

The average flow of the river is 1,968 cubic feet per second; in 2000, a drought year, the 

average flow was 1,261 cubic feet per second. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 71 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

interaction with such species. The Challenge began a Carcass Pick-Up 

Program in conjunction with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Partners Program; local ranchers; 

and a waste service to remove dead livestock from ranches to deter 

bears from searching for such remains. Human-grizzly bear conflicts 

have been reduced by 91 percent from 2003 through 2006. 

• In 2005 and 2006, the Challenge dealt with two unique resource 

conflicts. In the first case, conflict arose over a housing development 

around one particular community in the watershed that would 

dramatically affect an important elk migration corridor and increase the 

community’s population, water use, and school enrollment. As a result, 

there were many different stakeholders interested in the issue. Rather 

than taking a position on the conflict, the Challenge has instead brought 

the community together with the stakeholders to find an acceptable 

alternative. In a second similar case, members of the Challenge did not 

take sides on a controversial proposed gold mine near Lincoln, 

Montana, in the northern part of the watershed. Instead of advocating 

for a particular solution, the Challenge offered to bring people together 

to discuss their options. In the end, according to the participants, the 

state passed a law against methods of mining that use cyanide to leach 

the gold from the rocks and the proposed mine was ultimately blocked. 

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Challenge are described in the 

following sections.

Seek Inclusive Representation The Challenge board and its working committees include a wide variety of 

representation. Members of the board are landowners, land managers, 

agencies, and others who are represented through working committees and 

membership. The group has tried to involve every type of stakeholder in 

the process to provide help or share resources. They realize, however, that 

some perspectives that should be included may be missing from the board, 

including absentee landowners who own second homes in the valley. In an 

effort to provide greater inclusiveness, the board has created at-large 

members. 

As members of the Challenge, federal agency officials are members of the 

Executive Board and committees. Because the Challenge provides a forum 

for information sharing, agency officials have an opportunity to hear 

community concerns. It allows them to know, in an informal capacity, if 

local people are supportive of particular actions before making decisions. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 72 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Of equal importance, the agencies have an opportunity to communicate 

correct facts about their respective agencies. This helps to correct rumors 

and reduce doubt, uncertainty, and distrust between the community and 

the agencies and provides a forum for agency officials to make participants 

aware of their limitations early in the process. Although federal employees 

serve as members of the Executive Board, a nonprofit board, the Forest 

Service member serves as a nonvoting member, while the BLM and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service employees serve as voting members.

Develop a Collaborative Process The group uses an “80-20” rule, whereby the group concentrates its efforts 

on 80 percent of the issues it can agree upon and does not force consensus 

on the 20 percent that it is unable to agree upon. This strategic approach 

allows the group to first work on solutions to problems that are less 

controversial and more likely to succeed, thereby building common ground 

and trust among participants. The Challenge does not advocate any one 

position because it believes if it did, it would be unable to act as a bridge 

between two sides of an issue. Instead the group chooses to facilitate 

dialogue and information sharing. This process helps to promote 

community dialogue between private landowners and public agencies in an 

attempt to resolve issues before they become major conflicts. 

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

Members of the Challenge attributed much of their success as a group to 

the time they have taken to develop trust among members. Participants of 

the Challenge include individuals that are respectful of diverse views, 

committed to the effort, and are willing to negotiate and build consensus. 

One member described the group’s common approach as polite, thoughtful, 

kind, and respectful.

Find Leadership According to participants, a collaborative group needs the right leader and 

the Challenge has had several committed, talented community leaders over 

the years. They view the right leader as someone who is a local opinion 

leader and who has the respect of a majority of the community. A 

participant described one of the reasons for the Challenge’s success as 

inspired leadership, which involves being able to focus the group on its 

common interests. The group also hired an Executive Director, which was 

a crucial step for the Challenge in terms of raising funds and organizing the 

group because it could only accomplish a limited amount on a volunteer 

basis. 

Identify a Common Goal Concern for maintaining a certain quality of life in the area prompted 

landowners, public agencies, and other community leaders to begin 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 73 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

working together on ways to manage the watershed. The group’s mission is 

to “coordinate efforts that will enhance, conserve and protect the natural 

resources and rural lifestyles of Montana’s Blackfoot River Valley for 

present and future generations.” As early as the 1970s, private landowners 

and public agency officials worked together to resolve conflicts, or 

potential conflicts, among various users within the watershed. For 

example, in an effort to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat along 

the river corridor, several public agencies, including BLM, the Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state wildlife and parks 

agencies, attempted to purchase conservation easements from private 

landowners. The landowners made the agencies aware that they were each 

asking to acquire land, and the agencies and landowners started talking 

about their common goals. In the 1980s, a conflict over access to the river 

between recreationists and private riparian landowners developed. To 

access the river, recreationists had to trespass on private lands.3

 In 

response, a local timber company joined with BLM and the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to allow limited access across 

private land to use the river if the agencies would manage the activities and 

effects on resources. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

The Challenge relies on the scientific expertise and information provided 

by the resource managers from the federal and state agencies. To make 

decisions about specific resource management problems, the group has a 

standard set of committees that include knowledgeable agency and 

community members. One committee in particular, the Drought, Water 

Conservation, and Recreation committee, monitors snowpack, stream flow, 

and drought conditions, as well as recreation use of the river. The 

Challenge has recently become involved in monitoring and developing 

water quality standards for streams in the watershed because the water 

quality data needed to analyze and improve conditions in the watershed 

were inadequate. It also works with university researchers to conduct 

studies.

Leverage Available Resources In the past, the Challenge has operated on about $50,000 per year, receiving 

funding from private donors and foundations. The group recently received 

a $100,000 award for innovations in governance from the Ash Institute for 

Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University. The group’s 

resources are used to leverage federal funds by coordinating private 

3

In Montana, riparian lands, or lands located along a river corridor, are frequently privately 

owned, while the streambed is often owned by the state.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 74 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

projects with federal projects. For example, as the Forest Service and BLM 

work to restore parts of a stream on their respective lands, the Challenge 

coordinates the projects and adds its own resources to conduct work on 

private stretches of the same stream, thereby providing greater stream 

restoration than if the agencies had conducted individual projects. 

Provide Incentives The Blackfoot Valley uses conservation easements as an incentive for 

conservation activities. Through many partners, more than 100 

conservation easements on more than 90,000 acres of private lands have 

been purchased to keep agricultural and grasslands open and available for 

ranching and wildlife use. Conservation easements are being purchased 

and donated to the following organizations: Forest Service; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; The Nature 

Conservancy; Montana Land Reliance; and Five Valleys Land Trust. 

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

For the most part, the Challenge uses monitoring data that the agencies 

collect, although in specific cases, the group and its partners are 

monitoring the results of their projects. In particular, the local chapter of 

Trout Unlimited led the development of a process to prioritize tributaries 

and stretches of the river to restore and monitor results. In addition, the 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks monitors fish populations 

in the river, which indicates habitat improvement and water quality 

conditions. The Challenge recently began monitoring water quality.

Cooperative Sagebrush 

Initiative

The Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative (Initiative) is a partnership of 

landowners, communities, local working groups, conservation groups, 

industries, and tribal, state, and federal agencies that started in 2006 to 

focus on conservation of the western sagebrush landscape. The effort 

encompasses the sagebrush range, which spans 11 western states, and 

involves creating incentives for conservation through mechanisms such as 

a system to trade credits for conservation activities.4

 The group 

incorporated into a nonprofit organization in 2007 and is still organizing 

and planning the effort, so it has not yet conducted conservation activities. 

In 2007, the group solicited proposals for projects designed to demonstrate 

how the work could be done and incentives could be developed and has 

4

The 11 states include California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 75 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

endorsed three proposed projects that encompass over 1 million acres of 

sagebrush habitat in four states. 

In the mid-1990s, the declining status of two sage grouse species—

Gunnison sage grouse and greater sage grouse—triggered regional concern 

for the health of the sagebrush ecosystem. In 2000, the Gunnison sage 

grouse was added to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of candidate 

species to be considered for a threatened or endangered listing under the 

Endangered Species Act and the greater sage grouse was the subject of 

three petitions in 2002–2003 seeking listing throughout its range. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service found that a listing was not warranted for the 

greater sage grouse in 2005, or for the Gunnison sage grouse in 2006. The 

sagebrush range is also home to wildlife, such as mule deer, valued for 

hunting; scenic attractions; energy resources; and ranching; which could be 

affected by declining greater sage grouse populations or a listing of one, or 

more, of the species that are dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem.

Natural Resource Problems The primary natural resource problem that the Initiative is focused on is 

the decline of the sagebrush range and associated decline in greater sage 

grouse populations. These declines have been attributed to factors such as 

increased oil and gas exploration and development in the West, some 

ranching practices, and climate. Although the sage grouse species were not 

listed when originally petitioned, there are three lawsuits that could affect 

the legal status of the sage grouse.5

 The states, energy companies, ranchers, 

and developers are concerned that a listing decision would limit their 

activities in sagebrush habitat. 

5

In County of San Miguel v. MacDonald, the county and several environmental and public 

interest groups have challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination that 

listing of the Gunnison sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. 

In Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an environmental 

group is challenging the agency’s rejection of a petition to list the Mono Basin area sage 

grouse as endangered or threatened. In Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, several environmental groups challenged the agency’s decision not to list 

the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. In December 2007, the court 

held that the agency’s decision was unauthorized because it had not been based on the best 

available science, as the Endangered Species Act requires. The court directed the agency to 

reconsider the petitions.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 76 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Initiative are described in the 

following sections.

Seek Inclusive Representation The Initiative was started when representatives of a nonprofit organization 

called the Sand County Foundation saw an opportunity for oil and gas 

companies to become involved in stewardship of the sagebrush ecosystem 

and help with key issues hindering sage grouse conservation in the West 

that were identified in a report sponsored by the Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. These key issues included creating an 

organizational structure for conservation efforts, establishing leadership to 

coordinate the efforts, and finding resources to fund the efforts. 

Representatives from the Sand County Foundation and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiated discussions with representatives from BLM, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and Encana Oil and Gas to develop ideas for a 

collaborative conservation effort that spanned the range of the sage grouse. 

The partners believe that the effort should be broad, inclusive, and 

representative and, therefore, include key state agencies; counties; tribes; a 

wide spectrum of landowners, ranchers, and citizens; a diverse mix of 

companies across multiple industries; a good representation of local, 

regional, and national conservation groups; and other federal agencies such 

as the Department of Defense. Potential partners in the Initiative were 

identified through conversations among the core group who initiated the 

effort. Subsequently, invitations to participate were sent out broadly to 

individuals and the list of potential partners grew through further 

recommendations. At the second major general meeting of the group in 

December 2006, over 80 people attended, including representatives from 

federal and state agencies, energy companies, and nongovernmental 

organizations, as well as private landowners. 

After its initial efforts to gain participation, the Initiative formed a 

partnership and outreach working group responsible for identifying and 

communicating with critical partners for the Initiative, as well as 

developing an outreach strategy to inform key audiences of the Initiative’s 

purpose and achievements. Partners we spoke with noted that they believe 

they have good representation from all of the necessary interests, although 

some noted that the tribes have not been involved thus far even though 

they have been encouraged to participate.

Develop a Collaborative Process Decisions within the Initiative are made by consensus and meetings are 

facilitated by a staff member from the U.S. Institute for Environmental 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 77 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Conflict Resolution. To accomplish work, the Initiative has developed a 

strategic plan that includes four working groups: (1) a partnership and 

outreach group to ensure that the Initiative includes all stakeholders and 

reaches out to underrepresented interests; (2) an incentives group to work 

on incentive mechanisms for the participants; (3) a projects group that 

identifies and prioritizes conservation projects; and (4) a funding group 

that is developing a banking structure for the group.

The Initiative is governed by a 12-member Partnership Council that 

includes representatives from the Cooperative Sagebrush Steppe 

Restoration Initiative, Encana Oil and Gas, EnerCrest Corporation, 

Environmental Defense, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Peabody 

Energy/Powder River Coal, Shell Oil, Western Governor’s Association, Sand 

County Foundation, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Vermillion 

Ranch, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In addition, 

there are nonvoting federal advisory members on the Partnership Council 

from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service.

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

According to some of the partners, the group views transparency as the 

best way to deal with critics and skeptics and, therefore, has invited 

everyone to participate. By having an open process for discussion, the 

group has been able to respectfully discuss different perspectives even 

though the members do not always agree. As one participant described it, 

there is more to the process than sitting around singing “kumbaya.” In 

addition, the group posts most of its information and documents on its Web 

site and opens its meetings and conference calls to any stakeholders who 

want to participate. 

Find Leadership Several participants attribute the initial success of the group to the 

visionary leadership of some of the group’s founders who saw an 

opportunity for conservation in the concurrent trends of increased oil and 

gas development in the West and decreasing sagebrush habitat. One of the 

participants noted that the group has benefited from several different 

leaders who have the ability to share a vision with others and motivate 

them to work toward it by focusing on problem solving and solutions. 

Identify a Common Goal The Initiative partners came together around the goal of conserving 

sagebrush habitat, with the focus on preventing the need for a listing of the 

greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. The partners have 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 78 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

identified a common goal which is to “result in the long-term, verifiable 

recovery of the greater sage grouse and improvement of other species of 

concern in the sagebrush range.” Some participants noted that the Initiative 

would not exist without the threat of a listing because each of the partners 

has different concerns over the need for or result of a listing. For example, 

conservation organizations want to maintain the health of the species, 

industry is concerned over increased limitations on energy exploration and 

development in sagebrush habitat that would be brought about by a listing, 

and ranchers are concerned that a listing would restrict their activities on 

their private land as well as on the public land associated with grazing 

leases. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

The Initiative has utilized the expertise of scientists from the state wildlife 

agencies and the federal agencies to guide various aspects of the effort and 

has used existing sagebrush habitat data from the U.S. Geological Survey 

and sage grouse conservation studies completed by the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies across the 11-state sage grouse 

range. In 2006, a panel of sage grouse scientists, representing 10 state 

wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and the Forest Service convened to 

identify priority areas of conservation and types of conservation efforts 

that would benefit the sagebrush range. In addition, to mentor applicants 

who have applied for conservation projects under the Initiative and help 

them develop the details of their project, one of the working groups has 

been charged with recruiting a Science Advisory Council that will consist 

of scientists with expertise in sage grouse biology, range management, 

landscape ecology, and conservation biology. Furthermore, in February of 

2007, the Initiative sponsored a workshop to explore how a conservation 

credit trading system for the sagebrush ecosystem may be defined. This 

workshop brought together sage grouse and sagebrush scientists as well as 

experts familiar with other credit trading systems such as wetland banking 

programs, endangered species conservation banks, and carbon offset 

programs. 

Leverage Available Resources The Initiative’s early efforts have been funded by some of the member 

organizations such as the Sand County Foundation,6

 National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, and Encana Oil and Gas. The funds generated thus far 

6

Money from the Sand County Foundation came through the Bradley Fund for the 

Environment, a partnership between Sand County Foundation and the Lynde and Harry 

Bradley Foundation.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 79 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

have paid for meetings and planning activities, but participants anticipate 

that the Initiative will be able to raise sufficient money for demonstrating 

conservation efforts. As the effort begins to implement conservation 

projects, participants noted that funding may come from industry, federal 

programs, or the conservation credit trading system. Funding for the 

demonstration projects will potentially be provided by a mix of the 

partners, including the federal agencies and oil and gas companies.

Provide Incentives According to the group, the Initiative’s partnership is built upon using 

incentives for landowners, local communities, and private industry to 

invest in habitat restoration and other conservation actions. The incentives 

working group has focused its efforts primarily on two incentives. First, the 

Initiative views the creation of a conservation credit trading system as a 

potentially significant economic incentive for landowners to engage in 

voluntary conservation efforts. This system would allow landowners or 

others to earn credits by implementing sagebrush conservation activities. 

These credits could then be sold to energy companies or others who may 

desire them for a variety of purposes, including mitigating the effect of 

development projects elsewhere in sagebrush habitat. The concepts behind 

the conservation credit trading system are currently in development and 

many of the participants acknowledge that there are significant inherent 

difficulties in designing such a system, particularly one that will stand up to 

scientific scrutiny. For example, the sagebrush ecosystem is highly 

heterogeneous, with varying levels of habitat quality across the range. This 

creates challenges in determining the value of a credit and how this may 

change from location to location. However, several of the participants we 

spoke with believed this credit trading system was crucial to the overall 

Initiative and remained optimistic that it could succeed. 

The second type of incentive that the Initiative is working on includes 

obtaining various assurances from the Department of the Interior that by 

implementing voluntary sagebrush ecosystem conservation efforts, 

participants would not bear greater costs or requirements if the greater 

sage grouse or other species dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem 

became listed under the Endangered Species Act. For example, if a rancher 

improved or created habitat for sage grouse on his or her land and then the 

species was listed under the Endangered Species Act, the rancher could be 

subject to restrictions on grazing practices that might harm the sage grouse 

by damaging its habitat. The Initiative developed and submitted five 

specific recommendations that they believe Interior could take to secure 

particular assurances. According to one partner, Interior has indicated that 

the group will receive a response soon. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 80 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

The group has not yet initiated any conservation projects; however, the 

group issued a request for proposal in May 2007 for demonstration projects 

designed to measurably improve sagebrush habitat and test the concept of 

a conservation credit trading system. The request for proposal included 

provisions for monitoring of projects. Some participants noted that 

monitoring would be a critical component of any conservation projects and 

conservation credit system.

Eastern Upper 

Peninsula Partners in 

Ecosystem 

Management

The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management group 

was started in 1992 originally to collaborate across boundaries on lands in 

the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan for ecosystem management. Over 

time, the group evolved into an information-sharing group to coordinate 

land management, but has been relatively inactive in recent years. 

Members of the group include state and federal government agencies, a 

conservation organization, and industrial (timber) landowners who 

together manage two-thirds of the four million acres of the eastern Upper 

Peninsula. This area includes the 895,000-acre Hiawatha National Forest, 

95,000-acre Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 73,000-acre Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore, state land, and privately owned land.

Historically, much of the eastern Upper Peninsula was managed for timber 

harvest and most of the region was cut by the early 1900s. In the 1800s, 

loggers harvested pine and shifted to hardwoods in the 1900s as pine trees 

were cut over. The eastern Upper Peninsula is once again largely forested 

with second-growth forests including aspen, white birch, and jack pine. In 

recent years, many of the timber companies have been selling their lands.

Natural Resource Problems According to group members, there are few contentious issues causing 

conflict among land managers and owners in the eastern Upper Peninsula, 

but the group saw an opportunity among the large landowners to cooperate 

in a manner that could enhance ecosystems across the landscape. Many 

members note that the primary outcomes of the group have been educating 

partners with information that they can use in their management, sharing 

information among the partners, and building relationships. Some of the 

particular examples of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group’s coordinated 

efforts include the following: 

• Most of the eastern Upper Peninsula is second-growth forest, with trees 

of similar age. Some members of the group sought to establish a mix of 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 81 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

trees of different age classes across the landscape to provide healthy 

habitat for species, in particular, neotropical bird species such as the 

golden-winged warbler, that use the forests. However, the forest 

companies that owned land in the eastern Upper Peninsula were 

focused on commodity production rather than habitat health. The 

Eastern Upper Peninsula group provided opportunities to educate the 

industrial landowners that accommodating neotropical birds on their 

land could be done without affecting their financial bottom line. By 

coordinating with neighboring landowners to obtain a mix of vegetation 

over a larger area, the need for any one landowner to achieve all habitat 

objectives on his or her land alone was reduced. 

• To support efforts to manage their land in a complementary manner, 

members of the group recognized the need for broad-scale mapping that 

could be used in looking at the overall landscape. As a result, the group 

coordinated to map and categorize land units in the region into areas 

with similar physical and biological characteristics, called land type 

associations. The land type associations have been used to varying 

extent by the partners as a planning tool and for some decision making. 

The group was able to reach consensus on the descriptions of the land 

classifications, but was unable to agree on the management implications 

of the ecological descriptions such as the need to use fire to attain a 

particular age variation in the trees. The partners were concerned that 

documenting management implications would constrain the activities 

they could conduct on their land.

Many of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group partners have worked together 

on individual efforts to enhance their positive effects on the landscape, 

discuss compatible management, or preserve land. Examples of such 

efforts include the following:

• Through the relationship built with the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, 

The Nature Conservancy and a timber company were able to reach 

agreement on access and save a wetland area from being built over by a 

road. The timber company wanted to gain access across a nature 

preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy 

originally denied access and the timber company threatened to build a 

road across a wetland on its land. Through the relationship developed 

through the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, these organizations were 

able to discuss the issue and The Nature Conservancy agreed to allow 

access across its land.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 82 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

• A National Park Service official noted that the Eastern Upper Peninsula 

group helped the National Park Service open a dialogue with the state 

and timber companies to discuss forest management issues. Pictured 

Rocks National Lakeshore has a 39,300-acre buffer zone of land within 

its boundary that is predominately owned by the state and timber 

companies. According to a former National Park Service official, the 

National Park Service has an interest in maintaining healthy ecosystems 

in this buffer zone, while the state and timber company’s interest is 

focused primarily on the use of the land to generate revenue from 

harvesting timber. 

• As a result of the relationship that The Nature Conservancy developed 

with state and federal agencies and timber companies, The Nature 

Conservancy negotiated a conservation easement on 250,000 acres of 

private timberland. The easement will allow some forestry on the land, 

but in a manner that is compatible with a nearby Nature Conservancy 

preserve.

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Eastern Upper Peninsula group are 

described in the following sections. 

Seek Inclusive Representation The Eastern Upper Peninsula group effort began when staff from the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources recognized the need to talk 

with the landowners who shared their boundaries and subsequently 

convened a meeting with the Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Nature Conservancy. According to these 

partners, after they had been meeting for a period of time, they recognized 

the influence of private forest land in the eastern Upper Peninsula 

landscape. The group members debated about whether or not to bring 

private timber companies who owned or managed land into the partnership 

because they were commodity-based and would have different goals and 

objectives for the land than the agencies. Ultimately, according to the 

members, they decided to invite timber representatives into the group. One 

timber industry official noted that his company was initially interested in 

the Eastern Upper Peninsula group because participating in a collaborative 

group could help them attain certification for sustainable forestry 

practices. More recently, the timber companies have had less interest in the 

group, in part because many of them have been selling their land in the 

eastern Upper Peninsula. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 83 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Develop a Collaborative Process The participants stressed that the Eastern Upper Peninsula group is not a 

decision-making group and therefore does not have an established 

decision-making process. However, the group has used consensus to 

identify issues that it would like to work on. The group has no protocols, 

bylaws, or memorandums of understanding. The members share 

information and, as partners see the need, form subgroups to work on 

particular projects, with people joining in as they have the interest and 

time. Under this arrangement, each entity retains its own individual 

objectives and decision-making process that it will go through to determine 

what work it will undertake as a part of the group’s efforts. Some members 

noted that the informality of the group has allowed them to avoid issues 

with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which establishes rules for 

federal advisory committees.7

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

According to the Eastern Upper Peninsula group partners, the participants 

generated trust because early in the process they agreed to respect the 

missions of each of the individual organizations and to not change any 

agency’s or organization’s mission or objectives. Participants describe trust 

as the most significant outcome of their efforts. When the group first began 

meeting, each of the partners discussed their organization’s missions, 

which helped the group to gain an understanding of one another. As a result 

of the trust generated by the group, they have been able to openly share 

information that they probably would have not shared otherwise, such as 

the location of timber harvests. Some participants noted that through the 

open atmosphere generated by the group, potential conflicts are often 

eliminated before they become conflicts. 

Find Leadership According to some of the members, the group was pulled together by a few 

key people who were all managers and able to make decisions. Everyone in 

the initial group was a manager and had good decision-making skills, an 

ability to voice his or her opinion, and knowledge of the relevant governing 

laws, authorities, and policies. Some members noted that different people 

emerged at various times to bring the group together on different issues 

and move the group forward. 

7

Congress enacted Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972 in response to two principal 

concerns: (1) that federal advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review, 

oversight, or accountability and (2) that certain special interests had too much influence 

over federal agency decision makers. The act generally applies to committees established or 

utilized by federal agencies for the purpose of obtaining advice or recommendations.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 84 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

One of the original members coordinated the group and kept it going 

between 1992 and 2006. When this person assumed a different position 

within his agency and was no longer able to coordinate the group, it 

became less active and does not currently have a coordinator. Some 

members noted that there were still natural resource issues, such as 

invasive species, that the group could continue to work on and that the 

Eastern Upper Peninsula group effort could be improved by having a leader 

dedicated to the group who had coordination and facilitation skills. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has not previously been 

actively involved in the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, according to an 

official from the agency, but coordinates the Upper Peninsula Resource 

Conservation and Development Council—a congressionally designated, 

nonprofit group that identifies and undertakes resource management and 

community development projects. Some of the council’s goals overlap with 

those of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group. Consequently, the council 

coordinator, who is a Natural Resources Conservation Service employee, 

has offered to facilitate and coordinate the group’s meetings in the future, 

starting in early 2008. A Natural Resources Conservation Service official 

noted that this may supply the impetus needed to get the Eastern Upper 

Peninsula group active again and working on issues important to the group 

members.

Identify a Common Goal The Eastern Upper Peninsula group members agreed that their goal is “to 

facilitate complementary management of public and private lands, for all 

appropriate land uses, using a landscape-ecological approach to sustain 

and enhance representative ecosystems in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan.” According to one of the group’s founders, the Eastern Upper 

Peninsula effort was originally envisioned as a means to coordinate land 

management strategies and activities among neighboring landowners to 

achieve overall ecosystem goals. However, after the group began meeting, 

it became apparent that it would not be able to concur on a common 

management approach given the different missions of each of the partners. 

Efforts by some of the members to try to get the partners to coordinate and 

agree on common management practices and strategies were met with 

resistance. Consequently, the group determined that it would function as an 

information-sharing group and not a decision-making body. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has placed a high priority on 

developing and sharing information. The group has worked together to 

map and describe land type associations in the eastern Upper Peninsula, 

which some members noted have been useful in making landscape-scale 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 85 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

decisions. Members of the group stated that any information developed by 

the group is made available to other members without restrictions or 

protocols. For example, land type associations were developed for private 

lands adjacent to the national forest and were used by small foresters to 

help with their planning.

Leverage Available Resources The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has not officially sought funding 

because, according to group members, it made a decision that it did not 

want to receive and mange funds. Resources for the group came from the 

individual partners as they were needed and available. For example, some 

of the timber company partners published a guide on threatened and 

endangered species using private funds. 

Provide Incentives The Eastern Upper Peninsula group does not use any particular incentives 

to achieve its goals. 

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has not established any formal 

mechanisms to monitor natural resources, but has periodically assessed 

the need for the group to continue. According to one member, monitoring 

natural resource improvements made by a group is possible only if the 

group has joint projects, which is not the case of this group. Furthermore, 

the group has no resources to dedicate to monitoring. However, group 

members noted that they assessed the value of the group every 2 or 3 years 

by evaluating their progress toward their goals and discussing among the 

members whether the effort was still needed. In addition, every 2 to 3 years 

the group would discuss and set new goals. 

Malpai Borderlands 

Group

The Malpai Borderlands Group is a nonprofit group in southeastern 

Arizona and southwestern New Mexico working to restore fire as an 

ecological process to the rangelands and keep a working landscape based 

on natural resources—primarily, livestock grazing. The Sonoran and 

Chihauhaun deserts in this area have historically supported ranching, but 

also support numerous species, including threatened and endangered 

species such as the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, jaguar, and 

Chiricauhua leopard frog. 

The group’s planning and activities encompass approximately 800,000 

acres including public lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and the 

states of New Mexico and Arizona, as well as private lands held by ranchers 

and the nonprofit Animas Foundation. The group started informally, 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 86 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

meeting to discuss problems the neighbors faced in ranching and 

eventually bringing in interested environmentalists who were concerned 

about subdivision and development of the land, including The Nature 

Conservancy. The group incorporated in 1994 to more actively pursue its 

goals. 

Natural Resource Problems In working to restore fire to the landscape, the Malpai group has worked to 

resolve related problems. 

• Wildland fires can provide some beneficial effects to ecosystems that 

are adapted to fire, such as restoring vegetation and improving habitat. 

Some landowners view fire as beneficial but others do not want to use 

fire to manage land and vegetation. For example, Arizona state trust 

lands are managed primarily for ranching and to generate income for 

public schools in the state. As a result, the state puts out all fires on 

these lands and generally does not use fire as a management tool to 

promote growth of grasses and fuel reduction of shrubs and bushes, 

although it works with the Malpai Borderland Group to set prescribed 

fires. On the other hand, the Forest Service, BLM, and some private 

ranchers want to burn their grasslands to reduce shrubs, such as 

creosote and mesquite and to promote grasses. The group has worked to 

educate landowners about the benefits of fire and has worked with the 

different landowners to set and burn several large fires. The group has 

succeeded in reintroducing fire to a total of about 69,000 acres. 

• The effects of fire on threatened and endangered species are mixed and 

create difficulties for using fire to restore vegetation. While restoring 

fire to an ecosystem that is fire-adapted helps support habitats and 

species in the long term, using fire on the landscape in the short term 

can harm threatened and endangered species, such as the ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake, or food sources for other threatened and endangered 

species, such as the agave plant used by lesser long-nosed bats. The 

group worked to get the most recent scientific evidence from 

researchers working on the species to use in their plans to restore fire, 

both on public and private lands. More recently, the group has begun 

working on a habitat conservation plan with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which would identify the activities that could be undertaken by 

the group without triggering concerns about “taking”—killing or 

harming—a threatened or endangered species.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 87 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

• Resource overuse can occur during drought. During an extended 

drought over the last decade, ranchers in the Malpai area faced a 

decision to sell off their herds or keep them on the land and potentially 

overgraze it. To avoid this outcome, the group and the Animas 

Foundation—a nonprofit working ranch operating within the group’s 

boundaries—established a grassbank on Animas Foundation lands in 

New Mexico. Ranchers with distressed lands have used the grassbank 

for 3 to 5 years. Continued drought has made this program less viable in 

the last few years as the drought has extended over a broader area.

• Development of open land and loss of the resource and open space 

occurs when ranchers sell their lands. Private landowners can sell their 

land at any time, but are more likely to sell during economic hardship. 

Yet ranchers, and others, have an interest in maintaining open lands for 

different purposes—livestock grazing, habitat for species, and amenities 

such as recreation or scenic views. The group worked with ranchers in 

the area who did not want to sell, purchasing conservation easements 

for their lands that allowed them to stay in ranching despite economic 

need to sell the land. The group has succeeded in protecting 77,000 

acres of land using conservation easements.

• The group worked with an individual rancher who provided habitat for a 

threatened species—the Chiricahua leopard frog. As a result, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Malpai Borderlands Group with a 

safe harbor agreement that protects the owner, and any other 

landowners who wish to participate, should the species be damaged by 

typical ranching actions.

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Malpai Borderlands Group are 

described in the following sections.

Seek Inclusive Representation The Malpai Borderlands Group began informally as a discussion group that 

later incorporated as a nonprofit. The original members of the group were 

self-selected members of the ranching community and interested 

environmentalists who were associated with members of the group. When 

the Malpai Borderlands Group incorporated in 1994, this discussion group 

formed the original board. Many of the members of the Malpai group are 

landowners in the area, but some are not. The board includes a member of 

The Nature Conservancy and retired federal employees who were key in 

helping the group get started and work with the agencies. Board meetings 

are open and the group invites a wide range of people to attend. It also 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 88 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

works with its critics on various issues; however, it has determined not to 

change the membership of the board to include outside parties because of 

concerns over control of members’ private lands. The members of the 

group are particularly concerned about the need to recruit young people to 

the group and board—some are leaving ranching altogether and those who 

remain often do not attend meetings.

Develop a Collaborative Process The group is managed by a nonprofit board, which has bylaws and 

organizational structure. According to some members, the group has 

succeeded because it is run by the board, and while the agencies have 

joined the effort, they do not direct it. This is important because the private 

landowners make decisions about what actions to take on their own lands. 

The group coordinates closely with federal and state agencies that manage 

lands within the Malpai planning area. Until the last few years, two of these 

agencies—the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest 

Service—dedicated an employee to be a liaison with the group. When the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service liaison retired, a new person was 

selected with the help of the group; however, when the Forest Service 

liaison retired, the agency and the group decided not to fill that position 

and the agency is instead trying to have more employees work with the 

group. 

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

The group holds open meetings and invites a wide range of participants to 

talk about management issues. It works by consensus, trying to work 

problems out informally first. For example, in the mid-1990s, a member of 

the group photographed a live jaguar in the United States. Members 

participated in the discussions over protection of the species and 

designation of critical habitat—specific areas that may be critical for the 

conservation of the species—for it in the United States. The group invited a 

key scientist to visit and assess the habitat, and as a result, members 

believe that what they are doing to restore the habitat and keep it open is 

the best protection for the habitat. The Malpai group also established a 

fund to reimburse ranchers for any jaguar kills of livestock. While members 

of the group disagree with the need for the federal government to designate 

critical habitat for the species in the United States, which may have an 

effect on the activities that they can conduct on their land, they invited 

environmental groups to their board meetings to discuss protection of the 

species under the Endangered Species Act. According to the Center for 

Biological Diversity, a member attended a meeting but the groups disagreed 

on how to handle the situation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the 

jaguar as endangered outside of the United States in 1972, prohibiting the 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 89 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

import of jaguar pelts into the country, and listed it as endangered within 

the United States under the Endangered Species Act in 1997. Recently, the 

Center has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to compel the agency to 

develop a recovery plan and designate critical habitat for the jaguar. 

Find Leadership Members of the Malpai group attribute their success to the leadership of 

several individuals who brought vision, commitment, and organizational 

skills to the group. They also recognized the role played by federal agency 

officials both in Washington and in the field offices, who recognized the 

group’s potential and gave it the opportunity—and resources, including 

people—to work. According to members, leadership and organizational 

skills from The Nature Conservancy were also key to getting foundations 

interested in the group’s efforts and getting the group incorporated as a 

nonprofit. Most importantly, key members of the ranching community had 

the vision to join together—when most ranchers prefer to work as 

individuals—and other farsighted ranchers joined them. Members attribute 

this attitude to a particular individual whose philosophy was to protect the 

land and those who work it. 

Identify a Common Goal The Malpai group’s goal is to “restore and maintain the natural processes 

that create and protect healthy, unfragmented landscape to support a 

diverse, flourishing community of human, plant, and animal life in our 

borderlands region. Together, we will accomplish this by working to 

encourage profitable ranching and other traditional livelihoods which will 

sustain the open space nature of our land for generations to come.” When 

lands in the area started selling, these ranchers became concerned about 

future subdivision and development of ranchland and the potential loss of 

their ranching livelihoods and joined together to protect both. Another 

concern was the lack of fire. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

As part of its decision-making process, the Malpai Borderland Group seeks 

to gather and use scientific information relevant to the problem its 

members are managing. The group has a science coordinator whose 

position is to manage several ongoing research efforts on lands in the 

Malpai planning area and a Science Advisory Board made up of more than 

40 experts in rangeland science; this group provides advice about research 

efforts, monitoring, and management activities. These include a program of 

research to study the effects of wildland fire on threatened and endangered 

species such as the lesser long-nosed bat and ridge-nosed rattlesnake. The 

science program also includes 9,000 acres of research plots established by 

the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station to study different 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 90 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

revegetation treatments in areas excluded from grazing and 12 watersheds 

to examine the sediment runoff resulting from burning differently-sized 

areas and different amounts of vegetation. The group funds research, as 

well as partners with outside researchers from federal agencies, such as 

USDA’s research stations, and universities. In addition, the group sponsors 

an annual scientific conference on topics related to its interests and 

management activities.

Leverage Available Resources Because the group fosters a cooperative relationship among landowners 

and agency staff to manage a broad landscape, it has been able to raise 

more money for its conservation efforts. Private fundraising groups and 

individuals provide funding to groups that can achieve on-the-ground 

resource improvements and results. The group received start-up funds, 

which was important because it let the group buy basic office equipment 

such as computers, printers, and supplies. Over the years, the group has 

met at one of the ranch houses, in an addition built for the meetings. The 

group continues to get grants from nonprofit groups such as the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation and receives grants for research and 

personnel support. 

Most of the members have been involved since the inception of the 

discussion group and acknowledge the heavy time commitment that comes 

with being part of the group. The members see the benefit of participating 

because as a group they are able to accomplish activities that they would 

not do as individuals. For example, prior to the establishment of the group, 

one rancher could not coordinate with the agencies to burn vegetation on 

both his land and on the agency’s adjacent land. The group used to meet 

monthly, but now meets less often. Because the distances between ranches 

are great and require considerable travel time, the group conducts business 

by telephone conference and e-mail and holds quarterly board meetings in 

person.

Provide Incentives Incentives used by the group include a grassbank, which allows ranchers to 

temporarily move their cattle from their own drought-damaged land to 

healthier grasslands on the Gray Ranch owned by the Animas Foundation. 

In exchange, the Malpai Borderlands Group receives a conservation 

easement for the development rights to the private property on the ranch. 

These conservation easements are different from others used by The 

Nature Conservancy and federal agencies in that they contain a clause that 

states if the rancher loses access to his or her federal grazing allotment 

through no fault of his or her own, then the easement is void and the land 

could then be sold for development. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 91 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

The group has worked with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the 

threatened and endangered species on privately-owned ranchlands in the 

group’s planning area. In one case, the group received a safe harbor 

agreement to protect one of the last remaining populations of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs that were residing in a rancher’s stock pond. The agreement 

allows the rancher, who had trucked water in to the pond during drought 

years to keep the frogs alive, to manage the stock pond for livestock 

purposes without the threat of enforcement action should any of the frogs 

die because of those actions. Other ranchers can participate in the safe 

harbor agreement by signing a certificate of inclusion with the Malpai 

Borderlands Group and thereby receive the protections of the agreement. 

The group is also developing a habitat conservation plan for the area in 

order to implement grassland and ranch management activities in areas 

where there are threatened or endangered species. For example, this 

habitat conservation plan will allow the use of fire in certain conditions and 

identify certain restrictions to protect the threatened ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake and several other species that might be harmed or killed by the 

fires. This will permit ranchers to conduct activities provided the 

restrictions are followed. 

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

As part of its management efforts, the group conducts range monitoring 

across the lands in its planning area and maintains more than 290 

monitoring plots for this purpose. It pays a contractor to visit the plots to 

determine the condition of the pastures and the availability and use of grass 

by livestock or wildlife. According to members, these monitoring efforts 

are useful for judging the condition of grasslands in the vicinity of the plots, 

but do not gauge overall rangeland conditions. The group is working on a 

method for monitoring range conditions more broadly across the whole 

planning area. The group has also sponsored species counts for some of the 

threatened and endangered species on lands in its planning area. This work 

enabled them to better know and understand the location of species and to 

limit activities there. 

Onslow Bight 

Conservation Forum

The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum (Forum)—named for the shallow 

crescent-shaped bay that makes up much of the coastline in southeastern 

North Carolina where the group is organized—is an information-sharing 

group organized to help protect and restore the unique coastal environment 

of the area and associated species. The Onslow Bight region, as with other 

parts of coastal North Carolina, is developing quickly and the rural nature 

of the area is rapidly changing. Because of its unique makeup, the area is a 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 92 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

hotspot for endemic species—those that can only be found in that area—

such as the Venus flytrap. This area of North Carolina contains both 

longleaf pine habitat favored by the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker 

and unique wetland habitat such as pocosins, or wetlands that form on a 

hill because of large amounts of peat that accumulate. 

The group, formed officially in 2001, originally began as a way to help the 

Marine Corps manage encroachment issues around its installations and to 

manage habitat for threatened and endangered species, in particular the 

red-cockaded woodpecker. The group has since expanded its vision to 

include aquatic habitat and conservation of land along the coast. The 

members of the group represent the large blocks of publicly-owned lands 

such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission game lands, the 

Croatan National Forest, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejune, Marine Corps 

Air Station Cherry Point, and several land conservation trust groups. In 

addition to overall biodiversity conservation, one focus of the group has 

been to study potential corridors for wildlife to migrate between these 

public lands. 

Natural Resource Problems The natural resource management problems and conflicts that the Forum 

has managed revolve around land development and conservation: 

• Development of lands eliminates habitat for different species and 

causes the public lands to become islands of biodiversity, which can 

affect management of these lands. In particular, development can harm 

endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. Agencies 

with populations that need to be protected are interested in expanding 

habitat to help protect the species and ease the pressure on their lands. 

Yet, private landowners are free to sell and develop their land. The 

Forum developed a habitat protection plan to identify the location of 

important habitat for threatened and endangered species and has 

discussed and agreed upon areas that are a priority for preservation and 

protection. This information has helped the agencies and land trusts 

coordinate and prioritize land acquisition and has prevented them from 

competing for the same lands. Since 2001, the Forum partners have 

together acquired about 57,000 acres of land from willing sellers.

• Encroachment near military installations creates safety hazards as well 

as complaints from neighboring communities about noise, dust, and 

other side-effects of training exercises. The military has the incentive to 

use its lands for training purposes and to have large buffers between its 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 93 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

installations and communities. Yet, communities and others have 

incentives to develop lands for other purposes. Through the Forum, the 

Marine Corps representatives can work with other members to identify 

lands that have compatible uses with the military’s needs and also meet 

habitat purposes. Military funds can then be used to help acquire 

conservation easements to the land.

• Habitat fragmentation occurs with increased development, particularly 

with greater numbers and size of roads, which affects large species and 

increases vehicle collisions with wildlife that are possibly fatal. Private 

landowners have the right to sell and develop their land and zoning 

allows for building. However, hunting, environmental, and other groups 

have an interest in protecting species such as the black bear, which need 

land to roam. The Onslow Bight area supports a large population of 

bears and the number of collisions with wildlife in the area is increasing. 

The group has identified areas that road construction should avoid and 

the need for more wildlife crossings in new road construction.

• Historically, the longleaf pine and pocosins of the Coastal Plain 

depended on fire as an ecological process. Fire has been suppressed for 

years, although the health of the vegetation depends on fire. The 

agencies and land managers have an interest in burning their lands to 

restore their health, however, new community members do not like 

smoke and complain about burning programs. The group is working 

with The Nature Conservancy on a project started in 2005 called the 

Onslow Bight Fire Learning Network/LANDFIRE application project to 

develop and support a burn program to help restore habitat.8

 The Nature 

Conservancy is also developing a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with the Forum to share equipment and personnel. Including 

burning on agency lands as part of the fire programs, the members of the 

Forum burn about 60,000 acres of land a year.

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Forum are described in the 

following sections.

8

The project will also test national fire data for the LANDFIRE project, which is a database 

and related models being developed by the Forest Service and BLM to gather consistent 

national data on vegetation conditions and related fuel conditions. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 94 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Seek Inclusive Representation The Forum includes a range of participants who manage land or are 

advocates for land conservation. The Forum began with a network of land 

managers and federal and state agency officials, and members have 

discussed how broadly to advertise for potential members; for now, they 

have determined to keep the membership more narrow. Two land 

conservation organizations—North Carolina Coastal Federation and North 

Carolina Coastal Land Trust—have representatives in the Forum. Members 

also include representatives from the North Carolina Natural Heritage 

Program, which conducts inventories for rare species and high-quality 

habitat in the state, and the Wildlife Resources Commission, which 

manages state lands for wildlife. Another state agency, the Department of 

Transportation, has signed on as a member because it acquires lands to 

mitigate the destruction of wetlands or other lands for road building 

activities. It is also interested in identifying where to put underpasses for 

wildlife to safely cross roads; however, members indicated that agency 

representation has been infrequent.

In addition to the Marine Corps, other federal agencies that are involved in 

the Forum include the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the National Park Service. The federal partners were initially more involved 

in planning efforts, but because the key staff involved left the area and 

were not replaced, the agencies have had less involvement. Members of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services group participate 

because of threatened and endangered species issues. Other federal 

employees from the Forest Service have attended as they are able to do so, 

but according to Forum and Forest Service members, other Forest Service 

activities compete for their attention. The Natural Resources Conservation 

Service also joined the Forum and attends meetings. However, while 

Forum members see a role for the agency because of the large amounts of 

conservation funding that it provides, the agency has been less involved in 

acquisition activities because that is not a main goal of the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 

Develop a Collaborative Process The Forum exists through an MOU signed by all members. The MOU is 

nonbinding and states that each agency will retain its mission. It also states 

that the group will discuss and share information that is compatible with 

the land use and management objectives of each entity involved. The MOU 

allows the groups to discuss, share information, and agree on conservation 

or preservation opportunities, but in order to avoid triggering Federal 

Advisory Committee Act requirements, the group does not make official 

decisions or take official actions. For committees subject to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, the act generally requires that agencies announce 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 95 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

committee meetings ahead of time and give notice to interested parties 

about such meetings. With some exceptions, the meetings are to be open to 

the public, and agencies are to prepare meeting minutes and make them 

available to interested parties. Nevertheless, the Forum can come to 

consensus on activities, which individual agencies can decide to undertake 

or not. 

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

According to members, because of the MOU, which allows each member to 

retain its overall mission and undertake the activities that best suit that 

mission, the group is highly flexible and open. In addition, participants said 

that the Forum has been managed in a transparent manner, in that the 

participants are clear in sharing their individual interests with other 

members. Participants said that this transparency has helped to foster 

respect among the members. For example, the Marine Corps members 

have been upfront about their purpose in working for land conservation, 

which involves relieving the pressure of development around their 

installations and potentially removing restrictions on training exercises 

that result from threatened and endangered species habitat. 

Find Leadership The Forum started with the efforts of two key people with The Nature 

Conservancy and the U.S. Marine Corps, modeled after a similar effort at 

the Army’s Fort Bragg in North Carolina. It has continued with the 

sustained interest of several more individuals. Members participate as they 

are able and as they can offer particular skills. Because these individuals 

and their agencies have sustained the Forum by such efforts as organizing 

meetings and completing work between meetings, the group is currently 

discussing whether it should hire staff to ensure that work gets 

accomplished. The participants are uncertain which of the agencies or 

groups could justify funding such a position and to whom that position 

would answer.

Identify a Common Goal The goal of the Forum is to provide for open discussion about the long-term 

conservation and enhancement of biological diversity and ecosystem 

sustainability in the Onslow Bight area. The members have different goals 

for managing their land and resources, but do share the goal of identifying 

opportunities to preserve, protect, and restore native biological elements in 

the coastal landscape, including marine and estuarine areas. To achieve 

their goal, the group has focused on acquiring lands that bridge the gaps 

between large publicly-owned lands, as well as some private conservation 

lands, and can meet their common needs. For example, one species on 

which the group focuses is the red-cockaded woodpecker; two of the 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 96 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

federal partners have primary habitat for this species and support two of 

the main recovery populations of the bird as defined by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in its recovery plan for the species. The group has 

identified, and has acquired, land between the public lands that can serve 

as a stepping-stone for members of the populations. The group recognizes 

that acquisition is only the first step of protecting land and resources. The 

next step is to restore habitat and manage those acquired lands and 

resources in the long term. Most of the land is being managed by the state’s 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, primarily the Wildlife 

Resources Commission and the Division of Parks and Recreation. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

In developing its habitat protection plan, the Forum made use of available 

information about lands and resources in the area. In particular, the state’s 

Natural Heritage Program conducts assessments of habitat and identifies 

good habitat for purposes of preserving and protecting it, and the Forum 

used this data to develop the plan. It also used information on existing 

populations of species such as bears and red-cockaded woodpeckers and 

locations of undeveloped woodlands. The Forum also used the scientific 

expertise available from the federal and state agencies in its planning 

process. Biologists from the federal and state agencies helped to identify 

how species such as bears and woodpeckers move across the landscape 

and, accordingly, good places to protect. 

Leverage Available Resources Members of the Forum have been successful in getting grants and using 

these funds to match agency funding to acquire lands. According to 

participants, one of the benefits of the Forum is that foundations and other 

funding groups use collaboration as a way to judge the potential success 

and effectiveness of the group. Sources of funding include the military, 

North Carolina trust funds established for purposes of land conservation, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grants under the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act, and funds raised by the land conservation group 

partners. The Forest Service also attempted to get funding from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, but did not succeed.

The Forum does not have staff and its work is done by the participants, 

which means that sometimes it does not get done. The group meets every 

few months and keeps in touch by e-mail, but participants may not be able 

to prioritize or complete tasks for the group in between meetings. The 

Forum discussed hiring staff but has not made a decision to do so. 

According to members, having staff would allow the group to get more 

work done in between meetings and would ensure that the work would be 

done. The decision to have staff is difficult, however, because the action 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 97 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

might force the group members to increase their commitment to the group 

through funding the position or even cause the Forum to take on a different 

organizational structure to enable the hiring of staff.

Provide Incentives Apart from the incentives provided by land acquisition, the group has not 

had the opportunity to provide or use any incentives to achieve its goals. 

However, in the future, the group may need to work more with private 

landowners and provide them incentives. Some members cited Natural 

Resources Conservation Service programs to protect and conserve 

agricultural lands and wetlands as potential sources of funding to work 

with landowners. For example, one program that could potentially be 

compatible with the Forum’s goals is the Wetlands Reserve Program, a 

program that seeks to restore marginal agricultural land to its previous 

wetland condition through cost-share assistance and easement purchases. 

According to the agency’s Forum representative, the agency’s staff 

currently works with landowners on more traditional agricultural issues 

such as preventing erosion and conserving soils.

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

As membership in the Forum is voluntary, any activities the participants 

undertake are also voluntary and the Forum does not track its 

achievements. These activities, primarily land acquisition and some 

restoration work, help the Forum achieve its overall vision of protecting 

habitat. This conclusion is based on the assumption that protecting and 

restoring habitat will improve species conditions. As part of its planning 

effort, the Forum has developed a geographic information system (GIS) 

map of the public lands and locations of important species and habitat. 

Because the lands are acquired by each agency or participant and not by 

the Forum, this map is not updated to show acquisitions or to keep track of 

the lands protected. Rather, the information that the group develops about 

habitat and species can be used by each participant as it makes decisions 

about land acquisition.

Steens Mountain 

Advisory Council

The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area 

(CMPA), located in southeastern Oregon, was created in 2000 when 

Congress passed the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and 

Protection Act (Steens Act).9

 The high desert mountain area occupies 

about 496,000 acres and supports diverse vegetation and wildlife, including 

9

Pub. L. No. 106-399, Title I, § 101, 114 Stat. 1658 (2000).
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 98 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

habitat for the sage grouse. The same area has a long history of human use 

as a Native American site for spiritual experience and herbal gathering and 

for cattle grazing by local ranching families. The purpose of the CMPA is for 

BLM “to conserve, protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity 

of Steens Mountain for future and present generations.” Of the 496,000 

acres in the CMPA, about 428,000 acres are federal lands and the remaining 

lands are private and state lands. The Steens Act protected about 170,000 

acres of the federally managed land as wilderness, of which about 95,000 

acres are specifically designated as a cattle-free wilderness, the first of its 

kind.10 The federal land is managed for various uses by BLM, and BLM is 

authorized to work cooperatively with private land owners in managing the 

entire area. 

Natural Resource Problems The Steens Act established a multistakeholder group called the Steens 

Mountain Advisory Council (Council). The Council is charged with 

providing BLM recommendations regarding “new and unique approaches 

to the management of lands within the boundaries of the CMPA and 

cooperative programs and incentives for seamless landscape management 

that meets human needs and maintains and improves the ecological and 

economic integrity of the CMPA.” The major land and resource 

management issues that the Council has considered are described below:

• The act required that BLM develop a comprehensive management plan 

for the Steens Mountain CMPA. In addition to the wilderness area 

created by the act, the CMPA contains several wilderness study areas 

that BLM must manage to retain wilderness conditions and wild and 

scenic river corridors that BLM must manage to maintain natural 

conditions. These designations may limit certain activities, such as 

motorized vehicles and equipment, in the areas, and as a result, Council 

members disagree over how to manage these areas—ranchers and 

others would like the wilderness study areas to be removed from 

consideration as wilderness, but an environmental group would like 

even more area to be considered as wilderness study area. In August 

2005, BLM, with the Council’s input, issued a land management plan; 

however, it did not completely address management of roads and travel 

in the CMPA, deferring decisions on route designations until 2007. 

10The Steens Act also designates three new Wild and Scenic Rivers, adds new segments to 

existing Wild and Scenic Rivers, creates a Redband Trout Reserve, and designates 900,000 

acres of federal land off-limits to mineral and geothermal extraction.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 99 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

• Travel management and designation of roads, tire tracks, and ways for 

traditional access was an issue discussed in 2007. BLM has been charged 

with managing travel in the CMPA and can potentially restrict travel in 

some places, in particular the new wilderness area and other wilderness 

study areas. Although motorized access to wilderness areas and 

wilderness study areas is limited, participants of the Council have not 

been able to agree on the definitions for different types of roads that 

should remain open for access. Given the historic uses of Steens 

Mountain, the area has many roads, tracks, or ways that are used at 

various times and for multiple reasons—such as to access property each 

day, check on fencing periodically, and gather herbs during different 

seasons. However, some of these have been proposed for closure by 

environmental groups in order to maintain wilderness characteristics of 

the wilderness areas and study areas, as required by law. An initial travel 

management plan was made public in May 2007, but was rescinded due 

to a court order and was reissued in November 2007.

• Private land management within the CMPA is another management 

issue in which the Council has been involved. BLM is authorized to work 

with private landowners within the CMPA to cooperatively manage the 

private and public lands, such as to control vegetation. However, BLM 

has been able to agree in only a few cases on what management 

activities and payments will be involved. At least one owner is 

considering selling his land for development rather than working with 

BLM. The act authorizes $25 million from the land and water 

conservation fund for, among other purposes, the acquisition of private 

land and conservation easements within the CMPA. According to the 

agency and Council members, none of these funds have been provided, 

limiting the actions local BLM officials can take. Council members and 

others explained that by adding new layers of management restrictions, 

such as wilderness management restrictions, the act limited their ability 

to manage the area in a new and innovative way, thereby precluding 

some cooperation and creative management that could have taken 

place. 

One area in which the group has agreed is related to vegetation 

management. The Council has endorsed a juniper management program to 

thin stands of juniper that have expanded and overcome sagebrush habitats 

and grasslands in the area. BLM, with Council input, is studying different 

options for reducing the expansion of juniper woodlands, but to date only 

limited activity has been funded. According to the agency, the Council has 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 100 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

had greater success at working together to solve ecological restoration 

issues. 

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Council are described in the 

following sections.

Seek Inclusive Representation The Council consists of 12 representatives that, according to the Steens 

Act, must be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior from nominees 

submitted by various federal, state, and local officials. Members include, 

among others: a private landowner in the CMPA; two members who are 

grazing permittees on federal lands in the CMPA; a member interested in 

fish and recreational fishing in the CMPA; a member of the Burns Paiute 

Tribe; two persons who are recognized environmental representatives, one 

of whom represents the state as a whole and one of whom is from the local 

area; a person who participates in dispersed recreation such as hiking, 

camping, nature viewing or photography, bird watching, horse back riding, 

or trail walking; and a person who is a recreational permit holder or is a 

representative of a commercial recreation operation in the CMPA. Several 

members noted that the group stalemates as a result of their makeup and 

difficulty in getting a quorum. According to several members and 

observers, the group is polarized on fundamental issues of use versus 

nonuse and some suggested the need for more neutral or balanced 

representation. 

Another community group, similar to the Blackfoot Challenge in Montana 

and the Malpai Borderlands Group in Arizona and New Mexico, has formed 

with the help of the staff at the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge. 

This group, called the High Desert Partnership, has succeeded in working 

together on a few projects and has helped rebuild trust with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service among some community members. One difference is 

that the group is focused on the common interests of the members. 

Develop a Collaborative Process The Council’s organization and processes have evolved, although members 

of the Council and others explained that it has been less successful making 

recommendations because of organizational problems. Although the 

Council votes using a majority rule, it was not until March 2006 that 

members adopted operating protocols that describe, among other things, 

the Council’s objectives, roles and responsibilities, and communication 

protocols. The Council needs 9 votes in order to provide BLM with a formal 

recommendation; however, during the several years the group has been in 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 101 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

existence, attendance has been poor and filling vacancies has been a 

problem, making it difficult for it to establish a quorum for votes to take 

place. According to several members of the Council, they believe they have 

failed to make recommendations on large issues but they have made 

decisions about less important issues. More recently, all vacancies have 

been filled and some participants were more optimistic about the Council’s 

ability to collaborate in the future. In 2007, the Council provided 

approximately 20 recommendations.

BLM has brought in an outside facilitator to help the Council work through 

conflicts. The facilitator worked with the members during a 2-day retreat 

and made progress on a wilderness access issue. However, a later vote by 

the Council failed to approve the final plan.

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

At times, the group has lacked a respectful atmosphere. One observer 

explained that at one of the Council’s meetings some members fostered 

disrespect toward BLM representatives and tried to direct BLM decisions 

rather than simply provide advice. In response to such issues, the March 

2006 protocols include a section on rules for members and members of the 

public to follow in order to facilitate an open and collaborative discussion. 

These rules say that members will listen with respect, avoid grandstanding 

in order to allow everyone a fair chance to speak and to contribute, and 

jointly advocate for support for consensus recommendations.

Find Leadership According to the agency and participants, the group needs a strong leader 

or facilitator with sufficient training to guide the group. The Council has a 

regular facilitator from the local area; however, at least one member 

believes the group requires stronger facilitation to move forward. While the 

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution provided the Council 

with third-party facilitation in 2003 that achieved consensus on some travel 

access issues, the facilitation was short term and the consensus did not 

last.

Identify a Common Goal While one objective of the Steens Act was to promote and foster 

cooperation, communication, and understanding and to reduce conflict 

between Steens Mountain users and interests, members and other parties 

said that conflicting interpretations of the act are a fundamental source of 

conflict among parties. According to several BLM officials, cooperation 

among stakeholders was much better before the act. The Steens Mountain 

area has been considered an area worthy of conservation since at least 

1999, when the area was considered for designation as a national 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 102 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

monument but local stakeholders opposed special designation. For this 

reason, Council members have fundamentally different interpretations of 

the act, and continue to debate the conservation versus use clauses in it. 

Council members interpret the act differently—some refer to one of the 

statutory objectives of the CMPA that promotes grazing and a provision 

that allows reasonable access to lands within the CMPA, while others 

assert that a section requiring BLM to ensure the conservation, protection, 

and improved ecological integrity of the CMPA represents the act’s primary 

purpose. After the establishment of the CMPA and the wilderness area 

within it, a local environmental group identified several new possible 

wilderness areas—called wilderness study areas. The group has since sued 

BLM to designate these areas as wilderness study areas. In June 2007, the 

District Court held that BLM had properly declined to adopt most of the 

group’s proposed designations. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

The Steens Act authorizes BLM to establish a committee of scientists to 

provide advice on questions relating to the management of the CMPA, but 

BLM has not done so. A BLM official said that the reason a scientific group 

has not been formed is lack of funding requested by the scientists who 

were invited to participate. The local USDA Agriculture Research Service 

office has partnered with BLM and several private landowners over the last 

30 years on scientific research including juniper management. On other 

issues, such as travel management, the county pulled together a common 

database for BLM and the Council to use in its discussions about access.

The Steens Act established a Wildlands Juniper Management Area for 

experimentation, education, interpretation, and demonstration of 

management that is intended to restore the historic fire regime and native 

vegetation communities on Steens Mountain. The area is being used to 

demonstrate different ways BLM and partners are working to reduce the 

amount or size of juniper woodlands to effectively manage the expansion 

of juniper vegetation. Some additional experimentation may occur in the 

area and in other areas of the CMPA. The results of research can help the 

agency, with Council input, determine the best way to reduce vegetation 

using all available tools in many areas, and for certain areas including 

wilderness and wild rivers, through minimum use of mechanized transport 

or motorized equipment. 

Leverage Available Resources BLM pays between $70,000 and $80,000 annually for the Council’s travel, 

staff support, and facilitation. Because it is an advisory committee, it is not 

organized to collect donations or spend funds. However, the Steens Act 

authorized $25 million to be appropriated to BLM to help purchase private 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 103 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

properties within the boundaries of the CMPA, and additional funds would 

be available for incentive payments for cooperative agreements with 

private landowners. Several members of the Council and others told us that 

many conflicts might have been resolved had BLM received these funds.11

For example, funding could have been used to develop cooperative 

agreements or purchase private inholdings, thereby reducing controversial 

issues over access and permissible use. 

Provide Incentives According to the Steens Act, BLM may provide conservation incentive 

payments12 to private landowners in the CMPA who enter into a contract 

with BLM to protect or enhance ecological resources on the private land 

covered by the contract, if those protections or enhancements benefit 

public lands. However, according to BLM officials and Council members, 

because funding has not been forthcoming, such agreements had not been 

finalized at the time of our review. In 2007, BLM initiated several 

cooperative management agreements concerning joint juniper 

management projects where each party pays its own costs and one 

agreement that provides public recreation on private lands where BLM 

funds were used (not land and water conservation funds). 

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

The Steens Act requires that a monitoring program be implemented for 

federal lands in the CMPA so that progress toward ecological integrity 

objectives can be determined. BLM developed a plan to monitor changes to 

current resource conditions within the CMPA, which would provide 

information on 31 resources and uses identified in the CMPA management 

plan. 

The Council has not been formally evaluated to determine its contributions 

or shortcomings. According to the agency and an observer, the group’s 

effectiveness should be evaluated, particularly because some federal 

dollars contribute to its functioning.

11Specifically, the act “authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 from the land and water 

conservation fund established under section 2 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

of 1965 ... to provide funds for the acquisition of land and interests in land ... and to enter 

into non-development easements and conservation easements” as provided elsewhere 

under the act.

12Conservation incentive payments under the Steens Act may include technical assistance, 

cost-share payments, incentive payments, and education.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 104 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Uncompahgre Plateau 

Project

The Uncompahgre Plateau Project is a collaborative group working to 

restore and sustain the condition of the 1.5-million-acre Uncompahgre 

Plateau, located in southwestern Colorado. The group began in the late 

1990s in response to a decline in the mule deer population on the plateau 

that was observed by wildlife officials and hunters. After recognizing that 

the mule deer decline was an indicator of a larger ecosystem problem, the 

group broadened its focus to restoring and sustaining the ecological, social, 

cultural, and economic values of the plateau. The group, which includes 

federal agencies, a community group, a state wildlife agency, and utility 

companies, has developed a plan, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project Plan, 

to guide its efforts. 

Historically, the Uncompahgre Plateau, 75 percent of which is managed by 

the BLM, the Forest Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife 

(CDOW), has had multiple uses including logging, ranching, and recreation 

and provides habitat for many wildlife species, including game species. 

Commercial logging has occurred on Forest Service land for over a century, 

but in recent decades the Forest Service has decreased timber harvest on 

the plateau and current logging operations are limited to small sales of logs 

and firewood. Both the Forest Service and BLM manage grazing allotments 

on the plateau that are tied to privately owned ranches. Recreational use of 

the plateau has steadily increased and includes fishing, off-highway vehicle 

use, snowmobiling, mountain biking, camping, and cross-country skiing. In 

addition, CDOW manages two areas on the plateau for deer and elk 

hunting. Furthermore, the plateau contains lynx analysis units designated 

by CDOW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for lynx populations that 

were reintroduced into Colorado beginning in 1999.

Natural Resource Problems The Uncompahgre Plateau Project has concentrated on several natural 

resource problems on the plateau, including the following:

• According to the group’s participants, their focus broadened to larger 

ecosystem health issues when state biologists found that the observed 

decline in mule deer was related to poor habitat, specifically, vegetation 

that was too homogeneous in its age class distribution. According to 

natural resource managers, this condition resulted from certain 

activities on the plateau such as fire suppression and grazing practices. 

The Uncompahgre Plateau Project has initiated landscape-level 

planning and restoration efforts across jurisdictional boundaries to 

achieve more heterogeneous vegetation across the plateau and bring 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 105 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

vegetation structure, age, condition, and spatial patterns in line with the 

habitat needs of wildlife species. The group’s initial planning and 

restoration efforts have focused on two watersheds covering over 

220,000 acres of BLM, Forest Service, state, and private land and has 

included a variety of vegetation treatments such as roller chopping—

using a large round drum to crush the shrubs—and prescribed burning. 

As of May 2007, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project completed over 100 

restoration projects, covering over 50,000 acres.

• The Uncompahgre Plateau has had problems with invasive species on 

both public and private lands. Invasive species alter the ecology in an 

area by crowding out native species, changing fire regimes, or altering 

hydrologic conditions. To facilitate cooperation among land managers 

and private landowners in efforts to manage invasive species, the 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project has initiated a program to map, monitor, 

control, and prevent invasive species within designated weed 

management areas on over 350,000 acres. 

• The Uncompahgre Plateau is a key location for east to west 

transmission lines connecting Rocky Mountain power sources with 

western markets such as Los Angeles. As a result of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, transmission line operators must ensure that their power 

lines remain reliable. Forested rights-of-way pose threats to reliability 

because of the potential for tall trees to fall on the lines, arcing from the 

power line to trees, and forest fires. Traditionally, power line rights-ofway have been clear-cut to remove tall trees underneath and adjacent to 

the power lines, which has historically generated conflict between 

utilities and land managers, according to a utility official. While this 

practice removes the threat to power lines directly posed by these trees, 

it can damage habitat and ecosystem health and the risk from forest 

fires still remains. Through the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, the utility 

companies and land management agencies have worked together to 

treat vegetation outside of the utility rights-of-way in order to reduce the 

risk of forest fires and threats to the power lines in a manner that 

creates more natural openings that are friendly to wildlife. This is 

accomplished through means such as creating undulating boundaries 

between treated and untreated vegetation, instead of straight lines. 

According to a group member, these treatment techniques are being 

used as a model for other utilities across the country.

• When conducting restoration projects, land managers working on the 

Uncompahgre Plateau want to replant with vegetation that is native to 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 106 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

the plateau because it is better adapted to the local conditions and can 

improve the success of restoration projects. However, there is not a 

sufficient supply of native seeds available on the commercial market for 

large-scale restoration projects on the Uncompahgre Plateau. In 

response, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project initiated a native plant 

program to collect, study, and produce native seeds that can be used to 

facilitate restoration projects. According to a group member, it has 

gathered native seeds for over 50 plants and developed methods for 

propagating these. The ultimate goal of this program is to have private, 

local growers and larger commercial growers cultivate the seeds and 

sell them to the agencies and energy companies who are doing 

restoration projects. 

Collaborative Practices The collaborative practices used by the Uncompahgre Plateau Project are 

described in the following sections.

Seek Inclusive Representation The Uncompahgre Plateau Project partners include BLM; Forest Service; 

CDOW; utility companies including the Western Area Power Administration 

and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; and an 

informal nonprofit community organization called the Public Lands 

Partnership. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project was initiated by the Public 

Lands Partnership and major land managers on the Uncompahgre 

Plateau—BLM, Forest Service, and CDOW. Later, the Western Area Power 

Administration and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, 

Inc., approached the Uncompahgre Plateau Project after seeing a 

presentation on the group and realizing that working collaboratively to 

treat vegetation beyond the utility rights-of-way and decrease the threat of 

forest fires could mutually benefit themselves and the original partners. 

The Western Area Power Administration and Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association, Inc., became formal partners in the 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project in 2004.

Many participants cited the involvement of the Public Lands Partnership as 

a significant and unique asset to the Uncompahgre Plateau Project. The 

membership of the Public Lands Partnership is made up of county 

commissioners, city administrators, user groups from the timber industry, 

agricultural producers, environmentalists, recreationists, and local citizens. 

The organization started in 1992 because members of the community 

wanted to get involved in discussions about the public lands that 

surrounded them. The group brings together members of the public to 

discuss issues related to public lands including oil and gas drilling, forest 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 107 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

plans, campground closures, travel access, and roads. BLM officials noted 

that, by having the Public Lands Partnership involved in the Uncompahgre 

Plateau Project, they have been able to complete their National 

Environmental Policy Act analyses more efficiently because, through the 

Public Lands Partnership, the public was brought in to help set the vision 

for the proposed action and there were no subsequent appeals.

Develop a Collaborative Process The Uncompahgre Plateau Project operates by consensus and, through its 

efforts, seeks to develop strong communication, collaborative learning, and 

partnerships among the agencies and community. Individual projects to be 

undertaken by the group are prioritized by a Technical Committee 

according to criteria established in the Uncompahgre Plateau Project Plan 

that was developed by the group. One participant noted that having a 

collaborative group allows the partners to take a project of theirs and see 

how it fits into the overall landscape. 

The Uncompahgre Plateau Project was formalized with a Cooperative 

Agreement and MOU, signed in 2001. When that MOU expired at the end of 

2006, it was replaced by a second MOU. The structure of the group includes 

an Executive Committee, Technical Committee, coordinators, and a fiscal 

agent. The Executive Committee is responsible for annually reviewing 

project progress and addressing future resource commitments. The 

Technical Committee forms the working body and backbone of the group 

and meets monthly to coordinate activities, meet with outside members, 

review project requests, and recommend budgeting and project approvals. 

Members from each of the partner organizations hold positions on both the 

Executive and Technical Committees. In addition to these committees, the 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project contracted four part-time coordinators who 

are responsible for public relations and outreach, overall project 

coordination, financial record keeping and contracting, and grant writing. 

Some participants noted that the coordinators play a critical role in moving 

the group forward between meetings and making sure that projects get 

done. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project uses Uncompahgre/Com, Inc., a 

nonprofit organization, as its fiscal agent. 

Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and 

Respect

One participant noted that the group was able to generate credibility and 

trust among the members through the group’s initial effort to develop a 

landscape plan for a watershed around a common vision. According to the 

participants, the group maintains transparency by having open meetings, 

distributing minutes of meetings, and using its Web site. 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 108 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Find Leadership Several participants attributed the initial success of the group to the 

leadership of the individual who was originally responsible for 

coordinating the group. He was described by several participants as a 

“charismatic leader” who had great vision for the group and was able to get 

projects going by working with the different agencies to generate support 

for the collaborative effort.

Identify a Common Goal While each of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project participants has different 

interests, they have identified that their common interest is to protect and 

restore the ecosystem on the Uncompahgre Plateau. The participants were 

able to agree on a common goal to: “improve the ecosystem health and 

natural functions of the landscape across the Uncompahgre Plateau 

through active restoration projects using the best science available and 

public input,” which represents the area where each of the partners’ 

individual interests overlap. The federal land management agencies—BLM 

and Forest Service—are responsible for managing multiple uses on the 

plateau, including timber, grazing, and recreation, and have an interest in 

conducting these management activities in a manner that preserves 

ecosystem health. CDOW is responsible for managing game species, so it is 

interested in ensuring that habitat for the mule deer and other game species 

is healthy and adequate to support them. The Public Lands Partnership 

represents the community’s values and is consequently interested in 

maintaining a healthy ecosystem for economic, environmental, cultural, 

social, recreation, and aesthetic reasons. The utility companies desire a 

healthy ecosystem, less prone to catastrophic wildfires, in order to protect 

the reliability of their power lines. 

Develop a Process for Obtaining 

Information

According to participants, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project is always 

seeking new science to inform its decisions and looks for opportunities to 

bring new ideas to the table. For example, the group works with 

researchers from universities such as Colorado State University, Brigham 

Young University, Snow College, and the University of Wyoming to gather 

new scientific data on the vegetation and ecology of the plateau and study 

the effects of different vegetation treatments. Scientific publications 

related to research on the plateau are available on the Uncompahgre 

Plateau Project Web site. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project frequently 

sponsors field trips, which one participant noted is important to get 

community members involved, understand the resource problems that 

exist on the plateau, and become comfortable with the projects being 

carried out by the group.
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 109 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

As part of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project planning efforts, BLM and the 

Forest Service have integrated their GIS map data for two priority 

watersheds and are working to integrate data for two other priority 

watersheds. Because the agencies’ mapping data are not compatible, 

however, staff said that the landscape assessment process was difficult. 

The agencies had to develop ways to merge the data, which was timeconsuming and expensive. For areas outside of these watersheds, data 

generated by agency research are held within the sponsoring agency, so 

other partners sometimes do not have access to this information. For 

example, BLM fuel treatments are mapped in its GIS database, which the 

Forest Service does not have access to, and vice versa. The group noted 

that it would like to make all of the GIS maps available on its Web site, but 

according to group members, this effort is extremely resource intensive 

and therefore not feasible for the group to accomplish at this time with its 

current resources. According to the participants, BLM and the Forest 

Service have hired an outside consultant to serve as a repository for the 

GIS data. 

Leverage Available Resources The group has been successful in leveraging funds and has received over $3 

million from a variety of grants. Two grants that were instrumental in 

getting the Uncompahgre Plateau Project started included $500,000 from 

CDOW for mule deer conservation efforts and $620,000 given to the Public 

Lands Partnership from the Ford Foundation for community forestry. The 

finances of the group are handled by Uncompahgre/Com, Inc., which 

administers contracts, solicits bids, and pays invoices for the Uncompahgre 

Plateau Project and provides the partners a mechanism to pool their funds. 

The Forest Service, BLM, CDOW, and the utilities support the 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project through various means. BLM has an 

assistance agreement with the group under which it can provide money to 

the group for activities outlined in statements of work. BLM has also given 

the group program funding. BLM officials noted that by having nonfederal 

partners, the group has a relatively easy time coming up with the 

nonfederal matching funds that are required with particular federal grants. 

In addition, BLM and the Forest Service have provided money for the 

native plant program. The Forest Service has used various agreements 

including appropriated funds spent with Wyden Amendment authority—

which allows federal money to be spent on nonfederal lands—to support 

the efforts of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, such as completing 

invasive species work across jurisdictional boundaries. The Western Area 

Power Administration; Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, 
Appendix II

Collaborative Resource Management Groups 

and Successful Collaboration Practices

Page 110 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Inc.; and CDOW have provided money to support vegetation management 

projects.

The group noted that while it has had success leveraging funds in the past, 

it has run into difficulty acquiring funding now that the project is more 

mature. In addition, most grant money is for projects on the ground, so the 

group faces a challenge in funding its overhead costs. The Uncompahgre 

Plateau Project applied for a National Forest Foundation mid-capacity 

grant, which provides operating funding for organizations that have been 

working together for some time, but was unsuccessful in receiving this 

grant. 

Provide Incentives The Uncompahgre Plateau Project assisted a local county in establishing a 

cost-share program to provide incentives for private landowners to treat 

invasive species. Furthermore, with assistance from Colorado State 

University, the group has established a program to assist local growers in 

cultivating native plants and purchase seed from them. 

Monitor Results for 

Accountability

According to group members, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project monitors 

its work on both a landscape level and a site level in the watershed where 

their efforts have been focused and produces an annual report for the 

Executive Committee and agency offices that describes their 

accomplishments. Some participants noted that monitoring efforts could 

be improved if there were more resources available. To monitor individual 

treatments on a site level, the group has set up a series of specific locations 

across a site that are monitored before, and 2 and 5 years after, a site is 

treated to assess whether the treatments are having anticipated results. For 

landscape-level monitoring the Uncompahgre Plateau Project uses GIS 

data to assess vegetation age classes across the watershed. The monitoring 

results are used in an adaptive management approach to revise 

management strategies in order to improve future treatments. One 

participant noted that the most difficult thing about conducting monitoring 

for collaborative groups, particularly landscape-level monitoring as the 

Uncompahgre Plateau Project has done, is integrating the data from 

different agencies. 
Page 111 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiI

Note: Page numbers in the 

draft report may differ from 

those in this report.
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 112 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 113 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 114 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 115 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 116 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 117 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 118 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management
Page 119 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazarror@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; 

Ulana Bihun; Nancy Crothers; Elizabeth Curda; Anne Hobson; Susan Iott; 

Rich Johnson; Ches Joy; and Lynn Musser made key contributions to this 

report. Marcus Corbin, John Mingus, Kim Raheb, Jena Sinkfield, and 

Cynthia Taylor also made important contributions to the report. 
Page 120 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Bibliography

Beierle, Thomas C. “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions.” Risk 

Analysis, vol. 22, no. 4 (2002): 739–749. 

Bell, Tom. “Broader System Urged for Fisheries Management.” Portland 

Press Herald, October 10, 2005, final edition, sec. B. 

Bengston, David N., George Xu, and David P. Fan. “Attitudes Toward 

Ecosystem Management in the United States, 1992-1998.” Society and 

Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 471–487. 

Beyer, Jr., Dean E., Les Homan, and David N. Ewert. “Ecosystem 

Management in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan: A Case History.” 

Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 38 (1997): 199–211. 

Bidwell, Ryan D., and Clare M. Ryan. “Collaborative Partnership Design: 

The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships.” 

Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19 (2006): 827–843. 

Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O’Leary. “The New 

Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen 

Participation in the Work of Government.” Public Administration Review, 

vol. 65, no. 5 (2005): 547–558. 

Bissix, Glyn and Judith A. Rees. “Can Strategic Ecosystem Management 

Succeed in Multiagency Environments?” Ecological Applications, vol. 11, 

no. 2 (2001): 570–583. 

Boxer-Macomber, Lauri Diana. Too Much Sun? Emerging Challenges 

Presented by California and Federal Open Meeting Legislation to Public 

Policy Consensus-Building Processes. Sacramento, Calif.: Center for 

Collaborative Policy, 2003. See esp. chap. 6, “Findings.” 

Brick, Philip, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van de Wetering, eds. Across the 

Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the 

American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001. 

Brody, Samuel D. “Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management 

Through Local Land Use Planning.” Population and Environment, vol. 24, 

no. 6 (2003): 511.

Brody, Samuel D. “Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on 

the Quality of Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative 
Bibliography

Page 121 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Ecosystem Management.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 

vol. 22 (2003): 407–419. 

Brody, Samuel D., Sean B. Cash, Jennifer Dyke, and Sara Thornton. 

“Motivations for the Forestry Industry to Participate in Collaborative 

Ecosystem Management Initiatives.” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 8 

(2006): 123–134.

Brunner, Ronald D., and Tim W. Clark. “A Practice-Based Approach to 

Ecosystem Management.” Conservation Biology, vol. 11, no. 1 (1997): 48–

58.

Brunner, Ronald D., Christine H. Colburn, Christina M. Cromley, Roberta A. 

Klein, and Elizabeth A. Olson. Finding Common Ground: Governance and 

Natural Resources in the American West. New Haven, Conn.: Yale 

University Press, 2002.

Brunner, Ronald D., Toddi A. Steelman, Lindy Coe-Juell, Christina M. 

Cromley, Christine M. Edwards, and Donna W. Tucker. Adaptive 

Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. New 

York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

Bryan, Todd A. “Tragedy Averted: The Promise of Collaboration.” Society 

and Natural Resources, vol. 17 (2004): 881–896.

Burns, Sam. “A Civic Conversation About Public Lands: Developing 

Community Governance.” Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1-2 

(2001): 271–290.

Center for Collaborative Policy. “Conditions Needed to Sustain a 

Collaborative Policy Process.” 

http://www.csus.edu/ccp/collaborative/sustain.htm (last accessed Jan. 23, 

2008). 

Cheng, Antony S., and Steven E. Daniels. “Examining the Interaction 

Between Geographic Scale and Ways of Knowing in Ecosystem 

Management: A Case Study of Place-Based Collaborative Planning.” Forest 

Science, vol. 49, no. 6 (2003): 841–854.
Bibliography

Page 122 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Cheng, Antony S., and Katherine M. Mattor. “Why Won’t They Come? 

Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by 

Participation Level.” Environmental Management, vol. 38 (2006): 545–561.

Clagett, Matthew Patrick. “Environmental ADR and Negotiated Rule and 

Policy Making: Criticisms of the Institute for Environmental Conflict 

Resolution and the Environmental Protection Agency.” Tulane 

Environmental Law Journal, vol. 15 (2002): 409–424.

Coggins, George Cameron. “‘Devolution’ in Federal Land Law: Abdication 

by Any Other Name...” Hastings West-Northwest Journal of 

Environmental Law and Policy, vol. 3 (1996): 211–218.

Coggins, George Cameron. “Of Californicators, Quislings and Crazies: 

Some Perils of Devolved Collaboration.” Chronicle of Community, vol. 2, 

no. 2 (1998): 27–33.

Coggins, George Cameron. “Regulating Federal Natural Resources: A 

Summary Case Against Devolved Collaboration.” Ecology Law Quarterly, 

vol. 25 (1999): 602–610.

Comer, Robert D. “Cooperative Conservation: The Federalism 

Underpinnings to Public Involvement in the Management of Public Lands.” 

University of Colorado Law Review, vol. 75 (2004): 1133–1157.

Congressional Research Service. Ecosystem Management: Federal Agency 

Activities. Washington, D.C.: April 19, 1994.

Conley, Alexander, and Margaret A. Moote. “Evaluating Collaborative 

Natural Resource Management.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 

(2003): 371–386.

Cortner, Hanna J., Sam Burns, Lance R. Clark, Wendy Hinrichs Sanders, 

Gus Townes, and Martha Twarkins. “Governance and Institutions: 

Opportunities and Challenges.” Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 12, 

no. 3/4 (2001): 65–96.

Cortner, Hanna J., John C. Gordon, Paul G. Risser, Dennis E. Teeguarden, 

and Jack Ward Thomas. “Ecosystem Management: Evolving Model for 

Stewardship of the Nation’s Natural Resources.” In Ecological 

Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 2, 
Bibliography

Page 123 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

ed. R. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton, and A. J. Malk, 3–19. United 

Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.

Cortner, Hanna J. and Margaret A. Moote. The Politics of Ecosystem 

Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999.

Coughlin, Chrissy, Merrick Hoben, Dirk Manskopf, and Shannon Quesada. 

“A Systematic Assessment of Collaborative Resource Management 

Partnerships.” Master’s thesis, University of Michigan, 1999.

Duane, Timothy P. “Practical Legal Issues in Community Initiated 

Ecosystem Management of Public Land: Community Participation in 

Ecosystem Management.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 771–797.

Dukes, Frank. “Key Principles for Effective Collaborative Processes.” 

Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, December 

21, 2006.

Dukes, Frank. “Public Conflict Resolution: A Transformative Approach.” 

Negotiation Journal, January 1993: 45–57.

Dukes, Frank. “What We Know About Environmental Conflict Resolution: 

An Analysis Based on Research.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 22, 

no. 1-2 (2004): 191–220.

Emerson, Kirk, Rosemary O’Leary, and Lisa B. Bingham. “Commentary: 

Comment on Frank Dukes’s ‘What We Know About Environmental Conflict 

Resolution.’” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1-2 (2004): 221–

231.

Fall, Andrew, Dave Daust, and Don G. Morgan. “A Framework and Software 

Tool to Support Collaborative Landscape Analysis: Fitting Square Pegs into 

Square Holes.” Transactions in GIS, vol. 5, no. 1 (2001): 67–86.

Frame, Tanis M., Thomas Gunton, and J. C. Day. “The Role of Collaboration 

in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of Land and Resource 

Planning in British Columbia.” Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management, vol. 47, no. 1 (2004): 59–82.

Freeman, Jody. “Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State.” 

UCLA Law Review, vol. 45 (1997): 3–98.
Bibliography

Page 124 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Freeman, Richard. “The EcoFactory: The United States Forest Service and 

the Political Construction of Ecosystem Management.” Environmental 

History, vol. 7, no. 4 (2002): 632–659.

GAO. Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 

and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. 

Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2005.

Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty 

Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989.

Gray, Gerald J., Larry Fisher, and Lynn Jungwirth. “An Introduction to 

Community-Based Ecosystem Management.” Journal of Sustainable 

Forestry, vol. 12, no. 3/4 (2001): 25–34.

Gutrich, John, Deanna Donovan, Melissa Finucane, Will Focht, Fred 

Hitzhusen, Supachit Manopimoke, David McCauley, et al. “Science in the 

Public Process of Ecosystem Management: Lessons from Hawaii, 

Southeast Asia, Africa and the US Mainland.” Journal of Environmental 

Management, vol. 76 (2005): 197–209.

Heikkila, Tanya, and Andrea K. Gerlak. “The Formation of Large-scale 

Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of 

Stakeholders, Science and Institutions.” The Policy Studies Journal, vol. 

33, no. 4 (2005): 583–611.

Helly, J. J., N. M. Kelly, D. Sutton, and T. Todd Elvins. “Collaborative 

Management of Natural Resources in San Diego Bay.” Coastal 

Management, vol. 29, no. 2 (2001): 117–132.

Holsman, Robert H. and R. Ben Peyton. “Stakeholder Attitudes Toward 

Ecosystem Management in Southern Michigan.” Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

vol. 31, no. 2 (2003): 349–361.

Houck, Oliver A. “On the Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management.” 

Minnesota Law Review, vol. 81, April (1997): 869–979.

Hummel, Mark and Bruce Freet. “Collaborative Processes for Improving 

Land Stewardship and Sustainability.” In Ecological Stewardship: A 

Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. 

J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, 97–129. United Kingdom: Elsevier 

Science, Ltd., 1999.
Bibliography

Page 125 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Imperial, Mark T. “Analyzing Institutional Arrangements for EcosystemBased Management: Lessons from the Rhode Island Salt Ponds SAM Plan.” 

Coastal Management, vol. 27, no. 1 (1999): 31–56.

Innes, Judith E. “Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics.” 

Planning Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (2004): 5–20.

Jackson, Laurie Skuba. “Contemporary Public Involvement: Toward a 

Strategic Approach.” Local Environment, vol. 6, no. 2 (2001): 135–147.

Johnson, Kathleen M., Al Abee, Gerry Alcock, David Behler, Brien Culhane, 

Ken Holtje, Don Howlett, George Martinez, and Kathleen Picarelli. 

“Management Perspectives on Regional Cooperation.” In Ecological 

Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, 

ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, 155–180. United 

Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.

Johnson, Nels. “Legal Perspectives.” In Ecological Stewardship: A 

Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, 

A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 107–113. United Kingdom: Elsevier 

Science, Ltd., 1999.

Kagan, Robert A. “Political and Legal Obstacles to Collaborative Ecosystem 

Planning.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 871–875.

Keiter, Robert B. “NEPA and the Emerging Concept of Ecosystem 

Management on the Public Lands.” Land and Water Law Review, vol. 25, 

no. 1 (1990): 43–60.

Keiter, Robert B., Ted Boling, and Louise Milkman. “Legal Perspectives on 

Ecosystem Management: Legitimizing a New Federal Land Management 

Policy.” In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem 

Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. 

Johnson, 9–41. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.

Keough, Heather L. and Dale J. Blahna. “Achieving Integrative, 

Collaborative Ecosystem Management.” Conservation Biology, vol. 20, 

no. 5 (2006): 1373–1382.

Keystone Center. “The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem 

Management: Final Report.” The Keystone Center, Colorado, October 1996.
Bibliography

Page 126 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Knight, Richard L. and Peter B. Landres, eds. Stewardship Across 

Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1998.

Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith 

Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig W. Thomas. Collaborative 

Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, 

D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2004.

Koontz, Tomas M., and Craig W. Thomas. “What Do We Know and Need to 

Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?” 

Public Administration Review, December 2006: 111–121. 

Korfmacher, Katrina Smith. “What’s the Point of Partnering?” The 

American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 4 (2000): 548–566.

Lachapelle, Paul R., Stephen F. McCool, and Michael E. Patterson. “Barriers 

to Effective Natural Resource Planning in a ‘Messy’ World.” Society and 

Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 473–490.

Lawless, W. F., M. Bergman, and N. Feltovich. “Consensus Seeking Versus 

Truth Seeking.” Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive 

Waste Management, vol. 9, no. 1 (2005): 59–70.

Leach, William D. “Building a Theory of Collaboration.” In Effective 

Collaboration for Environmental Change: Making Sense of an Emerging 

Socio-Ecological Movement, Community-Based Collaboratives Research 

Consortium, forthcoming.

Leach, William D. “Collaborative Public Management and Democracy: 

Evidence from Western Watershed Partnerships.” Public Administration 

Review, December 2006: 100–110.

Leach, William D. “Public Involvement in UDSA Forest Service 

Policymaking: A Literature Review.” Journal of Forestry, January/February 

2006, 43–49.

Leach, William D. “Surveying Diverse Stakeholder Groups.” Society and 

Natural Resources, vol. 15 (2002): 641–649.

Leach, William D. “Theories about Consensus-Based Conservation.” 

Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 2 (2006): 573–575.
Bibliography

Page 127 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Leach, William D., and Neil W. Pelkey. “Making Watershed Partnerships 

Work: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Journal of Water Resources 

Planning and Management, vol. 127, no. 6 (2001): 378–385.

Leach, William D., Neil W. Pelkey, and Paul A. Sabatier. “Stakeholder 

Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied to 

Watershed Management in California and Washington.” Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management, vol. 21, no. 4 (2002): 645–670.

Leshy, John. “Public Lands.” American Law Institute—American Bar 

Association Continuing Legal Education Course of Study, February 13–

15, 2002.

Linden, Russell M. Working Across Boundaries: Making Collaboration 

Work in Government and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, Calif.: 

Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Lubell, Mark. “Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the 

Grassroots.” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 32, no. 3 (2004): 341–361.

Lugenbill, Chris Herman. “An Interorganizational Management Strategy for 

Collaborative Stewardship.” Ph.D. diss., Colorado Technical University, 

2003.

Lysak, Tetyana, and Edward P. Weber. “Collaboratives, Wicked Problems, 

and Institutional Design: Different Theories, Same Lessons.” Washington 

State University, submitted for publication, December 29, 2006.

MacEachren, Alan M. “Cartography and GIS: Facilitating Collaboration.” 

Progress in Human Geography, vol. 24, no. 3 (2000): 445–456.

MacCleery, Douglas W., and Dennis C. Le Master. “The Historical 

Foundation and Evolving Context for Natural Resource Management on 

Federal Lands.” In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for 

Ecosystem Management, vol. 2, ed. R. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T. 

Sexton, and A. J. Malk, 517–556. United Kindgom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 

1999.

Malk, Andrew. “Processes for Collaboration.” In Ecological Stewardship: A 

Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, 

A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 129–134. United Kingdom: Elsevier 

Science, Ltd., 1999.
Bibliography

Page 128 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Malone, Charles R. “Ecosystem Management Policies in State Government 

of the USA.” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 48 (2000): 57–64.

Manring, Nancy J. “Collaborative Resource Management: Organizational 

Benefits and Individual Costs.” Administration and Society, vol. 30, no. 3 

(1998): 2742–90.

Margerum, Richard D., and Debra Whitall. “The Challenges and 

Implications of Collaborative Management on a River Basin Scale.” Journal 

of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 47, no. 3 (2004): 4074–

27.

McClosky, Michael. “Local Communities and the Management of Public 

Forests.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 25 (1999): 624–629.

McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. “Regionalism in the 

West: An Inventory and Assessment.” Public Land and Resources Law 

Review, vol. 23 (2002): 101–123.

Meffe, Gary K. “Biological and Ecological Dimensions: Overview.” In 

Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem 

Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. 

Sexton, 39–44. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.

Mog, Justin Matthew. “Managing Development Programs for Sustainability: 

Integrating Development and Research Through Adaptive Management.” 

Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19 (2006): 531–546.

Moody, James Bradfield, and Mark Dodgson. “Managing Complex 

Collaborative Projects: Lessons from the Development of a New Satellite.” 

Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 31 (2006): 567–588.

Moore, Elizabeth A., and Tomas M. Koontz. “A Typology of Collaborative 

Watershed Groups: Citizen-Based, Agency-Based, and Mixed Partnerships.” 

Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 451-460.

Mortenson, Kristin G., and Richard S. Krannich. “Wildlife Managers and 

Public Involvement: Letting the Crazy Aunt Out.” Human Dimensions of 

Wildlife, vol. 6 (2001): 277–290.

O’Neill, Karen M. “Can Watershed Management Unite Town and Country?” 

Society and Natural Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 241–253.
Bibliography

Page 129 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Office of Management and Budget and Council on Environmental Quality. 

Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C., 

November 28, 2005.

Paulson, Deborah D. “Collaborative Management of Public Rangeland in 

Wyoming: Lessons in Co-Management.” Professional Geographer, vol. 50, 

no. 3 (1998): 301–315.

Payton, Michelle A., David C. Fulton, and Dorothy H. Anderson. “Influence 

of Place Attachment and Trust on Civic Action: A Study at Sherburne 

National Wildlife Refuge.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 

511–528.

Peterson, M. Nils, Markus J. Peterson, and Tarla Rai Peterson. 

“Conservation and the Myth of Consensus.” Conservation Biology, vol. 19, 

no. 3 (2005): 762–767.

Plummer, Ryan. “Sharing the Management of a River Corridor: A Case 

Study of the Comanagement Process.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 

19 (2006): 709–712.

Raedeke, Andrew H., J. Sanford Rikoon, and Charles H. Nilon. “Ecosystem 

Management and Landowner Concern About Regulations: A Case Study in 

the Missouri Ozarks.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 741–

759.

Ramirez, Ricardo and Maria Fernandez. “Facilitation of Collaborative 

Resource Management: Reflections from Practice.” Systemic Practice and 

Action Research, vol. 18, no. 1 (2005): 5–20.

Rigg, Catherine M. “Orchestrating Ecosystem Management: Challenges and 

Lessons from Sequoia National Forest.” Conservation Biology, vol. 15, no. 

1 (2001): 78–90.

Rodriguez, Daniel B. “The Role of Legal Innovation in Ecosystem 

Management: Perspectives from American Local Government Law.” 

Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 745–769.

Ryan, Clare M. and Jacqueline S. Klug. “Collaborative Watershed Planning 

in Washington State: Implementing the Watershed Planning Act.” Journal 

of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 48, no. 4 (2005): 491–

506.
Bibliography

Page 130 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Sayre, Nathan F. “Interacting Effects of Landownership, Land Use, and 

Endangered Species on Conservation of Southwestern U.S. Rangelands.” 

Conservation Biology, vol. 19, no. 3 (2005): 783–792.

Scarlett, P. Lynn. “A New Approach to Conservation: The Case for the Four 

Cs.” Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 17, no. 1 (2002-2003): 73–

113.

Scheutt, Michael A., Steve W. Selen, and Deborah S. Carr. “Making It Work: 

Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management.” 

Environmental Management, vol. 27, no. 4 (2001): 587–593.

Schusler, Tania M., Daniel J. Decker, and Max J. Pfeffer. “Social Learning 

for Collaborative Natural Resource Management.” Society and Natural 

Resources, vol. 15 (2003): 309–326.

Selin, Steve, Michael Scheutt, and Debbie Carr. “Modeling Stakeholder 

Perceptions of Collaborative Initiative Effectiveness.” Society and Natural 

Resources, vol. 13, no. 8 (2000): 735–745

Sexton, William T., Robert C. Szaro, and Nels C. Johnson. “The Ecological 

Stewardship Project: A Vision for Sustainable Resource Management.” In 

Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem 

Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. 

Sexton, 1–8. Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.

Singleton, Sara. “Collaborative Environmental Planning in the American 

West: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Environmental Politics, vol. 11, 

no. 3 (2002): 54–75.

Smith, Patrick D. and Maureen H. McDonough. “Beyond Public 

Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making.” Society and 

Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 239–249.

Smith, Patrick D., Maureen H. McDonough, and Michael T. Mang. 

“Ecosystem Management and Public Participation: Lessons from the Field.” 

Journal of Forestry, vol. 97, no. 10 (1999): 32–39.

Smutko, L. Steven. “Environmental Dispute Resolution Processes for 

Resource Conservation.” Department of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics, North Carolina State University. 
Bibliography

Page 131 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Susskind, Lawrence E., and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. “Conducting Conflict 

Assessment.” In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive 

Guide to Reaching Agreement, ed. Lawrence E. Susskind, Sarah 

McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage 

Publications, 1999.

Swanson, Louis E. “Rural Policy and Direct Local Participation: 

Democracy, Inclusiveness, Collective Agency, and Locality-Based Policy.” 

Rural Sociology, vol. 66, no. 1 (2001): 1–21.

Thompson, Jan R., William F. Elmendorf, Maureen H. McDonough, and Lisa 

L. Burban. “Participation and Conflict: Lessons Learned from Community 

Forestry.” Journal of Forestry, June 2005, 174–178.

Thompson, Jonathan R., Mark D. Anderson, and Norman Johnson. 

“Ecosystem Management across Ownerships: The Potential for Collision 

with Antitrust Laws.” Conservation Biology, vol. 18, no. 6 (2004): 1475–

1481.

Tilt, Whitney. “Collaboration in Our Backyard: Lessons from CommunityBased Collaboration in the West.” The Quivira Coalition Newsletter, vol. 7, 

no. 2 (2005): 22–30.

Tilt, Whitney. “Getting Federal Land Management Agencies to the 

Collaborative Table: Barriers and Remedies.” Sonoran Institute, 2005.

Tipa, Gail and Richard Welch. “Comanagement of Natural Resources: 

Issues of Definition from and Indigenous Community Perspective.” Journal 

of Applied Behavorial Science, vol. 42, no 3 (2006): 373–391.

Twarkins, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Tahnee Robertson. “Public 

Involvement in Forest Management Planning: A View from the Northeast.” 

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1/2 (2001): 237–251.

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. Off-Highway Vehicle 

Use and Collaboration: Lessons Learned from Project Implementation, 

edited by Larry Fisher. Tucson, Arizona, August 26, 2005.

Waage, Sissel. “Collaborative Salmon Recovery Planning: Examining 

Decision Making and Implementation in Northeastern Oregon.” Society 

and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 295–307.
Bibliography

Page 132 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Walker, Peter A. and Patrick Hurley. “Collaboration Derailed: The Politics 

of ‘Community-Based’ Resource Management in Nevada County.” Society 

and Natural Resources, vol. 17 (2004): 735–751.

Weber, Edward P. Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem 

Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge, 

Mass.: The MIT Press, 2003.

Weber, Edward P. “The Question of Accountability in Historical 

Perspective: From Jackson to Contemporary Grassroots Ecosystem 

Management.” Administration and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (1999): 451–495.

Weber, Edward P. “A Theory of Institutional Change for Tough Cases of 

Collaboration: ‘Ideas’ in the Blackfoot Watershed.” Washington State 

University, submitted for publication, December 20, 2006.

Weber, Edward P. “Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and 

Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings.” Public 

Administration Review (forthcoming).

Weber, Edward P., Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney. “Assessing 

Collaborative Capacity in a Multidimensional World.” Administration and 

Society, vol. 39, no. 2 (2007): 194–220.

Weber, Edward P., Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney. 

“Collaboration, Enforcement, and Endangered Species: A Framework for 

Assessing Collaborative Problem-Solving Capacity.” Society and Natural 

Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 677–698.

Webler, Thomas, Seth Tuler, Ingrid Shockey, Paul Stern, and Robert Beattie. 

“Participation by Local Governmental Officials in Watershed Management 

Planning.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 105–121.

Western Governors’ Association. “Collaborative Conservation Strategies: 

Legislative Case Studies from Across the West.” Western Governors’ 

Association White Paper, June 2006.

Wilson, Randall K. “Collaboration in Context: Rural Change and 

Community Forestry in the Four Corners.” Society and Natural Resources, 

vol. 19 (2006): 53–70.
Bibliography

Page 133 GAO-08-262 Collaborative Resource Management

Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L. Yaffee. Making Collaboration Work: 

Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, 

D.C.: Island Press, 2000.

Yaffee, Steven L. “Regional Cooperation: A Strategy for Achieving 

Ecological Stewardship.” In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference 

for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, 

and N. C. Johnson, 31–153. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.

Yaffee, Steven L. “Three Faces of Ecosystem Management.” Conservation 

Biology, vol. 13, no. 4 (1999): 713–725.

(360766)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER