GUESr EDlrORIAL
By BRIAN HAWTHORNE
Talking With The Enemy
ollaborative Planning - it's
all the rage, and it may be
coming to your favorite
road or trail in the very
near future. The off-highway vehicle (OHV) community must be
prepared to decide whether and how to
participate.
Land managers are utilizing conflict resolution techniques in their travel planning.
Such processes often take stakeholders
out in the back country to discuss issues.
The USDA Forest Service (FS) sponsored a National OHV Collaboration
Summit at the Bahia Hotel and Resort in
San Diego, California, last month. Most, if
not all, of the national OHV advocacy
organizations were invited to review collaboration case studies and participate in
discussion groups.
At the conference, I overheard Dana
Bell observe that if the FS wanted to talk
collaboration with the OHV community,
they could have saved themselves a lot
of trouble by coming to the National
Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation
Council's (NOHVCC) convention held in
Ontario, California, just a week prior to
this event (Dana works for NOHVCC, a
really great OHV resource (see:
< http://www.nohvcc.org>).
Apparently, talking collaboration with
our community was not the purpose of
this summit. It seemed to me that it was
specifically designed to bring in high-level
greens and try to convince them to participate in collaborative planning.
Insofar as that goes, I'd have to say it
was a qualified success, although some
agency people said they had expected
better attendance from the greens. The
anti-access crowd normally loves the collaborative planning concept, except when
applied to public land planning, where
they prefer instead to rely on lawsuits, or,
if needed, to leverage their political clout
in Washington, DC. At this conference
most of the "environmental community"
stated a commitment to "work together,"
although they do have a list of qualifiers.
That's nice to hear, but judging by the
questioning I received while participating
on a panel discussion, it's fairly obvious that
the potential for a true compromise is thin.
That's not to say participating in collaborations is always bad, and I don't want to get
off track with a discussion of whether participating in collaborative efforts is wise.
What is important to know is that the federal land management agencies are heavily
invested in collaborative planning.
An idea of how invested the leadership
of the agencies are can be gleaned by
reading a report from the Morris K. Udall
C
Institute
for
Foundation's
U.S.
Environmental Conflict Resolution. (See:
).
I know what you're thinking. I really
do. Seriously though, every OHV advocate who wants to protect his or her trail
would do well to read this. Although the
document is kind of big (1.5 MB), much
can be gained by reading just the summary. I highly recommend it.
The relevant part is this: Well-designed
and -executed environmental conflict resolution processes are capable of producing
federal agency decisions that reflect
NEPl>:s principles. Common interests can
be identified. The range of disagreement
can be narrowed. Decisions can be made
in a timely way, and social and intellectual
capital can be built. Federal officials
become partners with affected interests in
a process where the issue is "owned" by all
participants without the forfeiture of government's legal limits and responsibilities.
Let me clarify: I'm not saying I agree
with this evaluation. I do, however,
believe that influential high-level agency
officials in both the FS and BLM believe it.
That makes it likely that collaborative
planning may well come to your favorite
road or trail soon. In fact, individual
forests are already utilizing the information given at the Conference!
If the land manager who manages your
favorite road or trail is thinking about using
collaborative planning in a route designation process, you need to know what to
watch out for, and you'll need the tools to
decide whether and how to participate. At
its best, collaborative planning can get
local land managers, local users and local
"environmentalists" looking at site-specific
solutions to site-specific problems. At its
worse, well, it's just plain ugly.
There are lots of materials available for
the OHV enthusiasts who are engaged in
collaborative planning.
A possible explanation for the greens'
hesitancy to participate, when this is
something they normally embrace, may
be explained because some in the agencies believe if they can bring potential litigants "in close" via collaborative efforts, it
might be possible to "create more durable
planning documents." If that assumption is
correct, then on balance collaborative
planning provides a benefit to the OHV
community. The agencies might not think
so, but BRC thinks they should make
"more durable planning documents"
regardless of how they do their planning.
One idea that is starting to find fertile
soil at BRC, and I think is also believed to
be true by many fair-minded agency peo-
pie, is the assumption that a collaborative
planning process can produce better trail
systems and better management even if
the process itself fails. See, collaborative
processes are limited by law and regulations. Agencies have to follow strict rules,
and participants rarely limit appeal,
protest or litigation opportunities. So the
product is limited, but valuable at the
same time, and it always influences the
final result of the planning process. That
influence, it is believed, may not avoid a
lawsuit, but it may produce better decisions in the long run.
Several of us at BRC have been
involved in quite a few collaborative
efforts of late. Some were successful; others were not. After I returned from the
Summit, we huddled together and put
down on paper some lessons learned. We
think it is important to speak one on one
with the individuals participating, so
please feel free to give our office a ring if
a land manager asks you to participate in
a collaborative planning process.
Brian Hawthorne is the Public Lands
Director for the BlueRibban Coalition
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IN CYBERSPACE
Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth's presence at the OHV Collaboration Summit is an indication of the investment the Forest Service is making in collaborative planning. If you have been
asked to participate in collaboratrve planning, you need this information.
Our message is this: Don't dismiss collaborative planning out of hand. It can be useful, regardless of the outcome of the process itself. However, certain rules must be followed, and those
"best practices" must be in place before we advise participation. If you are approached to partiCipate, we encourage you to contact BRC by phone and we'll try to help you with some tools and
"best practices" of your own.
Must Read:
• OHV Use and Collaboration: Lessons Learned From Project Implementation. Part 01 the
"tool kit" developed for the FS National OHV Implementation Team. We like the "lessons
learned" on the first case study (pg. I S). Very good advice!
See:
• Executive Summary of the Final Report of the National Environmental Conflict Resolution
Advisory Committee. Highly recommended, especially il you want to understand the agency's
motivation for using this concept.
See: < http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm>
• Forest Service OIl-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program. Background inlo on the FS OHV Rule.
Mandatory Reading! You must be lamiliar with this inlo.
See:
In Depth:
• Quincy Library Group. Grandlather 01 collaborative planning. It's sort 01 off the topic, but
this site has some great photos and documentation about how commercial timber harvest can
restore damaged ecosystems (GASP!) - The greenies just hate that.
See: Quincy Library Group
• Report: The Quincy Library Group And Collaborative Planning Within U.S. National Forests.
See:
• National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee. Yup, it's official - collabo-
rative planning is a growth industry. With all the wailing and gnashing 01 teeth about low recreation budgets, I'd like to know how much money the agencies are planning to throw at this!
See:
• Morris K. Udall Foundation
See:
What Others Are Saying:
• An Interesting perspective from the Heartland Institute
See:
Don't Miss These!
• Sonoran Institute. Big collaborative planning promoters. If you are a land manager, these
guys will give you money to collaborate! It's worth a look, and there is some useful info on this
website. However, we advise keeping a couple of large grains of salt close by.
See:
• The Anti-Access Crowd's Secret Manual on Collaborative Planning.
Okay, it's not a secret manual, but it is a must-read lor OHV people engaged in collaborative
planning.
See:
• Red Lodge Clearinghouse. A great example 01 why greens usually like collaborative planning. Billed as a "lull support site lor collaborative groups committed to resolving resource use
conflicts throughout the interior west," this website also has a collaboration handbook as well as
a great FACA page!
Just For Fun:
• Just lor fun, Google "collaborative planning." It's everywhere! Collaboration Is a bona fide
growth industry!
CYCLE NEWS • JUNE 15,2005
87
