Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Conditions
Published: 2008-02-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. A surge in development for such uses as housing,  oil and gas resources, as well as continued livestock grazing, is degrading  vast areas of an important western ecosystem—the sagebrush range— which supports a wide variety of wildlife species. This has led some groups  to litigate in favor of additional protection under federal law for two bird  species, the greater sage grouse and the Gunnison sage grouse. Similarly,  the effects of development in wildlife migration corridors within the  sagebrush habitat have led hunters and wildlife advocates to seek controls  on such activities in undeveloped corridors. On the other hand, some  developers, ranchers, and oil and gas companies fear that additional  protection would severely limit their activities. More specifically, greater  protection would increase the scrutiny of activities that occur in sagebrush  that have effects on species and possibly curtail development of housing  areas, limit livestock grazing, or restrict oil and gas development activities.
From past experience, some groups have realized that litigation to resolve  competing interests over natural resource use has undesirable  consequences and may not produce the best results for the parties  involved. Some fear that the initial lawsuit and subsequent appeals can  result in impasse and delay projects or regulations from taking effect.  Moreover, some landowners have realized that, although their land  management objectives may differ from those of other landowners, they  face common ecological problems that can only be solved by working with  other landowners, either public or private. For example, landowners in an  area with an outbreak of a particular invasive species cannot eradicate or  control the species on their land without coordinating with adjacent  landowners because the species may spread from adjacent lands that a  landowner does not treat.
To develop proactive solutions to common land and natural resource  management problems and avoid the potentially adverse consequences of  litigation, many land managers and interested parties have sought  approaches for more cooperatively resolving natural resource problems  and conflicts. One such approach described by academic, public, and  nonprofit experts is collaborative resource management. This approach  involves multiple parties—including federal land and resource  management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior’s (Interior)  Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest  Service—joining together voluntarily to identify environmental and natural  resource problems and goals, such as improving natural resource  conditions, and to design management activities and projects to achieve  these goals.
The collaborative resource management approach—which is also called  collaborative conservation, community-based conservation, community- based initiatives, watershed management, and grassroots ecosystem  management—evolved in the 1980s and 1990s when many grassroots  groups of diverse stakeholders, including federal land and resource  management agencies, organized to focus on local environmental and  natural resource problems. These grassroots initiatives coincided with an  effort by federal agencies to adopt an ecosystem management policy, an  approach that recognized that plant and animal communities are  interdependent and interact with their physical environments to form  ecosystems spanning federal and nonfederal lands. We reported on  ecosystem management as a promising approach for managing federal  lands in 1994 and identified constraints on collaboration among federal and  nonfederal parties as one of the key barriers impeding implementation of  that approach.
In 2004, to encourage federal agencies to use collaboration and other types  of cooperative management efforts, such as partnerships, in carrying out  environmental and natural resource laws, the President issued an  Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation and designated the  Chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to  gather reports on implementation of the initiative. The order also directed  the Chair of CEQ to hold a White House Conference on Cooperative  Conservation. The conference, held in August 2005, highlighted many  voluntary, collaborative groups involved in conservation activities. As a  result of the Executive Order, an interagency policy team and task force  were created; these groups helped organize the conference and respond to  suggested actions for the agencies to take related to partnering and  collaboration.
In this context, you asked us to determine (1) experts’ views of  collaborative resource management as an approach for addressing  complex natural resource management problems; (2) the extent to which  selected collaborative resource management efforts have addressed land  use conflicts and improved natural resource conditions; and (3) what  challenges, if any, federal land and resource management agencies face in  participating in collaborative resource management efforts and how the  Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed the challenges.
To determine experts’ views of collaborative resource management as an  approach for addressing natural resource problems, we interviewed  experts and reviewed a series of journal articles on the subject and  conducted a content analysis of statements taken from the articles on  benefits, practices, and limitations associated with collaboration. To  determine the extent to which selected efforts have addressed land use  conflicts and improved natural resource conditions, we identified seven  examples of collaborative resource management efforts with different  membership, organizational structure, geographic location, and other  attributes and conducted field visits and semistructured, detailed  interviews with multiple members of the groups to gain an understanding  of each group’s efforts and results. We considered conflicts to exist if two  or more participants had different interests to achieve and considered  conflicts to be reduced or averted if the group implemented a common  interest solution. The seven examples and their geographic locations are  shown in figure 1. We also obtained and reviewed any related  documentation of each group’s activities and results, but did not  independently verify these data.
Finally, we identified challenges associated with the collaborative resource  management approach from our literature review and interviews with  members of the collaborative resource management groups we studied. To  determine how efforts under the Cooperative Conservation initiative  address challenges associated with federal land and resource management  agencies’ participation in collaborative resource management, we analyzed  reports summarizing the White House Conference and interviewed federal  officials, including CEQ and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  officials. We conducted this performance audit from October 2006 through  February 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides further  details about the scope and methodology for our review, appendix II  describes the seven collaborative resource management efforts we studied  in detail, and the bibliography lists the journal articles that we reviewed.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federal efforts to use collaboration, broadly, and collaborative resource  management more specifically have their roots in natural resource and  environmental law, litigation, and alternative efforts to resolve  environmental conflicts. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s as  environmental concerns over species, wilderness preservation, and air and  water pollution heightened and legislation to protect different resources  followed, litigation over land and resource use became more common. In  the 1980s and 1990s, a number of factors, including court decisions and  regulatory and economic changes, resulted in decreased timber harvests  and increased scrutiny of grazing on public lands. In the 1990s, concerns  over pollution and resource problems that cross property lines—such as  water quality or endangered species—increased, and sometimes resulted in  litigation. Also during this time, development of private lands posed  increased threats to habitat, water quality, rural lifestyles, and wildlife,  including threatened and endangered species.
Over the same time frame beginning in the 1970s, environmental conflict  resolution began to evolve as an alternative way of dealing with  environmental disputes outside of the courts. This approach uses  facilitation, mediation, and other methods to negotiate solutions among  disputing parties. It also involves collaborative efforts to solve problems  and conflicts before they have a chance to fully develop. In the 1990s, as  these alternatives to litigation became more established, two laws were  enacted authorizing their use by federal agencies and the U.S. District  Courts—the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 and the  Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998. Also in 1998, legislation created  the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, a federal institute  to assess, and assist in resolving, conflicts related to federal land, natural  resource, or environmental management.
Throughout the 1990s, some communities facing natural resource  problems decided to use alternative approaches to solving associated  conflicts, forming grassroots groups of diverse stakeholders to discuss the  problems and develop solutions. The collaborative groups that formed  often included federal land and resource management agency  representatives as participants. Recognizing the value of these groups, the  federal land and resource management agencies began developing  programs in support of such efforts. The agencies have been working  collaboratively with communities for a long while, but placed increased  emphasis on collaboration in the 1990s. Specifically, in 1997, the Forest  Service began a partnership program to gather guidance and information  on how best to work with local communities. In 2003, Interior began an  effort to focus on working cooperatively with local communities on  conservation activities, both on public and private lands. In addition, the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a program, called Partners for Fish and  Wildlife, to work with private landowners to provide technical and financial  assistance in protecting threatened and endangered species on their lands.
More recently, the federal land and natural resource agencies have been  authorized by specific legislation to collaborate with nonfederal parties on  specific resource problems. For example, both BLM and the Forest Service  received authority to use stewardship contracts—which allow them, for  example, to use the value of products sold, such as timber, to offset the  cost of contracted services such as removing small trees and brush from  the forest—to achieve national forest land management goals that meet  local and rural community needs.
In 2004, the President signed Executive Order 13352 introducing the  Cooperative Conservation initiative to increase the use of collaboration  and other processes for managing land, natural resource, and  environmental issues. The order directed the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, and the Interior, and the Administrator of the  Environmental Protection Agency to carry out natural resource and  environmental laws in a manner that facilitates “cooperative conservation.”  The order defined this as “actions that relate to the use, enhancement, and  enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the environment, or both,  and involve collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, and tribal  governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions, other  nongovernmental entities and individuals.” The Executive Order is being  carried out by CEQ, in its role coordinating federal environmental efforts  and working with agencies in the development of environmental policies  and initiatives. Also involved is OMB, in its role overseeing the preparation  of the federal budget and supervising executive branch agencies. OMB  evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures,  as well as ensuring that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed  legislation are consistent with the President’s budget and with  administration policies. In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the  administration’s procurement, financial management, information, and  regulatory policies.
While collaboration refers broadly to the way different groups work  together to achieve a common goal, collaborative resource management  efforts involve multiple parties joining together voluntarily to identify  environmental and natural resource problems and goals and to design  activities and projects to resolve the problems and achieve their goals. The  federal agencies work with collaborative resource management groups  using partnership tools, which are cooperative or voluntary agreements  among the federal and nonfederal groups to share resources and achieve  the objectives of all parties. 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.
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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Laws Governing Collaborative Efforts on Federal Lands
paragraphs: Collaborative management activities on federal lands are governed by  federal resource and environmental laws. Overall, the four federal land  management agencies manage their lands for a variety of purposes,  although each agency has unique authorities that give it particular  responsibilities. Specifically, both BLM and the Forest Service manage  lands under their control for multiple uses and to provide a sustained yield  of renewable resources such as timber, fish and wildlife, forage for  livestock, and recreation. On the other hand, the National Park Service’s  mission is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife  of the national park system so that they will remain unimpaired for the  enjoyment of current and future generations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, under its authorities, manages refuges for the conservation,  management—and where appropriate—restoration of fish, wildlife, and  plant resources and their habitats within the United States, for the benefit  of present and future generations.
Other federal agencies—including the military services in the Department  of Defense and the power marketing administrations in the Department of  Energy—have land and resource management responsibilities that may  cause them to become involved in collaborative efforts. The military  services—the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force—use their lands  primarily to train military forces and test weapon systems, but are required  under the Sikes Act of 1960 to provide for the conservation and  rehabilitation of natural resources on military lands. The power marketing  administrations—which include the Western Area Power Administration,  Bonneville Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration,  and Southeastern Power Administration—sell and deliver power within the  United States on hundreds of miles of transmission lines across public and  private land using rights-of-way. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005,  transmission owners, including the power administrations, must maintain  the reliability of their transmission systems, which includes establishing  and maintaining the vegetation on these rights-of-way so that power lines  are not compromised. Lines may be at risk from trees falling on them,  electrical arcing from a power line to a tree or other objects in the right-of- way, or forest fires. Other agencies, such as the Department of  Transportation and state transportation agencies, conduct activities that  affect land and resources, and collaborate with agencies such as the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the effects on wildlife and habitat.
Management activities that occur on federal lands, including those  developed by a collaborative group are subject to the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act  of 1973. NEPA requires that federal agencies evaluate the likely  environmental effects of proposed projects and plans using an  environmental assessment or, if the action would be likely to significantly  affect the environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement.  The scope of actions being analyzed under NEPA may encompass a broad  area, such as an entire national forest, or a specific project such as  treatment of invasive species on several acres of land. The federal agencies  are mandated to include the public in the NEPA process through efforts  such as providing public notice of meetings, making related environmental  documents available to the public, and considering public comments.  Under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are required to consult  with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any activities they  carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or  endangered species or destroy or harm any habitat that is critical for the  conservation of the species.
section_title: Laws Governing Collaborative Efforts on State, Local, Private, and Tribal Lands
paragraphs: Collaborative activities that occur on state, local, and private lands are  subject to state and local laws that provide authority for numerous  agencies to manage state and local lands and programs to protect and  conserve natural resources, as well as generate revenue from these  resources. Many states have trust lands that were granted to them at  statehood by the federal government. These lands, which constitute 46  million acres of the continental United States, are typically managed to  produce revenue for beneficiaries such as schools and other public  institutions. As a result, the primary uses of these state lands are activities  that may generate revenue such as livestock grazing, oil and gas leasing,  hard rock mining, and timber. In addition, states regulate land and natural  resource use through a variety of programs, such as wildlife management  or forestry programs. Each state manages fish and wildlife through various  programs, and these state wildlife programs typically manage certain  species of wildlife as game for recreation purposes. These programs may  also own and manage land with habitat particularly suited for game  species, and sometimes provide protection for particular species of  concern. State forestry agencies, which are also in every state, can manage  their state forests for uses such as timber or recreation.
Private landowners determine how, or whether, to implement collaborative  activities on their lands, consistent with applicable federal, state, and local  laws and zoning restrictions that regulate the types of activities that can  occur on particular areas of land including open space, agricultural,  residential, commercial, and industrial lands. For example, a nonprofit  organization, such as The Nature Conservancy, can own land solely for  conservation purposes, while a timber company uses its lands to harvest  timber for profit. Private activities must also be consistent with applicable  federal environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act. Under the  act, private landowners are not required to consult with the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service on activities they conduct on their land, but the act  prohibits them from “taking” a threatened or endangered species. In  certain cases, private landowners may obtain permits for taking species if  the taking is incidental to a lawful activity. To obtain such a permit, a  landowner must submit a habitat conservation plan to the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service that specifies the likely effect of the landowner’s activities  on a listed species and mitigation measures that the landowner will  implement. Landowners may also enter into voluntary safe harbor  agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in which landowners  manage habitat for endangered species in return for assurances that no  additional restrictions will be imposed as a result of their conservation  actions.
Land use activities, such as harvesting trees for timber, applying fertilizer  and pesticides for agriculture, and diverting water for irrigation or other  use, can degrade air and water quality and habitat for wildlife. However,  undeveloped lands used for forestry, livestock grazing, and agriculture—in  addition to producing the nation’s food and fiber—are vital to the  protection of the nation’s environment and natural resources. To encourage  conservation on private lands used for agricultural and natural resource  production, USDA operates approximately 20 voluntary conservation  programs that are designed to address a range of environmental  concerns—soil erosion, surface and ground water quantity and quality, air  quality, loss of wildlife habitat and native species, and  others—by compensating landowners for taking certain lands out of  production or using certain conservation practices on lands in production.  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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Experts View Collaboration as an Effective Approach for Improving Natural Resource Management
paragraphs: Experts view collaborative resource management as an effective approach  for addressing natural resource problems compared with more traditional  approaches, such as independent and uncoordinated decision making or  litigation. They note, based on their research of many collaborative efforts,  that collaborative resource management offers several benefits, including  (1) reduced conflict and litigation; (2) better natural resource results;   (3) shared ownership and authority; (4) increased trust, communication,  and understanding among members of a group; and (5) increased  community capacity, such as fostering the ability for community members  to engage in respectful dialogue. In addition, experts say that effective  collaboration can have different structures and processes, but use similar  practices.
According to the experts, collaboration can reduce conflict and litigation  because it provides a way for people to become directly involved in  resolving issues through face-to-face discussions and move beyond the  impasse associated with more adversarial approaches. Experts say that the  lawsuits, administrative appeals, and lobbying campaigns that have been  associated with natural resource management in the past can be expensive  and divisive and lead to delays in getting land management activities and  projects accomplished. Such was the case in the Applegate watershed in  northern California and southwestern Oregon in the early 1990s when years  of adversarial conflict between environmentalists, the timber industry, and  government agencies over forest management issues and litigation related  to these issues had resulted in policy gridlock, with neither side able to  effectively achieve its goals. In this case and in many others cited by the  experts, stakeholders were driven to try collaboration because they were  frustrated with a lack of progress through other means. Through face-to- face discussions, parties may be able to define solutions that meet their  mutual interests and avert potentially costly litigation that requires winners  and losers and, in some cases, results in delays. For example, according to  one of the participants of the Blackfoot Challenge, one of the collaborative  efforts we studied, the group was able to prevent litigation by an  environmental group over water flows in the Blackfoot River in Montana by  implementing conservation programs during drought that increased water  levels in the river for fish.
The experts noted that, in addition to reducing conflict, collaboration can  lead to better natural resource results than traditional approaches. A  collaborative process, with a range of stakeholders—from local citizens to  agency technical specialists, and from environmentalists to industry  representatives—incorporates a broad array of knowledge, which may  include specialized local knowledge or technical expertise that would not  be available to particular stakeholders or agencies if they were working  alone. With input from a wide variety of stakeholders, collaborative efforts  are often able to identify creative solutions to natural resource problems  and make better, more-informed decisions about natural resource  management. Because these decisions are made collaboratively and have  concurrence from multiple affected stakeholders, solutions are frequently  easier to implement with less opposition. A second collaborative effort we  studied, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, started in 2006 to involve  multiple stakeholders in developing and implementing solutions to  conserve sagebrush habitat.
Another benefit noted by experts is that collaborative resource  management creates shared ownership of natural resource problems  among the stakeholders. The experts recognize that many of the nation’s  natural resource problems that cross ownership boundaries are not  amenable to traditional centralized government solutions through  regulation and cannot be solved by single organizations. For example,  problems such as the spread of invasive species, the decline of threatened  and endangered species, the loss of open space from development and  urban sprawl across agricultural landscapes, and non-point-source water  pollution—pollution from diffuse sources—are just a few of the numerous  challenges resulting from the independent actions of countless individuals.  Collaborative efforts bring many of these individuals together, making  progress toward resolving the problems possible. In addition, through  collaboration, federal and state programs can be made locally relevant and  decision making and progress are able to transcend political boundaries.  Consequently, local stakeholders feel consulted and may view federal  agencies as partners, and programs encourage joint stewardship of public  lands.
Experts also noted that collaborative resource management can increase  communication, trust, and understanding among different stakeholders.  The collaborative process can bring together stakeholders with divergent  interests who may have no prior direct experience working together or  have an adversarial relationship. As they work together to address a  particular common natural resource problem, these stakeholders often  begin to develop trust and increase communication. Furthermore, through  such communication, stakeholders can become more informed about each  other and the natural resource problem and develop an enhanced  understanding of its complexities. For example, environmental and  industry groups with divergent opinions about natural resource use may be  represented in a particular collaborative effort. Through working together  in collaborative groups and opening lines of communication, these  stakeholders may learn to appreciate each other’s perspective by focusing  on interests that they have in common. Experts have noted examples in  which environmentalists learned to appreciate ranchers’ needs to earn a  living through grazing livestock, timber companies acknowledge the value  of healthy ecosystems, and federal agency technical experts recognized the  importance of using traditional knowledge in land management practices.  One of the collaborative efforts we studied, the Eastern Upper Peninsula  Partners in Ecosystem Management, has shared information to improve  forested habitat, including on private timber lands.
In addition to improving relationships within a collaborative group, experts  identify collaboration more broadly as a means to increase the social  capacity of a community. Increased community capacity can include  developing networks between the public and private sectors and enhancing  the public’s engagement in issues affecting the community. The experts  note that through increasing community capacity, collaborative groups may  enable the community to deal better with future problems that arise.
Collaborative groups that are able to achieve these benefits can be  organized differently and have different decision making and  organizational processes, but use similar practices that distinguish them  from more traditional groups and make their efforts more effective and  potentially more successful. A collaborative group can be organized  formally—such as a legislatively mandated advisory group or an  incorporated nonprofit organization—or less formally, with loosely  organized members and simple written agreements. Collaborative groups  may also employ a variety of processes to manage their meetings and  organizations and may strive to achieve different desired outcomes, such  as sharing information on what each member is doing, partnering on  particular management activities, or seeking agreement on how to manage  natural resource problems.
The eastern Upper Peninsu inclde  fore tht hve hitoriclly een mged  for timer. The grop focus on abt 4  million cre thn the Hith Ntionl  Foret, the Seney Ntionl Wildlife Refge,  Pictred Rock Ntionl Lkehore, te  lnd, nd privtely-owned lnd. The prtner  inclde the ForeService, U.S. Find  Wildlife Service, Ntionl Prk Service,  Michign Deprtment of Nl Rerce,  The Nre Conervncy, nd compnie  owning privte foret lnd. collaborative practices noted that all stakeholders—individuals and  organizations whose interests are affected by the process or its  outcome—should be included in the process by participating or being  represented. One expert suggested that such stakeholders may include  those affected by any sort of agreement that could be reached, those  needed to successfully implement an agreement, and those who could  undermine an agreement if not included in the process. Some experts  added that participation should be voluntary.
Develop a collaborative process. Many experts noted that a  collaborative process should be designed by the participants to fit the  needs and circumstances of their situation. Some experts recommended  that groups employ the assistance of a neutral facilitator with  experience in building collaborative processes. According to some  experts, the process should include decision and process rules to govern  how the group operates. For example, collaborative groups may use  consensus to make decisions, described by several experts as a process  in which discussion proceeds until all viewpoints are heard and the  stakeholders, or most of the stakeholders, are willing to agree to a  conclusion or course of action. When using consensus, some experts  note that a group should agree on what consensus means and what the  responsibilities are for parties who disagree, such as providing an  alternative. In addition to establishing decision rules, one expert noted  that participants need to identify the roles and responsibilities for  implementing an agreement and obtain commitment from the  participants that an agreement will be implemented.
Pursue flexibility, openness, and respect. According to many  experts, flexibility, transparency, and respect should be built into the  collaborative process. Flexibility is important in the process in order to  accommodate changing timetables, issues, data needs, interests, and  knowledge. Transparency and open communication are essential for  maintaining trust and can be achieved through maintaining a written  record of proceedings and decisions and ensuring that all parties have  equal access to relevant information. Having a respectful process is also  necessary to attain civil discourse in which participants listen to one  another, take each participant’s perspectives seriously, and attempt to  address the concerns of each participant. Building respect and openness  involves accepting the diverse values, interests, and knowledge— including local knowledge—of the parties involved.
Find leadership. Several experts identified the need for collaborative  groups to find a credible leader who is capable of articulating a strong  vision. According to the experts, a leader should have good  communication skills, be able to work on all sides of an issue, and  ensure that the collaborative process established by the group is  followed. Experts noted that neutral facilitators can also function as  leaders for a group. In addition, experts said that it is important to build  leadership skills within the organizations participating in a group so that  these leaders can effectively represent the interests of their  organizations.
Identify or develop a common goal. Most of the experts who wrote  about collaborative practices noted the importance of groups having  clear goals. In a collaborative process, the participants may not have the  same overall interests—in fact they may have conflicting interests.  However, by establishing a goal based on what the group shares in  common—a sense of place or community, mutual goals, or mutual  fears—rather than on where there is disagreement among missions or  philosophies, a collaborative group can shape its own vision and define  its own purpose. When articulated and understood by the members of a  group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to participate  in the process.
Develop a process for obtaining information. Some experts noted  that effective collaborative processes incorporate high-quality  information, including both scientific information and local knowledge,  accessible to and understandable by all participants. As one expert  noted, conflict over issues of fact is capable of incapacitating a  collaborative process. Therefore, it is important to develop a common  factual base, which can be accomplished by all participants jointly  gathering and developing a common understanding of relevant data.  This process allows the stakeholders to accept the facts themselves,  rather than having the facts disseminated to them through experts.
Leverage available resources. Many of the experts emphasized that  collaboration can take time and resources in order to accomplish such  activities as building trust among the participants, setting up the ground  rules for the process, attending meetings, conducting project work, and  monitoring and evaluating the results of work performed. Consequently,  it is important for groups to ensure that they identify and leverage  sufficient funding to get the group started and to accomplish the  objectives. One expert noted that many collaborative groups are  successful in attracting sufficient funding for restoration projects but  have difficulty in securing funding for administration of the group.
Provide incentives. Some experts note that economic incentives can  help collaborative efforts achieve their goals. For example, by  purchasing conservation easements, a group can give landowners  incentives to help achieve the goal of preserving open space. A  conservation easement is a restriction placed on a parcel of land that  limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place  in order to protect the resources associated with the land. By  purchasing easements and thus creating an incentive for a landowner to  keep the land in its current land use, the groups are able to keep the land  from being developed, preserving open space and providing other  ecological benefits.
Monitor results for accountability. According to many experts, to be  effective, the participants in groups need to be accountable to their  constituencies and to the process that they have established. In  addition, organizations supporting the process expect accountability for  the time, effort, money, or patience they invested in the group. As a  result, experts note the importance of designing protocols to monitor  and evaluate progress toward a collaborative group’s goals, from both  an environmental and a social perspective. Some experts recommend  that collaborative groups use monitoring as a part of an adaptive  management approach that involves modifying management strategies  or project implementation based on the results of initial activities.
While experts noted that these practices are commonly shared by  successful collaborative groups, one expert said that the use of the  collaborative practices does not guarantee a group’s success. To measure  whether groups are successful, experts noted that two criteria can be used:  (1) whether the groups were able to increase participation and cooperation  and (2) whether they improved natural resource conditions. The first  criterion measures success based on organizational factors and social  outcomes, such as improved relations and trust among stakeholders. In  many instances, the groups studied by one expert identified factors such as  improved communication and understanding as their greatest success.  Factors used by some experts to evaluate success in this respect include  the perceived effects of the collaborative effort in building relationships,  the extent of agreement reached, and educating and outreaching to  members of the community. The second criterion for success is based on  whether groups have been able to improve natural resource conditions as  measured by specific indicators, such as water quality, ecosystem health, or  species recovery. Some experts note that to evaluate progress toward  improving resource conditions, monitoring needs to be performed over a  period long enough for change to occur and focus on indicators that are  associated with a group’s natural resource goals.
section_title: Many Experts Identified Limitations of Collaboration and a Few Raise Questions about Using It on Federally Managed Lands
paragraphs: Although collaborative resource management is generally viewed by the  experts as an effective approach for addressing natural resource problems,  many experts discussed two limitations to its use. First, the process of  collaboration, which involves bringing people together to work on a  problem and moving the group forward to reach a decision, can be difficult  and time-consuming, particularly in the initial stages when the group is  getting started, and thus require large amounts of resources, including staff  and money. Even after a group has been working together for a period of  time, there may be inefficiencies with the process as new group members  need to be brought up to speed.
Second, collaboration does not always work in providing the solution to all  natural resource problems. In some instances, for example when there are  irreconcilable differences among group members, agreement may not be  possible. In other instances, one particular stakeholder may derail the  process by refusing to cooperate. As a result, collaborative resource  management is not applicable everywhere, and collaborative efforts may  not be replicable. For example, collaboration may not work in a community  deeply divided over a particular natural resource issue that has generated a  long history of controversy and litigation even though a collaborative effort  dealing with the same issue was successful in another community.
Furthermore, some experts question whether collaborative resource  management groups are equitable; have balanced power; produce solutions  that are protective of the environment; and are accountable to the public,  particularly in circumstances where federally managed lands are involved.  A number of experts raised concern over the equity of collaboration, noting  that it can remove discussions from the public arena and empower those  who are involved in the group at the expense of those who cannot, or  choose not to, participate even though they have a legitimate interest. By  their nature, collaborative groups tend to be primarily made up of local  stakeholders. Yet, others who may not live in the community but have an  interest in the lands because they recreate there, use water originating  there, or value endangered species living there are sometimes left out of  the process because they are unaware it is occurring or do not have the  means or the resources to participate. For example, national environmental  organizations cannot always participate in local efforts because they may  not have people at these locations or be able to bear the expense of  traveling there.
Some experts also question collaboration on the grounds that public  processes may be co-opted by parties with particular interests who manage  to control the agenda of the group. Many experts raising this question were  concerned about local economic interests taking over a process and,  because of their influence, overriding other interests. Yet, one expert noted  concerns that the process could also be co-opted by environmental  interests. Furthermore, some experts critical of collaborative resource  management raised concerns about the efforts focusing on reaching a  consensus decision. By trying to reach consensus, they argued,  compromises are made that can result in a “least common denominator”  solution, which some may view as less protective of the natural resources.
Finally, a few experts criticize collaborative efforts designed to make  decisions about management activities on federal lands because they  believe collaboration reduces federal agencies’ accountability to the  broader public. Specifically, some of these experts say that collaboration  effectively transfers the authority to make land management decisions  from the federal land management agencies to local citizens. Consequently,  these experts argue that when collaborative groups make decisions related  to federal land, the land and resource management agencies do not carry  out their legal responsibilities to manage the public land and are not  accountable to the public.
In response to such questions raised about collaboration, other experts  note that a well-designed and implemented collaborative process can avoid  some of the outcomes with which the critics of collaboration are  concerned. For example, a process that is inclusive will incorporate both  local and national interests, and a process that uses the leadership of a  neutral facilitator can help to ensure that all viewpoints are considered and  prevent any one group from taking over the process. Furthermore, one  expert notes that a well-designed collaborative process that includes  debate over the facts of an issue can avoid a “least common denominator”  solution. Finally, according to an expert, when participating in  collaborative groups that are transparent, federal agencies can show that  they are not improperly transferring authority to local communities.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Most Collaborative Resource Management Efforts Reduced or Averted Conflicts through Cooperation among Participants
paragraphs: 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.
Each of the natural resource problems the efforts managed, or are  managing, involves many different interests that can potentially lead to  conflict among the different members of the group. For example, in the  Blackfoot Challenge case, federal agencies are required to protect  threatened and endangered species such as the grizzly bear and the gray  wolf, yet ranchers fear these large predators because of the harm they can  cause to livestock. Or, in the Uncompahgre Plateau example, as a result of  the Energy Policy Act of 2005, transmission line operators must ensure that  their power lines remain reliable, which traditionally involved clear cutting  the rights-of-ways involved, even on public lands. Meanwhile, natural  resource managers seek to provide habitat for lynx and deer and to prevent  large openings in the forest that may come with utility corridors. The  natural resource problems and potential or actual conflicts managed by  each of the groups are described in more detail in appendix II.
As table 1 shows, six of the seven efforts were able to identify solutions to  their natural resource problems that met their common interests. For  example, by developing the concept of a credit system, the Cooperative  Sagebrush Initiative has identified a way to encourage—and pay for— preservation and restoration of sagebrush habitat while also allowing for  the development of sagebrush in areas that are economically or otherwise  important. In another example, the Onslow Bight Forum identified lands  that were important to preserve and restore as habitat for different species  and purchased these from willing landowners. Because the groups can pool  their funds, they are able to purchase more properties and more expensive  properties, and by purchasing the land on the free market from willing  owners, the group provides the landowners with the value of their property,  thereby not harming their economic interests. While the seventh group— the Steens Mountain Advisory Council—was able to provide advice on a  cooperative management plan and vegetation treatment plans, it did not  provide input on a travel management plan for the area, a key management  issue.
All seven efforts we studied used several of the collaborative practices  identified by the experts—such as seeking inclusive participation; using  collaborative processes; pursuing flexibility, openness, and respect; and  finding leadership—and six of the efforts were successful in reducing or  averting conflicts. These six groups were able to cooperate and focus on  their common interests and goals, despite different perspectives and  interests among the members. In addition to identifying common goals,  several of the successful efforts were able to use other practices, such as  obtaining scientific and other information to inform their decisions,  leveraging funds, and providing incentives. The one effort that has been  less successful in dealing with conflict used several of the collaborative  practices, but does not have a common goal and does not have funding to  gather information, leverage resources, or provide incentives.
The Steen Montin collabortive effort i  locted in theastern Oregon. The effort i  focused on abt 496,000 cre of high  deert montin re tht has gret  ecologicl diverity nd vried wildlife. The  primry rerce concern Steen  Montin inclde issu relted to livetock  grzing, wilderness, trvel ccess, nd  mgement of jniper tht hve  encroched into sageusnd grassnd  reas.
In 2000, the Steen Montin Coopertive  Mgement nd Protection Act eablihed  the re nd tasked the Steen Montin  Adviory Concil with providing innovtive  nd cretive suggetion to the BLM on how  to mge the nl rerce on Steen  Montin in nner tht wold llevite  conflict. The Steen Montin Adviory  Concil inclde locl rncher,  recretioni, nd environmentl  repreenttive.
Seek Inclusive Participation. The seven groups each have members that  have multiple different perspectives such as private landowners,  conservation groups, natural resource land management agencies, and  wildlife agencies. Most of the groups include representatives from federal  agencies such as BLM, the Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, and several include USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation  Service. All but one of the groups we studied were primarily organized  around landowners and managers who can make decisions about their  respective lands, including members of conservation-oriented groups such  as The Nature Conservancy and local conservation groups such as the  North Carolina Coastal Land Trust and North Carolina Coastal Federation.  Two groups, the Blackfoot Challenge and the Malpai Borderlands Group,  focus primarily on private lands and the surrounding public lands. On the  other hand, the Uncompahgre Plateau, Onslow Bight Forum, and the  Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management include large  areas of public lands, with the exception of lands owned by the land  conservancy groups in North Carolina and several forest companies in  Michigan. While the groups are open to other participants such as  environmental groups, according to several participants, they may not seek  them out or the environmental groups may not participate. All but one of  the groups have self-selected membership, which means that they attract  members who are interested in working on the problems identified by the  group and are willing to find solutions to these problems, which may not be  the case with certain organizations. Only one group, the Steens Mountain  Advisory Council, is required by law to include certain members, including  representatives of the ranching and environmental communities, including  one local and one national representative from each.
Develop a Collaborative Process. The seven groups we studied are  organized differently but are each organized to collaborate. Three of the  groups—the Blackfoot Challenge, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative,  and the Malpai Borderlands Group—have incorporated as nonprofit  organizations, each with a board of directors, and one—the Uncompahgre  Plateau Project—has a separate nonprofit financial management group.  According to members of one group, being incorporated allows the group  the autonomy to raise funds and complete management projects on its  own, without relying on the federal or state agencies. Also, incorporating  puts the groups on equal footing with the agencies as they identify projects  with mutual benefits. Of the remaining three groups, two are less formally  organized and one is more formally organized. The Onslow Bight Forum  and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group function as information-sharing  groups that allow the individual members to determine what actions they  will take independently. The Onslow Bight Forum uses a memorandum of  understanding to identify the role of each member and the group, while the  Eastern Upper Peninsula group does not have any organization documents  and operates informally. Finally, the last group—the Steens Mountain  Advisory Committee—is a legislatively organized advisory group for BLM  and has written protocols to describe its organization and processes.
All but one of these groups uses a consensus process to make decisions.  This process involves all participants, focuses on solutions, and proceeds  until agreement is reached. For example, participants of one group, the  Blackfoot Challenge, said that its members followed the 80-20 rule—they  worked on 80 percent of the items they could agree on and left the 20  percent they could not agree on at the door. The participants said that as  they worked together longer, the 20 percent of items that cause  disagreement have been reduced as well. Two groups—the Onslow Bight  Forum and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group—do not make formal  decisions, but use a consensus process in discussing and agreeing on a plan  of action that members can decide to take or not. One group, the Steens  Mountain Advisory Council, uses a voting process to make certain  decisions rather than a consensus process. To make a recommendation to  BLM, the advisory council is required to have 9 of its 12 members vote in  favor of it. According to the members, unfilled positions and poor  attendance at council meetings have made it difficult to achieve the  number of votes needed to make recommendations to BLM.
Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect. All but one of the groups  have flexible and open processes that allow the members to discuss their  positions. Two of the groups—the Onslow Bight Forum and the Eastern  Upper Peninsula group—would not likely exist without the openness that  allowed the members to retain their own missions and land management  goals rather than the group subsuming them. Several of the groups, such as  the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, use Web sites and plans to communicate  with each other and the community. On the other hand, the Steens  Mountain Advisory Council is different from the other groups in that it was  legislatively created, and the act that created both the Steens Mountain  Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) and the council  resulted from lengthy negotiations among several parties, some of whom  are, or have been, represented on the council. The group has used  facilitators to overcome some of the conflict that developed through the  negotiations, but some acknowledge that the council established by the act  has not yet resolved key conflicts over management of the area. Yet, some  of the members we interviewed were hopeful that a change in members  that occurred recently might help to invigorate the group.
The Onlow Bight Conervtion Form i   collabortive grop focused on the long-lef  pine fore, euarie, wetlnd, nd  pocoin (wetlnd on  hill tht form  ecause of ccted pet) in coasl  North Crolin. The grop formed in 2001  rond issu such as increasing  development nd it effect on wildlife  habitt, prticrly tht of the endngered  red-cockded woodpecker, nd wter quality.
The Onlow Bight Conervtion Form i n  informtion-ring prtnerhip of federnd te gencie nd nonprofit gro who  hve igned  Memorndm of  Undernding to identify opportnitie to  work together to conerve the nl  rerce of the Onlow Bight lndpe.  The memer inclde the Mrine Corp,  ForeService, U.S. Find Wildlife  Service, North Crolin Deprtment of  Environment nd Nl Rerce, North  Crolin Wildlife Rerce Commission,  The Nre Conervncy, the North Crolin  Coasl Federtion, nd the North Crolin  Coasl Lnd Trust.
Find Leadership. All of the groups have benefited from the availability of  community leaders or agency employees who could lead the group. Several  of the groups were started by local community leaders who energized and  engaged others to work with them, although the federal agency staff were  working alongside the community leaders to support the efforts. In  particular, the Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands Group, and  Uncompahgre Plateau projects were started and sustained by community  leaders, but they recognize the important contribution of the federal  agency employees who were involved as well. On the other hand, federal  and state agency employees took the lead in starting the Eastern Upper  Peninsula group and were also important in the Cooperative Sagebrush  Initiative, and federal agency staff worked with staff from The Nature  Conservancy to start the Onslow Bight Forum. One community leader on  the Steens advisory council has attempted to focus the group on its role  and keep it on track for making recommendations to BLM.
Identify a Common Goal. Of the seven groups we studied, six identified  and shared a common goal. For example, the Onslow Bight Forum brought  together diverse members with similar interests in preserving open space  and habitat—the U.S. Marine Corps has an interest in preserving open  space around its installations for safety reasons and to help save  endangered species, and land conservation groups seek to preserve habitat  corridors and prevent development of the rural landscape. Similarly, the  Eastern Upper Peninsula group focused on the need to facilitate  complementary management of public and private lands, for all  appropriate land uses, and to sustain and enhance representative  ecosystems in the Eastern Upper Peninsula. On the other hand, the Steens  Mountain Advisory Council does not share a common goal for management  of the Steens Mountain area, with some members advocating motor vehicle  access through wilderness areas for historical uses such as livestock  grazing and others advocating for more wilderness areas to be set aside in  the planning area and greater conservation requirements instituted in those  wilderness areas already existing. The Steens Mountain act established a  cooperative management area, the purpose of which is to conserve,  protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain  for present and future generations. To further this purpose, the act directed  BLM to manage the area to achieve five objectives. Several participants  indicated that the issue will need to be litigated to clarify the act’s  requirements.
The Uncomphgre Plteau Project  collabortive grop i locted in  thwetern Colordo. The grop focus  it effort on the Uncomphgre Plteau,  which  1.5 million cre, 75 percent of  which iublic lnd. The plteau home to  abundnt wildlife pecie, inclding  poption of mle deer. The grop formed  in 2001 to protect nd retore the ecotem  helth of the plteau. In ddition, key  electricl trmission line tht connect the  eastern nd wetern United Ste cross the  plteau, creting the need for vegettion  mgement ner thee line.
The prtner in the Uncomphgre Plteau  Project inclde the ForeService, BLM,  Public Lnd Prtnerhip, Colordo Diviion  of Widlife, Wetern Are Power  Adminitrtion, nd Tri-Ste Genertion nd  Trmission Assocition, Inc. The prtner  igned  Memorndm of Undernding nd  eablihed n Exective Committee to gide  it overll direction;  Technicl Committee  nd contrct employee, to crry ot it  ctivitie; nd  nonprofit orgniztion to  hndle it finnce.
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.
The Mlpi Borderlnd Grop collabortive  effort i locted on the order with Mexico in  thern New Mexico nd Arizon. The  grop formed  nonprofit orgniztion in  1994 to work on retoring the nl fire  regime, preerve lrge open ce, nd  mintin l lifetyle in the pproximtely  800,000 cre of deert grassnd region tht  inclde  mix of federl, te, nd privte  lnd. foundation grants, and to use these funds in conjunction with federal  partners’ funding to leverage the amount of work that could be done by the  group. For example, the Blackfoot Challenge recently received an Ash  Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation award of $100,000,  the Uncompahgre Plateau Project received $500,000 from the state of  Colorado and $620,000 from the Ford Foundation, 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.
The Mlpi Borderlnd Grop was initited   grop of rncher nd environmentli.  Federgencie, inclding the ForeService, U.S. Find Wildlife Service, nd  Nl Rerce Conervtion Service;  Arizon nd New Mexico te gencie; nd  conervtion gro, such as The Nre  Conervncy, hve plyed  role in the  grop’ effort.
Provide Incentives. Several of the groups we studied that have dealt  successfully with conflict used different types of incentives to gain  cooperation and participation. Such incentives include conservation  easements, payments for projects or damages caused by wildlife, and  different agreements related to threatened and endangered species. The  Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai Borderlands Group, and Eastern Upper  Peninsula project have arranged, or helped arrange, conservation  easements to protect either rangeland or forested land that could have  been developed for housing, otherwise. The Malpai group also used  another type of payment to help reduce conflict over livestock losses  caused by predators, supporting a predation fund to pay ranchers when it  can be proved a predator—the jaguar in New Mexico and Arizona—has  killed livestock.
A third type of incentive, safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation  plans, has been used by the Malpai Borderlands Group. Safe harbor  agreements seek to assure landowners that if they restore or enhance  habitat, they will not incur new restrictions if their actions result in a  threatened or endangered species taking up residence. In order to obtain a  permit to take a species incidental to lawful land management activities, a  landowner must complete a habitat conservation plan, which specifies  measures the landowner will undertake to minimize and mitigate the effect  on the species. These agreements encourage private landowners to  conduct projects that will protect species on their property, while also  protecting their use of the land should they “take” one of the species— either by killing it or degrading its habitat. According to one group these  agreements can be complex and time-consuming to arrange, and thus, it  may be more efficient for the group to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service through the process than for each individual landowner. In addition  to these types of arrangements, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative wants  to develop a related incentive, a conservation credit bank in which one  party would pay to protect sagebrush habitat, or conduct restoration of  habitat, and another party would purchase credits to develop land that  would degrade sagebrush habitat or kill a species. The group is still  considering how to measure the conservation value of different sagebrush  species and habitat they provide and how to monitor those values.
section_title: Collaborative Efforts Have Improved Natural Resource Conditions, but Determining the Extent of Improvement Was Difficult Because of Limited Landscape Data
paragraphs: 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.
As shown in table 2, the efforts’ accomplishments ranged widely, from  developing joint plans and scientific information, to changing vegetation  conditions and managing species habitat. For example, some of the groups  developed landscape maps of vegetation and potential habitat that  integrated information for each of the members in the group. The groups  also accomplished numerous activities to keep landscapes open and usable  for natural resource purposes, such as grazing or timber harvesting. At the  same time, the groups worked on several projects to help conserve  threatened and endangered species habitat. The two efforts that have not  completed projects—the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative and the Steens  Mountain Advisory Council—have not moved beyond planning work.
As shown in table 2, three of the groups—the Blackfoot Challenge, Malpai  Borderlands Group, and Uncompahgre Plateau Project—have employed  monitoring programs that demonstrate the effect of their activities on site- level natural resource conditions. Monitoring environmental or natural  resource characteristics is typically conducted at the site level—the area  involved in a management activity, such as a vegetation treatment—to  determine what effect the management activity has, or at the landscape  level—a broad area—to determine the overall conditions across that area.  Monitoring can also be conducted over time to indicate the trend in  conditions at a site or landscape. Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife  and Parks, one of the partners involved in the Blackfoot Challenge,  conducts fish surveys in the Blackfoot River to determine how populations  are faring. This work measures the benefits provided by the group’s  riparian projects for fish populations, including endangered bull trout. The  Malpai Borderlands Group conducts range monitoring on 290 sites in its  area and conducts monitoring of some species to determine how they have  been affected by group projects. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project maps  its vegetation treatments and fires, and thus shows areas of different  vegetation ages, types, and the habitat it provides across the broad area  managed by several agencies. Because the agencies’ mapping data are not  compatible, however, staff said that they had to develop ways to merge the  data, which was is time-consuming and expensive. Through January 2008,  the agencies, with the help of the group, had pulled together data for two  large watersheds and had begun working on two more. The other groups  do not conduct monitoring as a group, although the resource management  agencies do track resources in some cases.
Two of the seven groups—Blackfoot Challenge and the Uncompahgre  Plateau Project—monitor the results of some of their projects across the  larger landscape to determine the effect of their work across the broad  landscapes that they are trying to affect; however, the other groups do not  conduct landscape monitoring. According to two groups, they are not able  to monitor across a larger area for two primary reasons. First, according to  participants, it is time-consuming and expensive to monitor multiple sites  regularly across a large area, and this is what is necessary to understand  the effects of multiple projects in that large landscape. For example, even  though the Malpai Borderlands Group monitors 290 sites for the effects of  grazing, climate, and other factors on the condition of the grasslands that  are useful for assessing the condition of that pasture or smaller area,  according to the group’s scientists, the group does not collect comparable  data across different pastures or smaller areas that allow comparison  across the broader landscape. Data must be collected at a different,  broader scale and need to be collected consistently at specified locations to  determine the condition of the hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland  that the group is helping to manage. Currently, the group and its scientific  advisory board are considering what data to collect.
The second reason that the groups do not collect data is that they either  have not agreed to collect such data or they have not agreed on the work  that they will conduct and monitor. Two groups—the Onslow Bight Forum  and the Eastern Upper Peninsula group—do not monitor because both of  these groups organized to share information, not to develop joint projects  and monitoring. According to some Onslow Bight members, it would be  useful to track the results that individual members have accomplished with  the group’s information, but the group has not decided to do this jointly or  to dedicate the resources to it. According to the members of the Eastern  Upper Peninsula group, their purpose has never been to jointly manage  projects and therefore there is no need to monitor results. The group’s  purpose is to share information about natural resource problems, such as  invasive species, and effective ways to treat them, without requiring the  participants to work together. The group gives members a place to find  common problems with other agencies and then each agency or participant  can conduct its work and monitor results accordingly.
Finally, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative and the Steens Mountain  Advisory Council do not conduct any monitoring because the groups are  just beginning projects that warrant monitoring. The Cooperative  Sagebrush Initiative recognizes the need for monitoring and has considered  including the cost of monitoring in each project to ensure that it is  conducted, but the group has not yet conducted any projects, nor have they  conducted pilot projects to ensure that they can correctly measure the  benefits achieved by restoration projects. At Steens Mountain, BLM has  drafted an overall monitoring plan for the Steens Mountain area that may  serve to monitor work accomplished. However, BLM has not yet conducted  some of the key work identified as needed by the Advisory Council because  the agency is still conducting studies to determine how to best clear juniper  in wilderness areas and wilderness study areas because mechanical tools— the method that has been proven effective for removing large juniper  trees—cannot be used to cut down trees prior to burning.
section_title: Cooperative Conservation Policies and Actions Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Federal Agencies Participating in Collaborative Efforts, but Opportunities Exist for Further Action
paragraphs: Federal land and resource management agencies face several challenges to  participating in collaborative resource management efforts, according to  the experts, federal officials, and participants in collaborative efforts we  interviewed. Key challenges that the agencies face include improving  federal employees’ collaborative skills and working within the framework  of existing laws and policies. The 2004 Executive Order and 2005 White  House Conference on Cooperative Conservation set in motion an  interagency initiative, including a senior policy group, an executive task  force, and working groups, to develop policies and take actions that  support collaborative efforts and partnerships. The policies and actions  taken as part of the initiative have made progress in addressing the  challenges agencies face. However, additional opportunities exist to  develop tools, examples, and guidance that would strengthen federal  participation in collaborative efforts and better structure and direct the  Cooperative Conservation initiative to achieve its vision.
subsections: section_title: Federal Land and Resource Management Agencies Face Several Challenges to Their Participation in Collaborative Resource Management Efforts
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Improving Federal Employees’ Collaborative Skills
paragraphs: The first challenge agencies face involves improving their employees’ skills  in collaboration, as well as increasing their use. Such skills include  improving communication, identifying and involving relevant stakeholders,  conducting meetings, resolving disputes, and sharing technical information  and making it accessible. Federal participants and others we interviewed  indicated that federal employees are often technical experts and improving  their collaborative skills may enable them to work more effectively with a  collaborative group. They indicated that such skills are important to work  effectively with neighboring landowners and community members who are  interested in the projects and lands. Many participants emphasized that  hiring new people with collaborative skills is one way to improve the level  of collaboration by federal agencies and also said that training in  collaboration for employees is important to improve skills. Some federal  agency officials said that hands-on training in collaborative efforts,  involving participants from other groups, is most helpful.
Furthermore, to encourage the use of collaboration by federal employees,  several participants we interviewed said that management should support  field staff in their collaborative efforts. For example, one participant stated  that management needs to identify those employees with collaborative  skills and assign them according to these skills. Some participants said that  senior employees may be better at collaboration because they have  developed a relationship with the group or are more comfortable in  interpreting laws and policy to apply in specific situations that might arise.  Others said that new employees have enthusiasm and only need to be  shown how they can best work with groups. Several participants said that  federal agencies need to allow their staff to become acquainted with a  community to work better with local groups, and others said that providing  flexibility for the employees to work with the groups is needed. Finally, one  participant we interviewed said that collaborative efforts will fail if federal  management officials reverse the decisions made by the federal  representatives working with a collaborative group because the group will  no longer trust the federal agencies to do what they have agreed on.
section_title: Determining Whether to Participate in a Particular Collaborative Effort
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustaining Federal Participation over Time
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Measuring Participation and Monitoring Results to Ensure Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sharing Agency and Group Experiences with Collaboration
paragraphs: A fifth challenge that the federal agencies face in participating in  collaborative efforts involves sharing agency and group experiences with  collaboration. By their nature, collaborative groups are decentralized and  localized, with their members focused on the group’s management plans  and activities. According to experts and participants, these groups are each  unique in their makeup, organization, circumstances, and abilities, yet can  experience similar problems working together and with federal agencies.  Some participants who had been involved in the White House Conference  on Cooperative Conservation and other conferences stated that such  forums are useful for giving groups the opportunity to share practical  experiences of working together and with federal agencies. The types of  lessons include the fact that groups can benefit from paid staff, even part- time, or a director to keep the group organized between meetings.
section_title: Working within the Framework of Federal Statutes and Agency Policies to Support Collaboration
paragraphs: 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. By making the process bureaucratic, some experts and others say  that the act limits groups’ abilities to work together spontaneously to solve  problems or get work done. USDA officials indicated that they have a  budget limit on what they can spend on groups working under the act.  Some participants of collaborative groups we interviewed said that the fact  that the act’s requirements do not apply to privately led efforts is one  reason for communities to lead collaborative efforts with assistance from  federal agencies. Other participants said that the act’s requirements caused  their groups to focus their goals solely on information sharing, because the  group’s purpose would not be to offer advice regarding agency decisions,  and therefore the group would not be subject to the act.
Ethics rule: USDA and Interior implement federal ethics’ rules on federal  employees’ participation on the board of directors of an outside  organization differently, resulting in their staff members participating in  different capacities on a group’s nonprofit board. The ethics rules generally  prevent a federal employee from serving as a board member while serving  in an official capacity for the federal agency because of concerns over  conflicts of interest. Waivers may be granted under limited circumstances;  however, according to USDA and Interior officials, USDA rarely grants  waivers, while Interior has granted some waivers. As a result of different  implementation of the rule, in the Blackfoot Challenge case, a Forest  Service member serves as a nonvoting board member, while BLM and the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service members serve as voting members. Several  of the participants of the group expressed confusion and some distrust  over the different federal agency interpretations, saying that they raised  some questions about the Forest Service’s commitment to participate.  Other groups that form nonprofit boards may face this same inconsistency.
Financial requirements: Some groups receive federal grants or  cooperative agreements that enable them to conduct activities that provide  for a public purpose. Nonfederal participants in collaborative efforts  identified federal agency financial procedures for these grants and  cooperative agreements that make it difficult for them to work  collaboratively with the agencies. For example, some grants require that  any interest earned be returned to the federal government, others require  the group to raise funds to meet a share of costs, or others do not allow the  group to be paid up front, which is difficult for small organizations without  much funding. In addition, several participants indicated that it is difficult  to pull together funding over the long term from the numerous sources  available—foundations, agencies, and fundraising activities—and that this  is an ongoing struggle for groups. However, because federal agencies need  to seek competing offers or applications for many types of grants and  agreements, the agencies may not be able to provide stable funding to  groups for very long. For example, the participants of one group we  interviewed recently learned that they would have to compete with others  to renew their agreement, even though the group has ongoing management  plans and projects with BLM and other agencies to provide long-term  vegetation management across the agencies’ lands. The result of this action  is that the group was uncertain if they would be able to carry out these  long-term plans and projects because they rely on this stream of funding to  pay for part-time staff to organize the group and provide support for  planning projects and reporting the results.
One specific type of funding agreement that can help make collaboration  work, identified by some federal officials we interviewed, is the watershed  restoration and enhancement agreement. Under this authority the Forest  Service can use appropriated funds to enter into agreements with other  federal agencies; states, tribal, and local governments; or private entities to  protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and other resources  on public or private land. However, the authority that allows this for the  Forest Service—the Wyden Amendment—is set to expire in 2011. In  addition, Interior officials stated that they do not have general authority to  use their funds to restore or enhance resources on nonfederal land;  however, they indicated that BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and  the National Park Service can fund projects on nonfederal land related to  reducing the risk of damage from wildland fire. The agency officials that  discussed these funding sources said that the ability to spend some of their  funds on nonfederal lands enhances—or would enhance—their ability to  work with partners in the community.
Endangered Species Act requirements for listing species:  Participants in the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative identified several  aspects of the Endangered Species Act that make collaboration difficult for  them. They have identified and proposed areas where they believe  Endangered Species Act policies could be made more consistent with their  collaborative effort. In particular, the group is planning to conduct  restoration projects for sagebrush habitat, but, according to one  participant, these restoration projects are scrutinized as much as a  destructive project is in terms of the effect the project may have on a  potentially endangered species such as the sage grouse. The group has  proposed to Interior that the policy for listing species as endangered—the  Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts—would apply to their  restoration actions because such actions might make listing unnecessary,  or listing requirements might be less restrictive. This policy identifies  criteria the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will use in determining whether  formalized conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or to show  effectiveness contribute to making listing a species as threatened or  endangered unnecessary. The group has also proposed other changes to the  Endangered Species Act regulations and policies that they say would  support collaboration and their particular effort. For example, under  current policies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service treats the two types of  species (threatened and endangered) in the same manner with regard to  prohibitions on the taking of a species. The group has proposed that  Interior relax the prohibition on the taking of threatened species, arguing  that the Endangered Species Act allows for threatened species to be  treated in a different manner from endangered species.
National Environmental Policy Act: Experts and participants have  stated that NEPA hinders collaboration by essentially duplicating the  public participation that occurs through collaborative efforts.  Collaborative groups may develop a plan or project that they would prefer.  For federal projects having a significant environmental effect, NEPA  requires the development and analysis of a reasonable range of alternative  actions, including the agency’s preferred alternative action, in an  environmental impact statement. It also requires public participation in the  development of the environmental impact statement. Because  collaborative groups often include many of those interested in the natural  resources or management being conducted, several participants said that  the collaborative group provides the agencies with its preferred alternative  and a good sense of the public’s opinion of the project. They believe, for  this reason, that NEPA requirements are redundant in these cases.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
As shown in table 3, several actions have been taken, including  development of policies, that have resulted in progress toward addressing  several of the challenges agencies face participating in collaborative  efforts, but other opportunities exist to take actions that further address  the challenges.
The challenge of improving federal employees’ collaborative skills is being  addressed by the personnel competencies working group. Through 2007,  with the input of the Office of Personnel Management, this working group  developed a set of collaborative behaviors for federal employees that some  of the agencies have made part of their strategies to hire and train  employees to improve their collaborative skills. According to Interior and  Forest Service officials, senior executive service managers in the agencies  are already rated on their ability to collaborate and collaborative behaviors.  Interior agencies are now considering how to incorporate these into  personnel rating systems for other federal officials and staff, and the Forest  Service has revised its employee rating system and incorporated the  collaborative competencies into the new system for both managers and  employees. In addition, the training and development working group  identified and published appropriate training courses offered by each of the  land and resource management agencies. For example, BLM and the Forest  Service offer a series of courses that include collaborative behavior, and  BLM offers one course that visits a community and trains community and   agency members on how to work as a group. 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. According to officials, the institute also offers a series of  courses on collaboration that federal agencies can take.
The twin challenges of determining (1) whether to participate in a  particular collaborative effort and (2) how to sustain federal employees’  participation over time have not been addressed by policies or actions of  the task force or its working groups. However, BLM published a  collaborative guidebook in 2007 that includes a discussion of factors to  consider in determining whether to collaborate. Similarly, the Forest  Service’s Web site links to various partnership assessment tools created by  the Natural Resources Conservation Service and private companies. In  addition, the Forest Service developed an assessment document that  guides an office through an analysis of its workload and how much time it  can devote to a collaborative effort. The results of this analysis can help  determine whether an office will be able to sustain their participation in a  group. Finally, the Forest Service has adopted a tool developed with the  Collaborative Action Team, called a transition memo, which allows an  employee transferring locations to leave detailed documentation about the  community, groups, leaders, and other information for the person coming  into the position. While these separate tools are available to the individual  agency that developed them, they have not been shared or adopted more  broadly among the federal agencies to help them in making decisions  whether and how much to participate in particular collaborative efforts.  Without tools to assess these aspects of collaboration, particularly as the  agencies increase their ability and efforts to participate in collaborative  efforts, agencies may be more likely to get involved in unsuccessful efforts.
The challenge of measuring participation and monitoring results of  collaborative efforts, as shown in table 3, has been partly addressed by the  measuring and monitoring working group. Through September 2007, the  working group gathered, reviewed, and analyzed tools that measure and  monitor how cooperative conservation activities help achieve  environmental protection and natural resource management goals. For  example, the working group discussed different means to demonstrate the  leveraging power of partnerships and collaboration. Some of these tools  can also help people engaged in partnerships and collaborative efforts  monitor how they are doing and improve their efforts during the process. In  addition, the working group identified a few resources that discuss, in  general, monitoring of natural resource conditions. In October 2007, the  group posted a variety of tools on the Cooperative Conservation Web site,  which is an initial step to address this challenge. However, actions that  would more fully address natural resource monitoring—the Day 2 report  indicated that project monitoring protocols would be useful—have not  been taken by the task force or working groups. CEQ officials indicated  that an ongoing effort on key national indicators might help to address this  aspect of the challenge. However, until guidance or protocols on natural  resource monitoring for collaborative groups is provided, federal agencies  and groups will be unable to track and relate their progress to Congress,  the communities, or other interested parties.
The challenge of sharing experiences among agencies and groups has been  partly addressed through the actions of the outreach working group, which  has developed an official Web site and examples of collaborative  experiences. In addition, in 2007, the Collaborative Action Team started  WestCAN, facilitating the development of a network of people familiar with  cooperative conservation. Other actions identified in the Day 2 report that  could be taken and would address this challenge include organizing and  supporting annual conservation conferences. As of October 2007, the  agencies had held nationwide listening sessions, but had not held or  proposed any further conferences on cooperative conservation either  nationally or regionally. Federal officials indicated that such meetings can  be expensive and time-consuming to organize and that they would like  others to take the lead in organizing them. They also indicated that it is  important to have clear goals and objectives for such meetings and that the  meetings should lead progressively to achieving these goals and objectives.  Individual agencies have held conferences in the past; they also meet  regularly with nonprofits interested in the collaborative approach through  the Collaborative Action Team. However, these meetings and tools may not  provide the opportunity for the different agencies and groups to meet and  share information and possible solutions, or the face-to-face experiences  that participants in the conference found valuable. Without such meetings,  it would be difficult for the groups to be able to meet periodically to  generate ideas and share information or develop a cooperative  conservation network.
The challenge of working within the agencies’ legal framework is being  addressed, as shown in table 3, by several actions. At a broad level, the  legal authorities working group worked with the agencies to publish a  compendium, for each department, of the authorities that allow and  support collaboration, which will help agency staff who are working with  collaborative groups to understand the requirements that they face. More  specifically, the status of actions to resolve perceived inconsistencies  between the authorities and collaboration include the following:  The Federal Advisory Committee Act working group is streamlining  requirements for federal advisory groups, which is one of the primary  pieces of legislation that agencies and participants in collaborative  efforts have identified as inconsistent with collaboration. According to  CEQ officials, the Federal Advisory Committee Act team has determined  that flexibility exists within the current law and policy for groups and is  developing the best way to share this information with agency staff and  group participants, such as training.
A legal analysis of the incentives and disincentives affecting  collaborative groups—particularly those associated with the  Endangered Species Act and NEPA—was an action proposed by the Day  2 report that has not been addressed by the task force or working  groups. In addition, USDA’s and Interior’s different implementation of  ethics rules resulted in inconsistent decisions regarding federal  employees serving on nonprofit boards. While no specific actions have  been taken by the task force, Interior is evaluating regulatory and policy  changes to the Endangered Species Act in response to the concerns  raised during listening sessions held in 2006, and by the Cooperative  Sagebrush Initiative. As of October 2007, Interior had not proposed any  regulatory or policy changes to the Endangered Species Act. Also, in  October 2007, CEQ issued guidance on collaboration within the NEPA  process that discusses using a collaborative group’s option as the  preferred alternative in a NEPA analysis. 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. 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. In September 2007, an  Interior official stated that the type of authority needed is reflected in  authorities provided to the Natural Resources Conservation Service and  other agencies that allow them to work with partners on mutually  beneficial activities. Through September 2007, the Forest Service had  authority to use cooperative agreements with private and public  organizations, including nonprofit groups, to perform forestry protection  activities and other types of cooperative projects that provide mutual  benefits other than monetary considerations to both parties. In addition,  the agency has authority to work on mutually beneficial restoration  projects under the Watershed Enhancement and Restoration Act or Wyden  authority, but this authority is not permanent, extending only to 2011.
In late December 2007, Congress passed, and the President signed, the  Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008, which included two  provisions related to the agencies and cooperative agreements. The first  provision authorizes Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with  state or local governments, or not-for-profit organizations, if the agreement  will (1) serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying  out Interior’s programs and (2) all parties will contribute resources. The  second provision extended through 2010 the Forest Service’s authority to  enter into cooperative agreements with state, local, and nonprofit groups if  the agreement serves the mutual benefit (other than monetary  consideration) of the parties carrying out programs administered by the  Forest Services and all parties contribute resources. However, the overall  problem of facilitating collaborative partnership projects for collaborative  groups and partners—in terms of interest, cost share, and other  administrative matters—remains. For this reason, an overall evaluation of  federal funding assistance and tools available for collaborative groups  could help to identify the situations across agencies that hinder  collaboration and the potential legal and policy changes that could be  made.
Overall, the working groups and agencies have made some progress in  developing policies and taking actions that address the challenges they face  in working with collaborative groups. However, these challenges will not  be fully addressed or solved in the short term. As indicated in the Day 2  report, the actions to be taken by federal agencies would require a  sustained effort and a senior policy team with an overall strategy to  sequence the many actions that need to be taken by multiple different  federal agencies. While the Cooperative Conservation initiative is being  coordinated by a task force and working groups, both are temporary,  formed by federal agency personnel interested in the cooperative approach  but who, for the most part, have other full-time responsibilities. Because of  this, the structure and direction—which includes goals, actions, time  frames, and responsibilities—of the initiative as it moves forward are  uncertain. According to CEQ and agency officials, the task force working  groups were organized to propose actions that could be taken in the short  term; CEQ officials said that the senior policy team would meet to assess  the status of actions and progress toward the vision laid out for the  Cooperative Conservation initiative. As of December 2007, the policy team  had not met, but CEQ officials expected they would meet after the issuance  of the second annual report on the implementation of the Cooperative  Conservation initiative. Currently, the task force is developing the report,  which was expected to be issued in January 2008.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Collaborative resource management offers federal land and resource  management agencies a promising tool with which to approach the ongoing  and potential conflicts that arise in managing the nation’s land and  resources. Compared with the alternatives—such as litigation or individual  landowners making independent, potentially conflicting decisions about  their separate parcels of land—collaboration provides groups a way to  integrate multiple interests and achieve common goals. To date, federal  land and resource management agencies have had some success in  working with collaborative efforts. Moreover, the policies put in place  through the Cooperative Conservation initiative move the federal  government and agencies forward in supporting collaborative resource  management efforts. However, based on the challenges that the agencies  face in working with collaborative efforts, additional opportunities exist to  enhance and effectively manage federal agencies’ participation in and  support of ongoing and future collaborative efforts. Specifically, because  federal agencies have limited resources and time, yet at the same time have  multiple opportunities to collaborate, they need to be judicious in their  decisions about collaborating with particular efforts and could benefit from  guidance on how this can be done. This would involve dissemination of  tools that already exist for field offices to assess a community’s capacity for  collaborating, and the federal ability to participate. In addition, because the  agencies are accountable to Congress and the public for achieving their  land and resource management goals, it is important for them to be able to  demonstrate the results that have been accomplished through collaborative  efforts. This means that agencies and groups should be able to measure  participation and monitor their progress, including monitoring the broader  landscape-level effects that result from their collaborative efforts and  projects.
Furthermore, collaborative resource management is just beginning to  emerge as one approach for federal land and resource agencies to work  with local groups in ways that can reduce conflict and improve resources.
In addition to developing capability among agency personnel, federal  agency support for this approach entails helping to create networks,  identifying best practices, and generating new ideas. These outcomes can  be achieved though facilitating the exchange of information and lessons  learned among collaborative groups, as was done at the White House  Conference. Federal support also involves an ongoing commitment to  identify practicable legal and policy changes that could enhance  collaboration. In particular, CEQ, OMB, and other federal agencies can  evaluate and identify possible changes to federal financial assistance  authorities and policies that make it difficult to work with partners. Also,  USDA and Interior can identify a way to achieve more consistent results in  determining participation by USDA and Interior employees on nonprofit  boards. In the future, as the agencies participate in different collaborative  efforts, additional situations may arise in which agencies need to seek ways  to implement laws or policies in a manner that enhances collaboration.
Finally, because collaborative resource management involves multiple  departments and agencies facing common challenges and will take a  sustained effort to implement, it is important that the effort has structure  and long-term direction to ensure that it is ongoing and completed.  Structure could be provided by continuing such an interagency effort as the  Cooperative Conservation task force and its working groups. One way this  could be accomplished would be by developing a memorandum of  understanding between participating agencies. Long-term direction to  address common challenges could be provided by the memorandum of  understanding, or through another organizational document or plan that  will steer the task force, working groups, and agencies toward realizing the  vision of the initiative.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the federal government’s support of and participation in  collaborative resource management efforts, we recommend that the  Chairman of CEQ, working with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the  Interior, direct the interagency task force to take the following actions: 1. Disseminate, more widely, tools for the agencies to use in assessing and  determining if, when, and how to participate in a particular  collaborative effort and how to sustain their participation over time.
2.
Identify examples of groups that have conducted natural resource  monitoring, including at the landscape level, and develop and  disseminate guidance or protocols for others to use in setting up such  monitoring efforts.  3. Hold periodic national or regional meetings and conferences to bring  groups together to share collaborative experiences, identify further  challenges, and learn from the lessons of other collaborative groups.
4.
Identify and evaluate, with input from OMB, legal and policy changes  concerning federal financial assistance that would enhance  collaborative efforts.
5.
Identify goals, actions, responsible work groups and agencies, and time  frames for carrying out the actions needed to implement the  Cooperative Conservation initiative, including collaborative resource  management, and document these through a written plan,  memorandum of understanding, or other appropriate means.
Furthermore, to ensure that federal agencies can work well with  collaborative groups, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior  and Agriculture take action to develop a joint policy to ensure consistent  implementation of ethics rules governing federal employee participation on  nonprofit boards that represent collaborative groups.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided CEQ, Interior, and USDA with a draft of this report for review  and comment. Interior concurred with the conclusions and five of the six  recommendations in the report, providing written comments that included  additional information describing actions the department and its agencies  are taking that they believe are responsive to our recommendations, some  of which have been finalized since they received the draft report. We made  changes to the report as appropriate to include this information, but  underscore the fact that the recommendations apply more broadly to the  federal agencies implementing the Cooperative Conservation initiative (see  app. III). USDA provided oral comments also concurring with the  conclusions and five of the six recommendations in the report. CEQ did not  provide comments on the report.
The departments neither agreed nor disagreed with our sixth  recommendation that the Secretaries take action to develop a joint policy  to ensure consistent implementation of ethics rules governing federal  employee participation on nonprofit boards that represent collaborative  groups. USDA’s Office of General Counsel, however, expressed concerns  that such a policy might be desirable, but not feasible. The office said that  the two departments may provide waivers based on each agency’s interests  and distinct relationship with the collaborative group, and therefore it is  not practicable to have a joint policy in advance of a particular request and  consultation may not make the waivers more uniform. While we  understand these concerns, we believe that such a consultation would have  either resulted in a consistent recommendation in the case of the Blackfoot  Challenge, or if it did not, would have at least provided a transparent  response to the group and field offices seeking the waivers. We continue to  believe that the departments should make a good faith effort to develop  and implement a process that would be more transparent to the groups  with which they work. Therefore, we did not change our recommendation.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense, Chairman of CEQ, and  Director of OMB, as well as other interested parties. We will also make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives for this study were to determine (1) experts’ views of  collaborative resource management as an approach for addressing  complex natural resource management problems; (2) the extent to which  selected collaborative resource management efforts have addressed land  use conflicts and improved natural resource conditions; and (3) what  challenges, if any, federal land and resource management agencies face in  participating in collaborative resource management efforts and how the  Cooperative Conservation initiative has addressed the challenges.
For the first objective, to determine experts’ views of collaborative  resource management as an approach for addressing natural resource  problems, we examined the academic literature related to the topic. To  identify relevant articles in the literature, we first interviewed experts who  have studied collaborative resource management. Following GAO’s  methodology for identifying experts, we started with knowledgeable  individuals and agency personnel and asked them for referrals to experts.  In an iterative process, we contacted these experts and asked them for  nominations of other knowledgeable individuals. We interviewed over 20  individuals who could be considered experts, based on the nominations of  others in the field. We asked these experts for references to articles on the  collaborative resource management approach. We also identified articles  through a search of four academic databases including Agricola, a database  of articles relating to aspects of agriculture, forestry, and animal science;  ProQuest Science Journals, a database of science and technology journals  that includes literature on biology and earth science; ECO, a database of  scholarly journals; and BasicBIOSIS, a database of biology and other life  science-related journals. We searched these databases using the terms  “ecosystem management policy” and “collaborative resource management  policy,” which produced over 950 articles in the four databases. Abstracts  of these articles were reviewed and only those articles appropriate for our  work were retained for a literature review. This process yielded over 130  articles (the full article was used, not just the abstract).
To perform the literature review, one of two analysts (A, B) read and  reviewed each of the articles and indicated whether or not the contents  included themes related to our objectives, that is, the common practices,  benefits, limitations, and critiques of collaboration. The analysts  summarized information from the articles that was relevant to these  themes and recorded it as statements in a database. To verify that the two  analysts were extracting similar information from the articles, the analysts  randomly selected 10 percent (13) of the total articles. For each of these 13  articles, if Analyst A had originally summarized and categorized relevant  information in the article, then Analyst B independently performed the  same tasks. Similarly, Analyst A reviewed the articles originally reviewed  by Analyst B. For each article, the verification work was compared with the  original and it was determined whether both analysts agreed or disagreed  on the presence of information in the article related to each theme. This  analysis indicated that the two analysts were extracting comparable  information from the articles.
A content analysis was then performed on the statements. Each analyst  classified the statements from the articles read as a benefit, limitation, or  critique associated with collaborative resource management. The analysts  then exchanged data and examined the other analyst’s categorizations to  determine whether there was agreement on classifying each statement  from the literature review into the benefits, limitations, and critiques  categories. The two analysts reviewed the statements they had placed into  these categories and either concurred with the classification or noted the  basis of disagreement. For items where there was disagreement, the  disagreement was resolved so that agreement was 100 percent.
Once the analysts had established a unified set of statements under each  category—benefits, limitations, and critiques—each analyst independently  grouped the statements under each category into similar components. The  analysts’ lists of components for each category were compared, discussed,  and merged into one set. The components we agreed upon for each  category and a description of them are noted in table 4.
After developing the categories and components, we independently  assigned each of the statements to one of the components. After the  statements were independently assigned a component, the analysts  discussed every statement for which they had assigned different  components and reached agreement on the category for each of the  statements. As a result, the analysts attained 100 percent agreement on the  assignment of statements to components. Table 5 reports the number of  statements that were assigned to each component.
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. To develop a comprehensive list to summarize the  practices described in all of these sources, two analysts independently  generated lists based on commonalities of those described in the literature.  A third analyst reconciled the two lists and all three analysts discussed the  results and agreed on the following final list of practices:  Seek inclusive representation.
Develop collaborative processes.
Pursue flexibility, openness, and respect.
Establish leadership.
Identify or develop a common goal.
Develop a process for obtaining information.
Leverage available resources.
Provide incentives.
Monitor results for accountability.
For the second objective, to determine the extent to which selected efforts  have addressed land use conflicts and improved natural resource  conditions, we identified seven examples involving collaborative resource  management efforts. The examples were identified using referrals made by  experts and citations in the literature. The seven examples we chose to  study were judgmentally selected based on several criteria, as shown in  table 6, designed to capture groups with (1) a significant amount of federal  land involved, (2) participation of multiple stakeholders, (3) locations  across the United States, and (4) different types of groups, from nonprofit  groups, to an advisory council, to loosely organized information-sharing  groups. Although there are many collaborative efforts dealing with water  issues, we confined our examples to land management efforts to limit the  scope of our work. The examples we selected included both new and  experienced groups, made up of multiple participants including federal  agencies, from rural areas. The groups chosen and the states in which they  are located are shown in table 6.
To gather information on each group’s organization, efforts, and results, we  conducted field visits and detailed, semistructured interviews with several  key participants of the group, and in some cases, interested parties who  were not participating in the group. We obtained related documentation of  each group’s activities and results and in some instances observed the  groups’ projects in the field. We did not independently verify data related to  the groups’ results. In analyzing the groups, we considered conflicts to  exist if two or more participants had different interests to achieve and  considered conflicts to be reduced or averted if a common solution or  interest was identified.
For the third objective, we identified challenges associated with the  collaborative resource management approach described by the experts in  the literature and by members of the collaborative resource management  groups we studied. The components of the challenges described by the  experts in the literature were identified using the literature review and  content analysis that is explained above. Table 7 describes the challenges.
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.
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.
section_title: Collaborative Resource Management Groups and Successful Collaboration Practices
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Blackfoot Challenge
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Natural Resource Problems
paragraphs: 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.
Riparian habitat for fish in the Blackfoot River is fragmented by  culverts, roads, and other infrastructure on both public and private land  that block tributaries and creeks flowing into the river. Wildlife agencies  have noticed the reduction in fish populations, including the threatened  bull trout. Many groups, including federal agencies, fishermen and  women, and ranchers, are interested in reconnecting streams that have  been blocked to provide better fishing and wildlife habitat  opportunities. However, some ranchers are hesitant about making  improvements or working with federal agencies. The group has worked  with willing ranchers and the local chapter of Trout Unlimited to  develop a plan for restoring riparian areas and tributaries across the  watershed. Over time, the groups have protected and restored 38 miles  on 39 tributaries and 62 miles of riparian habitat.
In 2002, the Challenge responded to concerns throughout the valley  about increased grizzly bear activity by creating a Wildlife Committee to  exchange information and coordinate efforts. The Blackfoot watershed  is nearby three wilderness areas and is considered a prime wildlife  corridor for wolves and grizzly bears, whose populations are increasing.  Local landowners are concerned about increased human and livestock  interaction with such species. The Challenge began a Carcass Pick-Up  Program in conjunction with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife  and Parks; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Partners Program; local ranchers;  and a waste service to remove dead livestock from ranches to deter  bears from searching for such remains. Human-grizzly bear conflicts  have been reduced by 91 percent from 2003 through 2006.
In 2005 and 2006, the Challenge dealt with two unique resource  conflicts. In the first case, conflict arose over a housing development  around one particular community in the watershed that would  dramatically affect an important elk migration corridor and increase the  community’s population, water use, and school enrollment. As a result,  there were many different stakeholders interested in the issue. Rather  than taking a position on the conflict, the Challenge has instead brought  the community together with the stakeholders to find an acceptable  alternative. In a second similar case, members of the Challenge did not  take sides on a controversial proposed gold mine near Lincoln,  Montana, in the northern part of the watershed. Instead of advocating  for a particular solution, the Challenge offered to bring people together  to discuss their options. In the end, according to the participants, the  state passed a law against methods of mining that use cyanide to leach  the gold from the rocks and the proposed mine was ultimately blocked.
section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Challenge are described in the  following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: The Challenge board and its working committees include a wide variety of  representation. Members of the board are landowners, land managers,  agencies, and others who are represented through working committees and  membership. The group has tried to involve every type of stakeholder in  the process to provide help or share resources. They realize, however, that  some perspectives that should be included may be missing from the board,  including absentee landowners who own second homes in the valley. In an  effort to provide greater inclusiveness, the board has created at-large  members.
As members of the Challenge, federal agency officials are members of the  Executive Board and committees. Because the Challenge provides a forum  for information sharing, agency officials have an opportunity to hear  community concerns. It allows them to know, in an informal capacity, if  local people are supportive of particular actions before making decisions.
Of equal importance, the agencies have an opportunity to communicate  correct facts about their respective agencies. This helps to correct rumors  and reduce doubt, uncertainty, and distrust between the community and  the agencies and provides a forum for agency officials to make participants  aware of their limitations early in the process. Although federal employees  serve as members of the Executive Board, a nonprofit board, the Forest  Service member serves as a nonvoting member, while the BLM and U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service employees serve as voting members.
section_title: Develop a Collaborative Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: Concern for maintaining a certain quality of life in the area prompted  landowners, public agencies, and other community leaders to begin  working together on ways to manage the watershed. The group’s mission is  to “coordinate efforts that will enhance, conserve and protect the natural  resources and rural lifestyles of Montana’s Blackfoot River Valley for  present and future generations.” As early as the 1970s, private landowners  and public agency officials worked together to resolve conflicts, or  potential conflicts, among various users within the watershed. For  example, in an effort to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat along  the river corridor, several public agencies, including BLM, the Forest  Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state wildlife and parks  agencies, attempted to purchase conservation easements from private  landowners. The landowners made the agencies aware that they were each  asking to acquire land, and the agencies and landowners started talking  about their common goals. In the 1980s, a conflict over access to the river  between recreationists and private riparian landowners developed. To  access the river, recreationists had to trespass on private lands. 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.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: In the past, the Challenge has operated on about $50,000 per year, receiving  funding from private donors and foundations. The group recently received  a $100,000 award for innovations in governance from the Ash Institute for  Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University. The group’s  resources are used to leverage federal funds by coordinating private  projects with federal projects. For example, as the Forest Service and BLM  work to restore parts of a stream on their respective lands, the Challenge  coordinates the projects and adds its own resources to conduct work on  private stretches of the same stream, thereby providing greater stream  restoration than if the agencies had conducted individual projects.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative
paragraphs: 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. The group  incorporated into a nonprofit organization in 2007 and is still organizing  and planning the effort, so it has not yet conducted conservation activities.  In 2007, the group solicited proposals for projects designed to demonstrate  how the work could be done and incentives could be developed and has  endorsed three proposed projects that encompass over 1 million acres of  sagebrush habitat in four states.
In the mid-1990s, the declining status of two sage grouse species— Gunnison sage grouse and greater sage grouse—triggered regional concern  for the health of the sagebrush ecosystem. In 2000, the Gunnison sage  grouse was added to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of candidate  species to be considered for a threatened or endangered listing under the  Endangered Species Act and the greater sage grouse was the subject of  three petitions in 2002–2003 seeking listing throughout its range. The U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service found that a listing was not warranted for the  greater sage grouse in 2005, or for the Gunnison sage grouse in 2006. The  sagebrush range is also home to wildlife, such as mule deer, valued for  hunting; scenic attractions; energy resources; and ranching; which could be  affected by declining greater sage grouse populations or a listing of one, or  more, of the species that are dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem.
subsections: section_title: Natural Resource Problems
paragraphs: 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. The states, energy companies, ranchers,  and developers are concerned that a listing decision would limit their  activities in sagebrush habitat.
section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Initiative are described in the  following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: The Initiative was started when representatives of a nonprofit organization  called the Sand County Foundation saw an opportunity for oil and gas  companies to become involved in stewardship of the sagebrush ecosystem  and help with key issues hindering sage grouse conservation in the West  that were identified in a report sponsored by the Western Association of  Fish and Wildlife Agencies. These key issues included creating an  organizational structure for conservation efforts, establishing leadership to  coordinate the efforts, and finding resources to fund the efforts.  Representatives from the Sand County Foundation and the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service initiated discussions with representatives from BLM, the  U.S. Geological Survey, and Encana Oil and Gas to develop ideas for a  collaborative conservation effort that spanned the range of the sage grouse.
The partners believe that the effort should be broad, inclusive, and  representative and, therefore, include key state agencies; counties; tribes; a  wide spectrum of landowners, ranchers, and citizens; a diverse mix of  companies across multiple industries; a good representation of local,  regional, and national conservation groups; and other federal agencies such  as the Department of Defense. Potential partners in the Initiative were  identified through conversations among the core group who initiated the  effort. Subsequently, invitations to participate were sent out broadly to  individuals and the list of potential partners grew through further  recommendations. At the second major general meeting of the group in  December 2006, over 80 people attended, including representatives from  federal and state agencies, energy companies, and nongovernmental  organizations, as well as private landowners.
After its initial efforts to gain participation, the Initiative formed a  partnership and outreach working group responsible for identifying and  communicating with critical partners for the Initiative, as well as  developing an outreach strategy to inform key audiences of the Initiative’s  purpose and achievements. Partners we spoke with noted that they believe  they have good representation from all of the necessary interests, although  some noted that the tribes have not been involved thus far even though  they have been encouraged to participate.
Develop a Collaborative Process Decisions within the Initiative are made by consensus and meetings are  facilitated by a staff member from the U.S. Institute for Environmental  Conflict Resolution. To accomplish work, the Initiative has developed a  strategic plan that includes four working groups: (1) a partnership and  outreach group to ensure that the Initiative includes all stakeholders and  reaches out to underrepresented interests; (2) an incentives group to work  on incentive mechanisms for the participants; (3) a projects group that  identifies and prioritizes conservation projects; and (4) a funding group  that is developing a banking structure for the group.
The Initiative is governed by a 12-member Partnership Council that  includes representatives from the Cooperative Sagebrush Steppe  Restoration Initiative, Encana Oil and Gas, EnerCrest Corporation,  Environmental Defense, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Department of  Fish and Game, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Peabody  Energy/Powder River Coal, Shell Oil, Western Governor’s Association, Sand  County Foundation, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Vermillion  Ranch, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In addition,  there are nonvoting federal advisory members on the Partnership Council  from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural  Resources Conservation Service.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: The Initiative partners came together around the goal of conserving  sagebrush habitat, with the focus on preventing the need for a listing of the  greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. The partners have  identified a common goal which is to “result in the long-term, verifiable  recovery of the greater sage grouse and improvement of other species of  concern in the sagebrush range.” Some participants noted that the Initiative  would not exist without the threat of a listing because each of the partners  has different concerns over the need for or result of a listing. For example,  conservation organizations want to maintain the health of the species,  industry is concerned over increased limitations on energy exploration and  development in sagebrush habitat that would be brought about by a listing,  and ranchers are concerned that a listing would restrict their activities on  their private land as well as on the public land associated with grazing  leases.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: The Initiative’s early efforts have been funded by some of the member  organizations such as the Sand County Foundation, National Fish and  Wildlife Foundation, and Encana Oil and Gas. The funds generated thus far  have paid for meetings and planning activities, but participants anticipate  that the Initiative will be able to raise sufficient money for demonstrating  conservation efforts. As the effort begins to implement conservation  projects, participants noted that funding may come from industry, federal  programs, or the conservation credit trading system. Funding for the  demonstration projects will potentially be provided by a mix of the  partners, including the federal agencies and oil and gas companies.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management
paragraphs: The Eastern Upper Peninsula Partners in Ecosystem Management group  was started in 1992 originally to collaborate across boundaries on lands in  the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan for ecosystem management. Over  time, the group evolved into an information-sharing group to coordinate  land management, but has been relatively inactive in recent years.  Members of the group include state and federal government agencies, a  conservation organization, and industrial (timber) landowners who  together manage two-thirds of the four million acres of the eastern Upper  Peninsula. This area includes the 895,000-acre Hiawatha National Forest,  95,000-acre Seney National Wildlife Refuge, 73,000-acre Pictured Rocks  National Lakeshore, state land, and privately owned land.
Historically, much of the eastern Upper Peninsula was managed for timber  harvest and most of the region was cut by the early 1900s. In the 1800s,  loggers harvested pine and shifted to hardwoods in the 1900s as pine trees  were cut over. The eastern Upper Peninsula is once again largely forested  with second-growth forests including aspen, white birch, and jack pine. In  recent years, many of the timber companies have been selling their lands.
Natural Resource Problems  According to group members, there are few contentious issues causing  conflict among land managers and owners in the eastern Upper Peninsula,  but the group saw an opportunity among the large landowners to cooperate  in a manner that could enhance ecosystems across the landscape. Many  members note that the primary outcomes of the group have been educating  partners with information that they can use in their management, sharing  information among the partners, and building relationships. Some of the  particular examples of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group’s coordinated  efforts include the following:   Most of the eastern Upper Peninsula is second-growth forest, with trees  of similar age. Some members of the group sought to establish a mix of  trees of different age classes across the landscape to provide healthy  habitat for species, in particular, neotropical bird species such as the  golden-winged warbler, that use the forests. However, the forest  companies that owned land in the eastern Upper Peninsula were  focused on commodity production rather than habitat health. The  Eastern Upper Peninsula group provided opportunities to educate the  industrial landowners that accommodating neotropical birds on their  land could be done without affecting their financial bottom line. By  coordinating with neighboring landowners to obtain a mix of vegetation  over a larger area, the need for any one landowner to achieve all habitat  objectives on his or her land alone was reduced.
To support efforts to manage their land in a complementary manner,  members of the group recognized the need for broad-scale mapping that  could be used in looking at the overall landscape. As a result, the group  coordinated to map and categorize land units in the region into areas  with similar physical and biological characteristics, called land type  associations. The land type associations have been used to varying  extent by the partners as a planning tool and for some decision making.  The group was able to reach consensus on the descriptions of the land  classifications, but was unable to agree on the management implications  of the ecological descriptions such as the need to use fire to attain a  particular age variation in the trees. The partners were concerned that  documenting management implications would constrain the activities  they could conduct on their land.
Many of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group partners have worked together  on individual efforts to enhance their positive effects on the landscape,  discuss compatible management, or preserve land. Examples of such  efforts include the following:  Through the relationship built with the Eastern Upper Peninsula group,  The Nature Conservancy and a timber company were able to reach  agreement on access and save a wetland area from being built over by a  road. The timber company wanted to gain access across a nature  preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy  originally denied access and the timber company threatened to build a  road across a wetland on its land. Through the relationship developed  through the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, these organizations were  able to discuss the issue and The Nature Conservancy agreed to allow  access across its land.
A National Park Service official noted that the Eastern Upper Peninsula  group helped the National Park Service open a dialogue with the state  and timber companies to discuss forest management issues. Pictured  Rocks National Lakeshore has a 39,300-acre buffer zone of land within  its boundary that is predominately owned by the state and timber  companies. According to a former National Park Service official, the  National Park Service has an interest in maintaining healthy ecosystems  in this buffer zone, while the state and timber company’s interest is  focused primarily on the use of the land to generate revenue from  harvesting timber.
As a result of the relationship that The Nature Conservancy developed  with state and federal agencies and timber companies, The Nature  Conservancy negotiated a conservation easement on 250,000 acres of  private timberland. The easement will allow some forestry on the land,  but in a manner that is compatible with a nearby Nature Conservancy  preserve.
subsections: section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Eastern Upper Peninsula group are  described in the following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Develop a Collaborative Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: According to some of the members, the group was pulled together by a few  key people who were all managers and able to make decisions. Everyone in  the initial group was a manager and had good decision-making skills, an  ability to voice his or her opinion, and knowledge of the relevant governing  laws, authorities, and policies. Some members noted that different people  emerged at various times to bring the group together on different issues  and move the group forward.
One of the original members coordinated the group and kept it going  between 1992 and 2006. When this person assumed a different position  within his agency and was no longer able to coordinate the group, it  became less active and does not currently have a coordinator. Some  members noted that there were still natural resource issues, such as  invasive species, that the group could continue to work on and that the  Eastern Upper Peninsula group effort could be improved by having a leader  dedicated to the group who had coordination and facilitation skills.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has not previously been  actively involved in the Eastern Upper Peninsula group, according to an  official from the agency, but coordinates the Upper Peninsula Resource  Conservation and Development Council—a congressionally designated,  nonprofit group that identifies and undertakes resource management and  community development projects. Some of the council’s goals overlap with  those of the Eastern Upper Peninsula group. Consequently, the council  coordinator, who is a Natural Resources Conservation Service employee,  has offered to facilitate and coordinate the group’s meetings in the future,  starting in early 2008. A Natural Resources Conservation Service official  noted that this may supply the impetus needed to get the Eastern Upper  Peninsula group active again and working on issues important to the group  members.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: The Eastern Upper Peninsula group has placed a high priority on  developing and sharing information. The group has worked together to  map and describe land type associations in the eastern Upper Peninsula,  which some members noted have been useful in making landscape-scale  decisions. Members of the group stated that any information developed by  the group is made available to other members without restrictions or  protocols. For example, land type associations were developed for private  lands adjacent to the national forest and were used by small foresters to  help with their planning.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: The Eastern Upper Peninsula group does not use any particular incentives  to achieve its goals.
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Malpai Borderlands Group
paragraphs: The Malpai Borderlands Group is a nonprofit group in southeastern  Arizona and southwestern New Mexico working to restore fire as an  ecological process to the rangelands and keep a working landscape based  on natural resources—primarily, livestock grazing. The Sonoran and  Chihauhaun deserts in this area have historically supported ranching, but  also support numerous species, including threatened and endangered  species such as the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, jaguar, and  Chiricauhua leopard frog.
The group’s planning and activities encompass approximately 800,000  acres including public lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and the  states of New Mexico and Arizona, as well as private lands held by ranchers  and the nonprofit Animas Foundation. The group started informally,  meeting to discuss problems the neighbors faced in ranching and  eventually bringing in interested environmentalists who were concerned  about subdivision and development of the land, including The Nature  Conservancy. The group incorporated in 1994 to more actively pursue its  goals.
subsections: section_title: Natural Resource Problems
paragraphs: In working to restore fire to the landscape, the Malpai group has worked to  resolve related problems.
Wildland fires can provide some beneficial effects to ecosystems that  are adapted to fire, such as restoring vegetation and improving habitat.  Some landowners view fire as beneficial but others do not want to use  fire to manage land and vegetation. For example, Arizona state trust  lands are managed primarily for ranching and to generate income for  public schools in the state. As a result, the state puts out all fires on  these lands and generally does not use fire as a management tool to  promote growth of grasses and fuel reduction of shrubs and bushes,  although it works with the Malpai Borderland Group to set prescribed  fires. On the other hand, the Forest Service, BLM, and some private  ranchers want to burn their grasslands to reduce shrubs, such as  creosote and mesquite and to promote grasses. The group has worked to  educate landowners about the benefits of fire and has worked with the  different landowners to set and burn several large fires. The group has  succeeded in reintroducing fire to a total of about 69,000 acres.
The effects of fire on threatened and endangered species are mixed and  create difficulties for using fire to restore vegetation. While restoring  fire to an ecosystem that is fire-adapted helps support habitats and  species in the long term, using fire on the landscape in the short term  can harm threatened and endangered species, such as the ridge-nosed  rattlesnake, or food sources for other threatened and endangered  species, such as the agave plant used by lesser long-nosed bats. The  group worked to get the most recent scientific evidence from  researchers working on the species to use in their plans to restore fire,  both on public and private lands. More recently, the group has begun  working on a habitat conservation plan with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, which would identify the activities that could be undertaken by  the group without triggering concerns about “taking”—killing or  harming—a threatened or endangered species.
Resource overuse can occur during drought. During an extended  drought over the last decade, ranchers in the Malpai area faced a  decision to sell off their herds or keep them on the land and potentially  overgraze it. To avoid this outcome, the group and the Animas  Foundation—a nonprofit working ranch operating within the group’s  boundaries—established a grassbank on Animas Foundation lands in  New Mexico. Ranchers with distressed lands have used the grassbank  for 3 to 5 years. Continued drought has made this program less viable in  the last few years as the drought has extended over a broader area.
Development of open land and loss of the resource and open space  occurs when ranchers sell their lands. Private landowners can sell their  land at any time, but are more likely to sell during economic hardship.  Yet ranchers, and others, have an interest in maintaining open lands for  different purposes—livestock grazing, habitat for species, and amenities  such as recreation or scenic views. The group worked with ranchers in  the area who did not want to sell, purchasing conservation easements  for their lands that allowed them to stay in ranching despite economic  need to sell the land. The group has succeeded in protecting 77,000  acres of land using conservation easements.
The group worked with an individual rancher who provided habitat for a  threatened species—the Chiricahua leopard frog. As a result, the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Malpai Borderlands Group with a  safe harbor agreement that protects the owner, and any other  landowners who wish to participate, should the species be damaged by  typical ranching actions.
section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Malpai Borderlands Group are  described in the following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: The Malpai Borderlands Group began informally as a discussion group that  later incorporated as a nonprofit. The original members of the group were  self-selected members of the ranching community and interested  environmentalists who were associated with members of the group. When  the Malpai Borderlands Group incorporated in 1994, this discussion group  formed the original board. Many of the members of the Malpai group are  landowners in the area, but some are not. The board includes a member of  The Nature Conservancy and retired federal employees who were key in  helping the group get started and work with the agencies. Board meetings  are open and the group invites a wide range of people to attend. It also  works with its critics on various issues; however, it has determined not to  change the membership of the board to include outside parties because of  concerns over control of members’ private lands. The members of the  group are particularly concerned about the need to recruit young people to  the group and board—some are leaving ranching altogether and those who  remain often do not attend meetings.
section_title: Develop a Collaborative Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: The group holds open meetings and invites a wide range of participants to  talk about management issues. It works by consensus, trying to work  problems out informally first. For example, in the mid-1990s, a member of  the group photographed a live jaguar in the United States. Members  participated in the discussions over protection of the species and  designation of critical habitat—specific areas that may be critical for the  conservation of the species—for it in the United States. The group invited a  key scientist to visit and assess the habitat, and as a result, members  believe that what they are doing to restore the habitat and keep it open is  the best protection for the habitat. The Malpai group also established a  fund to reimburse ranchers for any jaguar kills of livestock. While members  of the group disagree with the need for the federal government to designate  critical habitat for the species in the United States, which may have an  effect on the activities that they can conduct on their land, they invited  environmental groups to their board meetings to discuss protection of the  species under the Endangered Species Act. According to the Center for  Biological Diversity, a member attended a meeting but the groups disagreed  on how to handle the situation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the  jaguar as endangered outside of the United States in 1972, prohibiting the  import of jaguar pelts into the country, and listed it as endangered within  the United States under the Endangered Species Act in 1997. Recently, the  Center has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to compel the agency to  develop a recovery plan and designate critical habitat for the jaguar.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: As part of its decision-making process, the Malpai Borderland Group seeks  to gather and use scientific information relevant to the problem its  members are managing. The group has a science coordinator whose  position is to manage several ongoing research efforts on lands in the  Malpai planning area and a Science Advisory Board made up of more than  40 experts in rangeland science; this group provides advice about research  efforts, monitoring, and management activities. These include a program of  research to study the effects of wildland fire on threatened and endangered  species such as the lesser long-nosed bat and ridge-nosed rattlesnake. The  science program also includes 9,000 acres of research plots established by  the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station to study different  revegetation treatments in areas excluded from grazing and 12 watersheds  to examine the sediment runoff resulting from burning differently-sized  areas and different amounts of vegetation. The group funds research, as  well as partners with outside researchers from federal agencies, such as  USDA’s research stations, and universities. In addition, the group sponsors  an annual scientific conference on topics related to its interests and  management activities.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: Incentives used by the group include a grassbank, which allows ranchers to  temporarily move their cattle from their own drought-damaged land to  healthier grasslands on the Gray Ranch owned by the Animas Foundation.  In exchange, the Malpai Borderlands Group receives a conservation  easement for the development rights to the private property on the ranch.  These conservation easements are different from others used by The  Nature Conservancy and federal agencies in that they contain a clause that  states if the rancher loses access to his or her federal grazing allotment  through no fault of his or her own, then the easement is void and the land  could then be sold for development.
The group has worked with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the  threatened and endangered species on privately-owned ranchlands in the  group’s planning area. In one case, the group received a safe harbor  agreement to protect one of the last remaining populations of Chiricahua  leopard frogs that were residing in a rancher’s stock pond. The agreement  allows the rancher, who had trucked water in to the pond during drought  years to keep the frogs alive, to manage the stock pond for livestock  purposes without the threat of enforcement action should any of the frogs  die because of those actions. Other ranchers can participate in the safe  harbor agreement by signing a certificate of inclusion with the Malpai  Borderlands Group and thereby receive the protections of the agreement.  The group is also developing a habitat conservation plan for the area in  order to implement grassland and ranch management activities in areas  where there are threatened or endangered species. For example, this  habitat conservation plan will allow the use of fire in certain conditions and  identify certain restrictions to protect the threatened ridge-nosed  rattlesnake and several other species that might be harmed or killed by the  fires. This will permit ranchers to conduct activities provided the  restrictions are followed.
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Onslow Bight Conservation Forum
paragraphs: The Onslow Bight Conservation Forum (Forum)—named for the shallow  crescent-shaped bay that makes up much of the coastline in southeastern  North Carolina where the group is organized—is an information-sharing  group organized to help protect and restore the unique coastal environment  of the area and associated species. The Onslow Bight region, as with other  parts of coastal North Carolina, is developing quickly and the rural nature  of the area is rapidly changing. Because of its unique makeup, the area is a  hotspot for endemic species—those that can only be found in that area— such as the Venus flytrap. This area of North Carolina contains both  longleaf pine habitat favored by the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker  and unique wetland habitat such as pocosins, or wetlands that form on a  hill because of large amounts of peat that accumulate.
The group, formed officially in 2001, originally began as a way to help the  Marine Corps manage encroachment issues around its installations and to  manage habitat for threatened and endangered species, in particular the  red-cockaded woodpecker. The group has since expanded its vision to  include aquatic habitat and conservation of land along the coast. The  members of the group represent the large blocks of publicly-owned lands  such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission game lands, the  Croatan National Forest, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejune, Marine Corps  Air Station Cherry Point, and several land conservation trust groups. In  addition to overall biodiversity conservation, one focus of the group has  been to study potential corridors for wildlife to migrate between these  public lands.
subsections: section_title: Natural Resource Problems
paragraphs: The natural resource management problems and conflicts that the Forum  has managed revolve around land development and conservation:   Development of lands eliminates habitat for different species and  causes the public lands to become islands of biodiversity, which can  affect management of these lands. In particular, development can harm  endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. Agencies  with populations that need to be protected are interested in expanding  habitat to help protect the species and ease the pressure on their lands.  Yet, private landowners are free to sell and develop their land. The  Forum developed a habitat protection plan to identify the location of  important habitat for threatened and endangered species and has  discussed and agreed upon areas that are a priority for preservation and  protection. This information has helped the agencies and land trusts  coordinate and prioritize land acquisition and has prevented them from  competing for the same lands. Since 2001, the Forum partners have  together acquired about 57,000 acres of land from willing sellers.
Encroachment near military installations creates safety hazards as well  as complaints from neighboring communities about noise, dust, and  other side-effects of training exercises. The military has the incentive to  use its lands for training purposes and to have large buffers between its  installations and communities. Yet, communities and others have  incentives to develop lands for other purposes. Through the Forum, the  Marine Corps representatives can work with other members to identify  lands that have compatible uses with the military’s needs and also meet  habitat purposes. Military funds can then be used to help acquire  conservation easements to the land.
Habitat fragmentation occurs with increased development, particularly  with greater numbers and size of roads, which affects large species and  increases vehicle collisions with wildlife that are possibly fatal. Private  landowners have the right to sell and develop their land and zoning  allows for building. However, hunting, environmental, and other groups  have an interest in protecting species such as the black bear, which need  land to roam. The Onslow Bight area supports a large population of  bears and the number of collisions with wildlife in the area is increasing.  The group has identified areas that road construction should avoid and  the need for more wildlife crossings in new road construction.
Historically, the longleaf pine and pocosins of the Coastal Plain  depended on fire as an ecological process. Fire has been suppressed for  years, although the health of the vegetation depends on fire. The  agencies and land managers have an interest in burning their lands to  restore their health, however, new community members do not like  smoke and complain about burning programs. The group is working  with The Nature Conservancy on a project started in 2005 called the  Onslow Bight Fire Learning Network/LANDFIRE application project to  develop and support a burn program to help restore habitat. 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.
section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Forum are described in the  following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Develop a Collaborative Process
paragraphs: The Forum exists through an MOU signed by all members. The MOU is  nonbinding and states that each agency will retain its mission. It also states  that the group will discuss and share information that is compatible with  the land use and management objectives of each entity involved. The MOU  allows the groups to discuss, share information, and agree on conservation  or preservation opportunities, but in order to avoid triggering Federal  Advisory Committee Act requirements, the group does not make official  decisions or take official actions. For committees subject to the Federal  Advisory Committee Act, the act generally requires that agencies announce  committee meetings ahead of time and give notice to interested parties  about such meetings. With some exceptions, the meetings are to be open to  the public, and agencies are to prepare meeting minutes and make them  available to interested parties. Nevertheless, the Forum can come to  consensus on activities, which individual agencies can decide to undertake  or not.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: The goal of the Forum is to provide for open discussion about the long-term  conservation and enhancement of biological diversity and ecosystem  sustainability in the Onslow Bight area. The members have different goals  for managing their land and resources, but do share the goal of identifying  opportunities to preserve, protect, and restore native biological elements in  the coastal landscape, including marine and estuarine areas. To achieve  their goal, the group has focused on acquiring lands that bridge the gaps  between large publicly-owned lands, as well as some private conservation  lands, and can meet their common needs. For example, one species on  which the group focuses is the red-cockaded woodpecker; two of the  federal partners have primary habitat for this species and support two of  the main recovery populations of the bird as defined by the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service in its recovery plan for the species. The group has  identified, and has acquired, land between the public lands that can serve  as a stepping-stone for members of the populations. The group recognizes  that acquisition is only the first step of protecting land and resources. The  next step is to restore habitat and manage those acquired lands and  resources in the long term. Most of the land is being managed by the state’s  Department of Environment and Natural Resources, primarily the Wildlife  Resources Commission and the Division of Parks and Recreation.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: Members of the Forum have been successful in getting grants and using  these funds to match agency funding to acquire lands. According to  participants, one of the benefits of the Forum is that foundations and other  funding groups use collaboration as a way to judge the potential success  and effectiveness of the group. Sources of funding include the military,  North Carolina trust funds established for purposes of land conservation,  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grants under the North American Wetland  Conservation Act, and funds raised by the land conservation group  partners. The Forest Service also attempted to get funding from the Land  and Water Conservation Fund, but did not succeed.
The Forum does not have staff and its work is done by the participants,  which means that sometimes it does not get done. The group meets every  few months and keeps in touch by e-mail, but participants may not be able  to prioritize or complete tasks for the group in between meetings. The  Forum discussed hiring staff but has not made a decision to do so.  According to members, having staff would allow the group to get more  work done in between meetings and would ensure that the work would be  done. The decision to have staff is difficult, however, because the action  might force the group members to increase their commitment to the group  through funding the position or even cause the Forum to take on a different  organizational structure to enable the hiring of staff.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Steens Mountain Advisory Council
paragraphs: 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). The high desert mountain area occupies  about 496,000 acres and supports diverse vegetation and wildlife, including  habitat for the sage grouse. The same area has a long history of human use  as a Native American site for spiritual experience and herbal gathering and  for cattle grazing by local ranching families. The purpose of the CMPA is for  BLM “to conserve, protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity  of Steens Mountain for future and present generations.” Of the 496,000  acres in the CMPA, about 428,000 acres are federal lands and the remaining  lands are private and state lands. The Steens Act protected about 170,000  acres of the federally managed land as wilderness, of which about 95,000  acres are specifically designated as a cattle-free wilderness, the first of its  kind. 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.
subsections: section_title: Natural Resource Problems
paragraphs: The Steens Act established a multistakeholder group called the Steens  Mountain Advisory Council (Council). The Council is charged with  providing BLM recommendations regarding “new and unique approaches  to the management of lands within the boundaries of the CMPA and  cooperative programs and incentives for seamless landscape management  that meets human needs and maintains and improves the ecological and  economic integrity of the CMPA.” The major land and resource  management issues that the Council has considered are described below:  The act required that BLM develop a comprehensive management plan  for the Steens Mountain CMPA. In addition to the wilderness area  created by the act, the CMPA contains several wilderness study areas  that BLM must manage to retain wilderness conditions and wild and  scenic river corridors that BLM must manage to maintain natural  conditions. These designations may limit certain activities, such as  motorized vehicles and equipment, in the areas, and as a result, Council  members disagree over how to manage these areas—ranchers and  others would like the wilderness study areas to be removed from  consideration as wilderness, but an environmental group would like  even more area to be considered as wilderness study area. In August  2005, BLM, with the Council’s input, issued a land management plan;  however, it did not completely address management of roads and travel  in the CMPA, deferring decisions on route designations until 2007.
Travel management and designation of roads, tire tracks, and ways for  traditional access was an issue discussed in 2007. BLM has been charged  with managing travel in the CMPA and can potentially restrict travel in  some places, in particular the new wilderness area and other wilderness  study areas. Although motorized access to wilderness areas and  wilderness study areas is limited, participants of the Council have not  been able to agree on the definitions for different types of roads that  should remain open for access. Given the historic uses of Steens  Mountain, the area has many roads, tracks, or ways that are used at  various times and for multiple reasons—such as to access property each  day, check on fencing periodically, and gather herbs during different  seasons. However, some of these have been proposed for closure by  environmental groups in order to maintain wilderness characteristics of  the wilderness areas and study areas, as required by law. An initial travel  management plan was made public in May 2007, but was rescinded due  to a court order and was reissued in November 2007.
Private land management within the CMPA is another management  issue in which the Council has been involved. BLM is authorized to work  with private landowners within the CMPA to cooperatively manage the  private and public lands, such as to control vegetation. However, BLM  has been able to agree in only a few cases on what management  activities and payments will be involved. At least one owner is  considering selling his land for development rather than working with  BLM. The act authorizes $25 million from the land and water  conservation fund for, among other purposes, the acquisition of private  land and conservation easements within the CMPA. According to the  agency and Council members, none of these funds have been provided,  limiting the actions local BLM officials can take. Council members and  others explained that by adding new layers of management restrictions,  such as wilderness management restrictions, the act limited their ability  to manage the area in a new and innovative way, thereby precluding  some cooperation and creative management that could have taken  place.
One area in which the group has agreed is related to vegetation  management. The Council has endorsed a juniper management program to  thin stands of juniper that have expanded and overcome sagebrush habitats  and grasslands in the area. BLM, with Council input, is studying different  options for reducing the expansion of juniper woodlands, but to date only  limited activity has been funded. According to the agency, the Council has  had greater success at working together to solve ecological restoration  issues.
section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Council are described in the  following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Develop a Collaborative Process
paragraphs: The Council’s organization and processes have evolved, although members  of the Council and others explained that it has been less successful making  recommendations because of organizational problems. Although the  Council votes using a majority rule, it was not until March 2006 that  members adopted operating protocols that describe, among other things,  the Council’s objectives, roles and responsibilities, and communication  protocols. The Council needs 9 votes in order to provide BLM with a formal  recommendation; however, during the several years the group has been in  existence, attendance has been poor and filling vacancies has been a  problem, making it difficult for it to establish a quorum for votes to take  place. According to several members of the Council, they believe they have  failed to make recommendations on large issues but they have made  decisions about less important issues. More recently, all vacancies have  been filled and some participants were more optimistic about the Council’s  ability to collaborate in the future. In 2007, the Council provided  approximately 20 recommendations.
BLM has brought in an outside facilitator to help the Council work through  conflicts. The facilitator worked with the members during a 2-day retreat  and made progress on a wilderness access issue. However, a later vote by  the Council failed to approve the final plan.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: While one objective of the Steens Act was to promote and foster  cooperation, communication, and understanding and to reduce conflict  between Steens Mountain users and interests, members and other parties  said that conflicting interpretations of the act are a fundamental source of  conflict among parties. According to several BLM officials, cooperation  among stakeholders was much better before the act. The Steens Mountain  area has been considered an area worthy of conservation since at least  1999, when the area was considered for designation as a national  monument but local stakeholders opposed special designation. For this  reason, Council members have fundamentally different interpretations of  the act, and continue to debate the conservation versus use clauses in it.  Council members interpret the act differently—some refer to one of the  statutory objectives of the CMPA that promotes grazing and a provision  that allows reasonable access to lands within the CMPA, while others  assert that a section requiring BLM to ensure the conservation, protection,  and improved ecological integrity of the CMPA represents the act’s primary  purpose. After the establishment of the CMPA and the wilderness area  within it, a local environmental group identified several new possible  wilderness areas—called wilderness study areas. The group has since sued  BLM to designate these areas as wilderness study areas. In June 2007, the  District Court held that BLM had properly declined to adopt most of the  group’s proposed designations.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: BLM pays between $70,000 and $80,000 annually for the Council’s travel,  staff support, and facilitation. Because it is an advisory committee, it is not  organized to collect donations or spend funds. However, the Steens Act  authorized $25 million to be appropriated to BLM to help purchase private  properties within the boundaries of the CMPA, and additional funds would  be available for incentive payments for cooperative agreements with  private landowners. Several members of the Council and others told us that  many conflicts might have been resolved had BLM received these funds.  For example, funding could have been used to develop cooperative  agreements or purchase private inholdings, thereby reducing controversial  issues over access and permissible use.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: According to the Steens Act, BLM may provide conservation incentive  payments 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).
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Uncompahgre Plateau Project
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Natural Resource Problems
paragraphs: The Uncompahgre Plateau Project has concentrated on several natural  resource problems on the plateau, including the following:  According to the group’s participants, their focus broadened to larger  ecosystem health issues when state biologists found that the observed  decline in mule deer was related to poor habitat, specifically, vegetation  that was too homogeneous in its age class distribution. According to  natural resource managers, this condition resulted from certain  activities on the plateau such as fire suppression and grazing practices.  The Uncompahgre Plateau Project has initiated landscape-level  planning and restoration efforts across jurisdictional boundaries to  achieve more heterogeneous vegetation across the plateau and bring  vegetation structure, age, condition, and spatial patterns in line with the  habitat needs of wildlife species. The group’s initial planning and  restoration efforts have focused on two watersheds covering over  220,000 acres of BLM, Forest Service, state, and private land and has  included a variety of vegetation treatments such as roller chopping— using a large round drum to crush the shrubs—and prescribed burning.  As of May 2007, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project completed over 100  restoration projects, covering over 50,000 acres.
The Uncompahgre Plateau has had problems with invasive species on  both public and private lands. Invasive species alter the ecology in an  area by crowding out native species, changing fire regimes, or altering  hydrologic conditions. To facilitate cooperation among land managers  and private landowners in efforts to manage invasive species, the  Uncompahgre Plateau Project has initiated a program to map, monitor,  control, and prevent invasive species within designated weed  management areas on over 350,000 acres.
The Uncompahgre Plateau is a key location for east to west  transmission lines connecting Rocky Mountain power sources with  western markets such as Los Angeles. As a result of the Energy Policy  Act of 2005, transmission line operators must ensure that their power  lines remain reliable. Forested rights-of-way pose threats to reliability  because of the potential for tall trees to fall on the lines, arcing from the  power line to trees, and forest fires. Traditionally, power line rights-of- way have been clear-cut to remove tall trees underneath and adjacent to  the power lines, which has historically generated conflict between  utilities and land managers, according to a utility official. While this  practice removes the threat to power lines directly posed by these trees,  it can damage habitat and ecosystem health and the risk from forest  fires still remains. Through the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, the utility  companies and land management agencies have worked together to  treat vegetation outside of the utility rights-of-way in order to reduce the  risk of forest fires and threats to the power lines in a manner that  creates more natural openings that are friendly to wildlife. This is  accomplished through means such as creating undulating boundaries  between treated and untreated vegetation, instead of straight lines.  According to a group member, these treatment techniques are being  used as a model for other utilities across the country.
When conducting restoration projects, land managers working on the  Uncompahgre Plateau want to replant with vegetation that is native to  the plateau because it is better adapted to the local conditions and can  improve the success of restoration projects. However, there is not a  sufficient supply of native seeds available on the commercial market for  large-scale restoration projects on the Uncompahgre Plateau. In  response, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project initiated a native plant  program to collect, study, and produce native seeds that can be used to  facilitate restoration projects. According to a group member, it has  gathered native seeds for over 50 plants and developed methods for  propagating these. The ultimate goal of this program is to have private,  local growers and larger commercial growers cultivate the seeds and  sell them to the agencies and energy companies who are doing  restoration projects.
section_title: Collaborative Practices
paragraphs: The collaborative practices used by the Uncompahgre Plateau Project are  described in the following sections.
subsections: section_title: Seek Inclusive Representation
paragraphs: The Uncompahgre Plateau Project partners include BLM; Forest Service;  CDOW; utility companies including the Western Area Power Administration  and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; and an  informal nonprofit community organization called the Public Lands  Partnership. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project was initiated by the Public  Lands Partnership and major land managers on the Uncompahgre  Plateau—BLM, Forest Service, and CDOW. Later, the Western Area Power  Administration and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,  Inc., approached the Uncompahgre Plateau Project after seeing a  presentation on the group and realizing that working collaboratively to  treat vegetation beyond the utility rights-of-way and decrease the threat of  forest fires could mutually benefit themselves and the original partners.  The Western Area Power Administration and Tri-State Generation and  Transmission Association, Inc., became formal partners in the  Uncompahgre Plateau Project in 2004.
Many participants cited the involvement of the Public Lands Partnership as  a significant and unique asset to the Uncompahgre Plateau Project. The  membership of the Public Lands Partnership is made up of county  commissioners, city administrators, user groups from the timber industry,  agricultural producers, environmentalists, recreationists, and local citizens.  The organization started in 1992 because members of the community  wanted to get involved in discussions about the public lands that  surrounded them. The group brings together members of the public to  discuss issues related to public lands including oil and gas drilling, forest  plans, campground closures, travel access, and roads. BLM officials noted  that, by having the Public Lands Partnership involved in the Uncompahgre  Plateau Project, they have been able to complete their National  Environmental Policy Act analyses more efficiently because, through the  Public Lands Partnership, the public was brought in to help set the vision  for the proposed action and there were no subsequent appeals.
section_title: Develop a Collaborative Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Pursue Flexibility, Openness, and Respect
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Find Leadership
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Identify a Common Goal
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Develop a Process for Obtaining Information
paragraphs: According to participants, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project is always  seeking new science to inform its decisions and looks for opportunities to  bring new ideas to the table. For example, the group works with  researchers from universities such as Colorado State University, Brigham  Young University, Snow College, and the University of Wyoming to gather  new scientific data on the vegetation and ecology of the plateau and study  the effects of different vegetation treatments. Scientific publications  related to research on the plateau are available on the Uncompahgre  Plateau Project Web site. The Uncompahgre Plateau Project frequently  sponsors field trips, which one participant noted is important to get  community members involved, understand the resource problems that  exist on the plateau, and become comfortable with the projects being  carried out by the group.
As part of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project planning efforts, BLM and the  Forest Service have integrated their GIS map data for two priority  watersheds and are working to integrate data for two other priority  watersheds. Because the agencies’ mapping data are not compatible,  however, staff said that the landscape assessment process was difficult.  The agencies had to develop ways to merge the data, which was time- consuming and expensive. For areas outside of these watersheds, data  generated by agency research are held within the sponsoring agency, so  other partners sometimes do not have access to this information. For  example, BLM fuel treatments are mapped in its GIS database, which the  Forest Service does not have access to, and vice versa. The group noted  that it would like to make all of the GIS maps available on its Web site, but  according to group members, this effort is extremely resource intensive  and therefore not feasible for the group to accomplish at this time with its  current resources. According to the participants, BLM and the Forest  Service have hired an outside consultant to serve as a repository for the  GIS data.
section_title: Leverage Available Resources
paragraphs: The group has been successful in leveraging funds and has received over $3  million from a variety of grants. Two grants that were instrumental in  getting the Uncompahgre Plateau Project started included $500,000 from  CDOW for mule deer conservation efforts and $620,000 given to the Public  Lands Partnership from the Ford Foundation for community forestry. The  finances of the group are handled by Uncompahgre/Com, Inc., which  administers contracts, solicits bids, and pays invoices for the Uncompahgre  Plateau Project and provides the partners a mechanism to pool their funds.
The Forest Service, BLM, CDOW, and the utilities support the  Uncompahgre Plateau Project through various means. BLM has an  assistance agreement with the group under which it can provide money to  the group for activities outlined in statements of work. BLM has also given  the group program funding. BLM officials noted that by having nonfederal  partners, the group has a relatively easy time coming up with the  nonfederal matching funds that are required with particular federal grants.  In addition, BLM and the Forest Service have provided money for the  native plant program. The Forest Service has used various agreements  including appropriated funds spent with Wyden Amendment authority— which allows federal money to be spent on nonfederal lands—to support  the efforts of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, such as completing  invasive species work across jurisdictional boundaries. The Western Area  Power Administration; Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,  Inc.; and CDOW have provided money to support vegetation management  projects.
The group noted that while it has had success leveraging funds in the past,  it has run into difficulty acquiring funding now that the project is more  mature. In addition, most grant money is for projects on the ground, so the  group faces a challenge in funding its overhead costs. The Uncompahgre  Plateau Project applied for a National Forest Foundation mid-capacity  grant, which provides operating funding for organizations that have been  working together for some time, but was unsuccessful in receiving this  grant.
section_title: Provide Incentives
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Monitor Results for Accountability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Bibliography
paragraphs: Beierle, Thomas C. “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions.” Risk  Analysis, vol. 22, no. 4 (2002): 739–749.
Bell, Tom. “Broader System Urged for Fisheries Management.” Portland  Press Herald, October 10, 2005, final edition, sec. B.
Bengston, David N., George Xu, and David P. Fan. “Attitudes Toward  Ecosystem Management in the United States, 1992-1998.” Society and  Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 471–487.
Beyer, Jr., Dean E., Les Homan, and David N. Ewert. “Ecosystem  Management in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan: A Case History.”  Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 38 (1997): 199–211.
Bidwell, Ryan D., and Clare M. Ryan. “Collaborative Partnership Design:  The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships.”  Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19 (2006): 827–843.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O’Leary. “The New  Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen  Participation in the Work of Government.” Public Administration Review,  vol. 65, no. 5 (2005): 547–558.
Bissix, Glyn and Judith A. Rees. “Can Strategic Ecosystem Management  Succeed in Multiagency Environments?” Ecological Applications, vol. 11,  no. 2 (2001): 570–583.
Boxer-Macomber, Lauri Diana. Too Much Sun? Emerging Challenges  Presented by California and Federal Open Meeting Legislation to Public  Policy Consensus-Building Processes. Sacramento, Calif.: Center for  Collaborative Policy, 2003. See esp. chap. 6, “Findings.”
Brick, Philip, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van de Wetering, eds. Across the  Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the  American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001.
Brody, Samuel D. “Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management  Through Local Land Use Planning.” Population and Environment, vol. 24,  no. 6 (2003): 511.
Brody, Samuel D. “Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on  the Quality of Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative  Ecosystem Management.” Journal of Planning Education and Research,  vol. 22 (2003): 407–419.
Brody, Samuel D., Sean B. Cash, Jennifer Dyke, and Sara Thornton.  “Motivations for the Forestry Industry to Participate in Collaborative  Ecosystem Management Initiatives.” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 8  (2006): 123–134.
Brunner, Ronald D., and Tim W. Clark. “A Practice-Based Approach to  Ecosystem Management.” Conservation Biology, vol. 11, no. 1 (1997): 48– 58.
Brunner, Ronald D., Christine H. Colburn, Christina M. Cromley, Roberta A.  Klein, and Elizabeth A. Olson. Finding Common Ground: Governance and  Natural Resources in the American West. New Haven, Conn.: Yale  University Press, 2002.
Brunner, Ronald D., Toddi A. Steelman, Lindy Coe-Juell, Christina M.  Cromley, Christine M. Edwards, and Donna W. Tucker. Adaptive  Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. New  York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Bryan, Todd A. “Tragedy Averted: The Promise of Collaboration.” Society  and Natural Resources, vol. 17 (2004): 881–896.
Burns, Sam. “A Civic Conversation About Public Lands: Developing  Community Governance.” Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1-2  (2001): 271–290.
Center for Collaborative Policy. “Conditions Needed to Sustain a  Collaborative Policy Process.”  http://www.csus.edu/ccp/collaborative/sustain.htm (last accessed Jan. 23,  2008).
Cheng, Antony S., and Steven E. Daniels. “Examining the Interaction  Between Geographic Scale and Ways of Knowing in Ecosystem  Management: A Case Study of Place-Based Collaborative Planning.” Forest  Science, vol. 49, no. 6 (2003): 841–854.
Cheng, Antony S., and Katherine M. Mattor. “Why Won’t They Come?  Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by  Participation Level.” Environmental Management, vol. 38 (2006): 545–561.
Clagett, Matthew Patrick. “Environmental ADR and Negotiated Rule and  Policy Making: Criticisms of the Institute for Environmental Conflict  Resolution and the Environmental Protection Agency.” Tulane  Environmental Law Journal, vol. 15 (2002): 409–424.
Coggins, George Cameron. “‘Devolution’ in Federal Land Law: Abdication  by Any Other 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,  ed. R. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton, and A. J. Malk, 3–19. United  Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Cortner, Hanna J. and Margaret A. Moote. The Politics of Ecosystem  Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999.
Coughlin, Chrissy, Merrick Hoben, Dirk Manskopf, and Shannon Quesada.  “A Systematic Assessment of Collaborative Resource Management  Partnerships.” Master’s thesis, University of Michigan, 1999.
Duane, Timothy P. “Practical Legal Issues in Community Initiated  Ecosystem Management of Public Land: Community Participation in  Ecosystem Management.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 771–797.
Dukes, Frank. “Key Principles for Effective Collaborative Processes.”  Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, December  21, 2006.
Dukes, Frank. “Public Conflict Resolution: A Transformative Approach.”  Negotiation Journal, January 1993: 45–57.
Dukes, Frank. “What We Know About Environmental Conflict Resolution:  An Analysis Based on Research.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 22,  no. 1-2 (2004): 191–220.
Emerson, Kirk, Rosemary O’Leary, and Lisa B. Bingham. “Commentary:  Comment on Frank Dukes’s ‘What We Know About Environmental Conflict  Resolution.’” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1-2 (2004): 221– 231.
Fall, Andrew, Dave Daust, and Don G. Morgan. “A Framework and Software  Tool to Support Collaborative Landscape Analysis: Fitting Square Pegs into  Square Holes.” Transactions in GIS, vol. 5, no. 1 (2001): 67–86.
Frame, Tanis M., Thomas Gunton, and J. C. Day. “The Role of Collaboration  in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of Land and Resource  Planning in British Columbia.” Journal of Environmental Planning and  Management, vol. 47, no. 1 (2004): 59–82.
Freeman, Jody. “Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State.”  UCLA Law Review, vol. 45 (1997): 3–98.
Freeman, Richard. “The EcoFactory: The United States Forest Service and  the Political Construction of Ecosystem Management.” Environmental  History, vol. 7, no. 4 (2002): 632–659.
GAO. Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance  and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15.  Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2005.
Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty  Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989.
Gray, Gerald J., Larry Fisher, and Lynn Jungwirth. “An Introduction to  Community-Based Ecosystem Management.” Journal of Sustainable  Forestry, vol. 12, no. 3/4 (2001): 25–34.
Gutrich, John, Deanna Donovan, Melissa Finucane, Will Focht, Fred  Hitzhusen, Supachit Manopimoke, David McCauley, et al. “Science in the  Public Process of Ecosystem Management: Lessons from Hawaii,  Southeast Asia, Africa and the US Mainland.” Journal of Environmental  Management, vol. 76 (2005): 197–209.
Heikkila, Tanya, and Andrea K. Gerlak. “The Formation of Large-scale  Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of  Stakeholders, Science and Institutions.” The Policy Studies Journal, vol.  33, no. 4 (2005): 583–611.
Helly, J. J., N. M. Kelly, D. Sutton, and T. Todd Elvins. “Collaborative  Management of Natural Resources in San Diego Bay.” Coastal  Management, vol. 29, no. 2 (2001): 117–132.
Holsman, Robert H. and R. Ben Peyton. “Stakeholder Attitudes Toward  Ecosystem Management in Southern Michigan.” Wildlife Society Bulletin,  vol. 31, no. 2 (2003): 349–361.
Houck, Oliver A. “On the Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management.”  Minnesota Law Review, vol. 81, April (1997): 869–979.
Hummel, Mark and Bruce Freet. “Collaborative Processes for Improving  Land Stewardship and Sustainability.” In Ecological Stewardship: A  Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A.  J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, 97–129. United Kingdom: Elsevier  Science, Ltd., 1999.
Imperial, Mark T. “Analyzing Institutional Arrangements for Ecosystem- Based Management: Lessons from the Rhode Island Salt Ponds SAM Plan.”  Coastal Management, vol. 27, no. 1 (1999): 31–56.
Innes, Judith E. “Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics.”  Planning Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (2004): 5–20.
Jackson, Laurie Skuba. “Contemporary Public Involvement: Toward a  Strategic Approach.” Local Environment, vol. 6, no. 2 (2001): 135–147.
Johnson, Kathleen M., Al Abee, Gerry Alcock, David Behler, Brien Culhane,  Ken Holtje, Don Howlett, George Martinez, and Kathleen Picarelli.  “Management Perspectives on Regional Cooperation.” In Ecological  Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3,  ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, 155–180. United  Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Johnson, Nels. “Legal Perspectives.” In Ecological Stewardship: A  Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson,  A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 107–113. United Kingdom: Elsevier  Science, Ltd., 1999.
Kagan, Robert A. “Political and Legal Obstacles to Collaborative Ecosystem  Planning.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 871–875.
Keiter, Robert B. “NEPA and the Emerging Concept of Ecosystem  Management on the Public Lands.” Land and Water Law Review, vol. 25,  no. 1 (1990): 43–60.
Keiter, Robert B., Ted Boling, and Louise Milkman. “Legal Perspectives on  Ecosystem Management: Legitimizing a New Federal Land Management  Policy.” In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem  Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C.  Johnson, 9–41. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Keough, Heather L. and Dale J. Blahna. “Achieving Integrative,  Collaborative Ecosystem Management.” Conservation Biology, vol. 20,   no. 5 (2006): 1373–1382.
Keystone Center. “The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem  Management: Final Report.” The Keystone Center, Colorado, October 1996.
Knight, Richard L. and Peter B. Landres, eds. Stewardship Across  Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1998.
Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith  Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig W. Thomas. Collaborative  Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington,  D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2004.
Koontz, Tomas M., and Craig W. Thomas. “What Do We Know and Need to  Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?”  Public Administration Review, December 2006: 111–121.
Korfmacher, Katrina Smith. “What’s the Point of Partnering?” The  American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 4 (2000): 548–566.
Lachapelle, Paul R., Stephen F. McCool, and Michael E. Patterson. “Barriers  to Effective Natural Resource Planning in a ‘Messy’ World.” Society and  Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 473–490.
Lawless, W. F., M. Bergman, and N. Feltovich. “Consensus Seeking Versus  Truth Seeking.” Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive  Waste Management, vol. 9, no. 1 (2005): 59–70.
Leach, William D. “Building a Theory of Collaboration.” In Effective  Collaboration for Environmental Change: Making Sense of an Emerging  Socio-Ecological Movement, Community-Based Collaboratives Research  Consortium, forthcoming.
Leach, William D. “Collaborative Public Management and Democracy:  Evidence from Western Watershed Partnerships.” Public Administration  Review, December 2006: 100–110.
Leach, William D. “Public Involvement in UDSA Forest Service  Policymaking: A Literature Review.” Journal of Forestry, January/February  2006, 43–49.
Leach, William D. “Surveying Diverse Stakeholder Groups.” Society and  Natural Resources, vol. 15 (2002): 641–649.
Leach, William D. “Theories about Consensus-Based Conservation.”  Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 2 (2006): 573–575.
Leach, William D., and Neil W. Pelkey. “Making Watershed Partnerships  Work: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Journal of Water Resources  Planning and Management, vol. 127, no. 6 (2001): 378–385.
Leach, William D., Neil W. Pelkey, and Paul A. Sabatier. “Stakeholder  Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied to  Watershed Management in California and Washington.” Journal of Policy  Analysis and Management, vol. 21, no. 4 (2002): 645–670.
Leshy, John. “Public Lands.” American Law Institute—American Bar  Association Continuing Legal Education Course of Study, February 13– 15, 2002.
Linden, Russell M. Working Across Boundaries: Making Collaboration  Work in Government and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, Calif.:  Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Lubell, Mark. “Collaborative Watershed Management: A View from the  Grassroots.” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 32, no. 3 (2004): 341–361.
Lugenbill, Chris Herman. “An Interorganizational Management Strategy for  Collaborative Stewardship.” Ph.D. diss., Colorado Technical University,  2003.
Lysak, Tetyana, and Edward P. Weber. “Collaboratives, Wicked Problems,  and Institutional Design: Different Theories, Same Lessons.” Washington  State University, submitted for publication, December 29, 2006.
MacEachren, Alan M. “Cartography and GIS: Facilitating Collaboration.”  Progress in Human Geography, vol. 24, no. 3 (2000): 445–456.
MacCleery, Douglas W., and Dennis C. Le Master. “The Historical  Foundation and Evolving Context for Natural Resource Management on  Federal Lands.” In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for  Ecosystem Management, vol. 2, ed. R. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T.  Sexton, and A. J. Malk, 517–556. United Kindgom: Elsevier Science, Ltd.,  1999.
Malk, Andrew. “Processes for Collaboration.” In Ecological Stewardship: A  Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson,  A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T. Sexton, 129–134. United Kingdom: Elsevier  Science, Ltd., 1999.
Malone, Charles R. “Ecosystem Management Policies in State Government  of the USA.” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 48 (2000): 57–64.
Manring, Nancy J. “Collaborative Resource Management: Organizational  Benefits and Individual Costs.” Administration and Society, vol. 30, no. 3  (1998): 2742–90.
Margerum, Richard D., and Debra Whitall. “The Challenges and  Implications of Collaborative Management on a River Basin Scale.” Journal  of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 47, no. 3 (2004): 4074– 27.
McClosky, Michael. “Local Communities and the Management of Public  Forests.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 25 (1999): 624–629.
McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. “Regionalism in the  West: An Inventory and Assessment.” Public Land and Resources Law  Review, vol. 23 (2002): 101–123.
Meffe, Gary K. “Biological and Ecological Dimensions: Overview.” In  Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem  Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T.  Sexton, 39–44. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Mog, Justin Matthew. “Managing Development Programs for Sustainability:  Integrating Development and Research Through Adaptive Management.”  Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19 (2006): 531–546.
Moody, James Bradfield, and Mark Dodgson. “Managing Complex  Collaborative Projects: Lessons from the Development of a New Satellite.”  Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 31 (2006): 567–588.
Moore, Elizabeth A., and Tomas M. Koontz. “A Typology of Collaborative  Watershed Groups: Citizen-Based, Agency-Based, and Mixed Partnerships.”  Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 451-460.
Mortenson, Kristin G., and Richard S. Krannich. “Wildlife Managers and  Public Involvement: Letting the Crazy Aunt Out.” Human Dimensions of  Wildlife, vol. 6 (2001): 277–290.
O’Neill, Karen M. “Can Watershed Management Unite Town and Country?”  Society and Natural Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 241–253.
Office of Management and Budget and Council on Environmental Quality.  Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.,  November 28, 2005.
Paulson, Deborah D. “Collaborative Management of Public Rangeland in  Wyoming: Lessons in Co-Management.” Professional Geographer, vol. 50,  no. 3 (1998): 301–315.
Payton, Michelle A., David C. Fulton, and Dorothy H. Anderson. “Influence  of Place Attachment and Trust on Civic Action: A Study at Sherburne  National Wildlife Refuge.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 18 (2005):  511–528.
Peterson, M. Nils, Markus J. Peterson, and Tarla Rai Peterson.  “Conservation and the Myth of Consensus.” Conservation Biology, vol. 19,  no. 3 (2005): 762–767.
Plummer, Ryan. “Sharing the Management of a River Corridor: A Case  Study of the Comanagement Process.” Society and Natural Resources, vol.  19 (2006): 709–712.
Raedeke, Andrew H., J. Sanford Rikoon, and Charles H. Nilon. “Ecosystem  Management and Landowner Concern About Regulations: A Case Study in  the Missouri Ozarks.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 741– 759.
Ramirez, Ricardo and Maria Fernandez. “Facilitation of Collaborative  Resource Management: Reflections from Practice.” Systemic Practice and  Action Research, vol. 18, no. 1 (2005): 5–20.
Rigg, Catherine M. “Orchestrating Ecosystem Management: Challenges and  Lessons from Sequoia National Forest.” Conservation Biology, vol. 15, no.  1 (2001): 78–90.
Rodriguez, Daniel B. “The Role of Legal Innovation in Ecosystem  Management: Perspectives from American Local Government Law.”  Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 24 (1997): 745–769.
Ryan, Clare M. and Jacqueline S. Klug. “Collaborative Watershed Planning  in Washington State: Implementing the Watershed Planning Act.” Journal  of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 48, no. 4 (2005): 491– 506.
Sayre, Nathan F. “Interacting Effects of Landownership, Land Use, and  Endangered Species on Conservation of Southwestern U.S. Rangelands.”  Conservation Biology, vol. 19, no. 3 (2005): 783–792.
Scarlett, P. Lynn. “A New Approach to Conservation: The Case for the Four  Cs.” Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 17, no. 1 (2002-2003): 73– 113.
Scheutt, Michael A., Steve W. Selen, and Deborah S. Carr. “Making It Work:  Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management.”  Environmental Management, vol. 27, no. 4 (2001): 587–593.
Schusler, Tania M., Daniel J. Decker, and Max J. Pfeffer. “Social Learning  for Collaborative Natural Resource Management.” Society and Natural  Resources, vol. 15 (2003): 309–326.
Selin, Steve, Michael Scheutt, and Debbie Carr. “Modeling Stakeholder  Perceptions of Collaborative Initiative Effectiveness.” Society and Natural  Resources, vol. 13, no. 8 (2000): 735–745 Sexton, William T., Robert C. Szaro, and Nels C. Johnson. “The Ecological  Stewardship Project: A Vision for Sustainable Resource Management.” In  Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem  Management, vol. 1, ed. N. C. Johnson, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and W. T.  Sexton, 1–8. Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Singleton, Sara. “Collaborative Environmental Planning in the American  West: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Environmental Politics, vol. 11,  no. 3 (2002): 54–75.
Smith, Patrick D. and Maureen H. McDonough. “Beyond Public  Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making.” Society and  Natural Resources, vol. 14 (2001): 239–249.
Smith, Patrick D., Maureen H. McDonough, and Michael T. Mang.  “Ecosystem Management and Public Participation: Lessons from the Field.”  Journal of Forestry, vol. 97, no. 10 (1999): 32–39.
Smutko, L. Steven. “Environmental Dispute Resolution Processes for  Resource Conservation.” Department of Agricultural and Resource  Economics, North Carolina State University.
Susskind, Lawrence E., and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. “Conducting Conflict  Assessment.” In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive  Guide to Reaching Agreement, ed. Lawrence E. Susskind, Sarah  McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage  Publications, 1999.
Swanson, Louis E. “Rural Policy and Direct Local Participation:  Democracy, Inclusiveness, Collective Agency, and Locality-Based Policy.”  Rural Sociology, vol. 66, no. 1 (2001): 1–21.
Thompson, Jan R., William F. Elmendorf, Maureen H. McDonough, and Lisa  L. Burban. “Participation and Conflict: Lessons Learned from Community  Forestry.” Journal of Forestry, June 2005, 174–178.
Thompson, Jonathan R., Mark D. Anderson, and Norman Johnson.  “Ecosystem Management across Ownerships: The Potential for Collision  with Antitrust Laws.” Conservation Biology, vol. 18, no. 6 (2004): 1475– 1481.
Tilt, Whitney. “Collaboration in Our Backyard: Lessons from Community- Based Collaboration in the West.” The Quivira Coalition Newsletter, vol. 7,  no. 2 (2005): 22–30.
Tilt, Whitney. “Getting Federal Land Management Agencies to the  Collaborative Table: Barriers and Remedies.” Sonoran Institute, 2005.
Tipa, Gail and Richard Welch. “Comanagement of Natural Resources:  Issues of Definition from and Indigenous Community Perspective.” Journal  of Applied Behavorial Science, vol. 42, no 3 (2006): 373–391.
Twarkins, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Tahnee Robertson. “Public  Involvement in Forest Management Planning: A View from the Northeast.”  Journal of Sustainable Forestry, vol. 13, no. 1/2 (2001): 237–251.
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. Off-Highway Vehicle  Use and Collaboration: Lessons Learned from Project Implementation,  edited by Larry Fisher. Tucson, Arizona, August 26, 2005.
Waage, Sissel. “Collaborative Salmon Recovery Planning: Examining  Decision Making and Implementation in Northeastern Oregon.” Society  and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 295–307.
Walker, Peter A. and Patrick Hurley. “Collaboration Derailed: The Politics  of ‘Community-Based’ Resource Management in Nevada County.” Society  and Natural Resources, vol. 17 (2004): 735–751.
Weber, Edward P. Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem  Management, Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge,  Mass.: The MIT Press, 2003.
Weber, Edward P. “The Question of Accountability in Historical  Perspective: From Jackson to Contemporary Grassroots Ecosystem  Management.” Administration and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (1999): 451–495.
Weber, Edward P. “A Theory of Institutional Change for Tough Cases of  Collaboration: ‘Ideas’ in the Blackfoot Watershed.” Washington State  University, submitted for publication, December 20, 2006.
Weber, Edward P. “Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and  Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings.” Public  Administration Review (forthcoming).
Weber, Edward P., Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney. “Assessing  Collaborative Capacity in a Multidimensional World.” Administration and  Society, vol. 39, no. 2 (2007): 194–220.
Weber, Edward P., Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney.  “Collaboration, Enforcement, and Endangered Species: A Framework for  Assessing Collaborative Problem-Solving Capacity.” Society and Natural  Resources, vol. 18 (2005): 677–698.
Webler, Thomas, Seth Tuler, Ingrid Shockey, Paul Stern, and Robert Beattie.  “Participation by Local Governmental Officials in Watershed Management  Planning.” Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16 (2003): 105–121.
Western Governors’ Association. “Collaborative Conservation Strategies:  Legislative Case Studies from Across the West.” Western Governors’  Association White Paper, June 2006.
Wilson, Randall K. “Collaboration in Context: Rural Change and  Community Forestry in the Four Corners.” Society and Natural Resources,  vol. 19 (2006): 53–70.
Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L. Yaffee. Making Collaboration Work:  Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington,  D.C.: Island Press, 2000.
Yaffee, Steven L. “Regional Cooperation: A Strategy for Achieving  Ecological Stewardship.” In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference  for Ecosystem Management, vol. 3, ed. W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro,  and N. C. Johnson, 31–153. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science, Ltd., 1999.
Yaffee, Steven L. “Three Faces of Ecosystem Management.” Conservation  Biology, vol. 13, no. 4 (1999): 713–725.