[MCN] Missoulian collaboration column

[Matthew Koehler]

Thanks to the Missoulian for digging a little deeper into the issue of how
so-called 'collaboration' is actually playing out when it comes to the
management of America's public lands – like National Forests – which belong
equally to all Americans.

For those interested in also digging a little deeper into the issue I'd
highly suggest reading some of the new research being done by independent
experts.

For example, the paper from the University of Montana highlighted in this
article titled, "The Contested Use of Collaboration and Litigation in
National Forest Management: A Bolle Center Perspective paper by Martin Nie
and Peter Metcalf" can be found here: http://bit.ly/1jb8yT3

Below are some snips from Dr. Nie and Peter Metcalf. If you care about
America's public lands legacy please read up and take note of many of the
RED FLAGS raised by the Bolle Center paper. The findings in this, and other
research papers, certainly calls into question the pro-collaboration PR
campaign we see currently being waged by the Montana Wilderness Association
and their dozens of staff and board and council members who are responsible
for writing all the pro-collaboration LTE's and guest columns we see
regularly in the newspaper.

“This perspective paper takes on the most controversial issue in modern
national forest management—the charge of ‘environmental obstructionism’ and
the purported abuse of the courts by environmental interests. The paper
goes beyond the clichés and soundbites to learn more about the views,
issues and policy implications at the core of the debate.”

“Some of the remedies being proposed by Congress, such as the
‘collaborative project litigation requirements’ of [Rep Zinke & Sen
Daines’] “Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015” are radical departures
from existing law and would make it more difficult for the public to
participate in decision making and to hold the Forest Service accountable
for its actions.”

“…the use of collaboration, by itself, in no way justifies a more limited
NEPA analysis or the law’s exemption altogether. While we believe
collaboration has an important role to play in national forest management,
it should not be used to justify the narrowing of other important forms of
public participation. NEPA’s scoping process, NFMA’s objection process, and
the use of litigation are all important forms of public participation in
public lands management.”

“Unfortunately, some proposed legislation exploits the use of collaboration
as a way to deregulate national forest management and to circumvent the
NEPA process so that a broad range of forest management activities are
subject to NEPA’s categorical exclusion if they are developed through a
collaborative process. Recall, for example, H.R. 2647 (Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2015), which requires those plaintiffs challenging a forest
management activity post a bond or other security if the project was
developed through a collaborative process. This approach, and others like
it, is the very definition of collaboration being used to undermine the
rule of law.”

“Our assessment of litigation would be different if we found groups
repeatedly abusing the courts to advance objectives that don’t have a basis
in federal lands law. But that is not the case. The current framing and
narrative used to marginalize ‘environmental obstructionists’ or ‘rogue
activist groups’ abusing the legal system is inaccurate and incomplete.
Mischaracterization like this distracts us from having a more productive
and substantive inquiry into the issues and different visions that are
truly at the core of this debate.”

“Our view is that the core environmental laws governing the national
forests are more necessary and important today than ever before. And
collaboration is no substitute for accountability. In many situations,
collaboration can help steer restoration to appropriate places and
contexts. But collaboration is not enough. Also necessary is the scrutiny,
scientific analysis, and the wider opportunities for public participation
afforded by NEPA.”

————————

ADDITIONAL READING:

Who Litigates and Who Collaborates? Evidence from State and Local
Environmental Groups Influencing National Forest Policy in the American
West by CAITLIN ANNE BURKE

http://forestpolicypub.com/2012/03/07/new-research-who-litigates-who-collaborates-and-why/

———————

Collaboration Best Practices for the Conservation Community

Developed by American Lands Alliance and Participants of the National
Meeting on Collaboration (March 2007)

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/ecr2008/sessions/materials/13/Final%20Collaboration%20Guidelines%203-07.pdf

NOTE: Even though the Montana Wilderness Association was invited to
participate in this March 2007 meeting to develop best practices for the
conservation community to follow during ‘collaborative processes’ they
refused to participate. Same thing with Montana Trout Unlimited and
National Wildlife Federation, the 3 groups response for Senator Tester’s
mandated logging bill, the so-called “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bigskynet.org/pipermail/missoula-community-news_bigskynet.org/attachments/20160222/00bfdf0a/attachment-0002.html>