Here is a story about a protest of a travel management decision in Dolores, Colorado.
Speakers at the rally, including Edwards and Atwater, urged the Forest Service to reverse its travel management decisions and start over with a process that includes coordination with county governments and the general public.
“Coordination is a mandate,” Atwater said. “They have to work with us.”
The quote contains a reference to the concept of “coordination”. Previously, on this blog here we have asked about what this means.
I also found this paper on the web by John Williams of Oregon State University Extension. The paper is a summary, but, as you can see, most of these coordinating and cooperating requirements focus on NEPA documents or planning processes- and not so much the content of the decisions- which is where many of the local government groups want to go.
Of course, the recent ruling on the Southern California plan also lays emphasis on the importance of coordination (with the State, in that case) in process, yet the settlement seems to have substantive leanings. It is all certainly a dance between “process” violations; who’s at the table at settlement, and substantive settlements.
Previously most of the most controversial travel management decisions I’ve read about have been in California. Is there some broader trend here that we should pay attention to?