Government Agencies, OHV Groups Work Together on Compliance with Rules

Sharing the trails on Tenderfoot Mountain in Summit County, Colorado.

Thanks to Bob Berwyn for this.. wonder if this approach is unique to Colorado?

2011 pilot program resulted in 10,000 contacts with riders in problem areas

By Summit Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY — Colorado officials will continue an off-highway vehicle monitoring program that has helped increase compliance with off-road rules in Colorado.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission last week approved $300,000 in funding to extend the pilot program launched last year.

In 2011, teams of law enforcement officers from Colorado State Parks, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management contacted 10,000 individual riders in problem areas identified by environmental and quiet recreation groups, according to state trails program manager Tom Morrissey.

Morrissey said less than 5 percent of those contacts resulted in warnings or citations — the majority for failure to comply with OHV registration requirements.

Rangers spent about 90 percent of their time on or around designated OHV routes. Morrissey said they saw little evidence of off-trail damage but did report a significant need for increased trail maintenance and better signage to identify designated routes.

Commissioner Jim Pribyl said the program had a successful first year.

“We appreciate how the OHV community worked with us to create a program that increased education and compliance with both state and federal OHV regulations,” said Pribyl. “The project has clearly shown that law-enforcement visibility deters illegal off-trail riding and increases compliance.”

Commissioners unanimously voted to fund the program for 2012, suggesting rangers focus on new compliance check areas and use of remote sensing equipment like trail monitors and game cameras to monitor illegal or user-created trails. Several commissioners also suggested that the trail program tap the local knowledge possessed by district wildlife managers to identify problem areas with a need for monitoring and enforcement.

Morrissey also briefed the commission on the progress of this year’s recreational trail grant process. Fifty-seven motorized project applications totaling $6.8 million were submitted by the December 2011 deadline. About $4 million in funding is available for motorized OHV trail grants in 2012. Applications for non-motorized trail projects totaled $4.3 million, with about $1.6 million available to award. Commissioners will vote on grant awards at the April 12 commission meeting in Pueblo.

Colorado’s OHV Trails Program is funded through the sale of OHV registrations and use permits. Over 160,000 OHVs were registered or permitted for use in Colorado during the 2010-2011 registration years. Revenue generated by the annual $25.25 user permit are used to support the statewide OHV program, the OHV registration program and the OHV trail grant program, including OHV law enforcement.

Bark Beetles and Fire: Two Forces of Nature Transforming Western Forests

The February 2012 edition of Fire Science Digest from the Joint Fire Science Program included this very interesting article titled, “Bark Beetles and Fire: Two Forces of Nature Transforming Western Forests.”  Here’s the intro to the article [emphasis added]:

Bark beetles are chewing a wide swath through forests across North America. Over the past few years, infestations have become epidemic in lodgepole and spruce-fir forests of the Intermountain West. The resulting extensive acreages of dead trees are alarming the public and raising concern about risk of severe fire. Researchers supported by the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) are examining the complicated relationship between bark beetles and wildfire, the two most influential natural disturbance agents in these forests. Are the beetles setting the stage for larger, more severe wildfires? And are fires bringing on beetle epidemics? Contrary to popular opinion, the answer to both questions seems to be “no.”

Donnelly’s Post-Environmental Law Conference Article

Since Sharon highlighted Michael Donnelly’s Pre-Public Interest Environmental Law Conference article at Couterpunch here, I figured we might as well also highlight Donnelly’s Post-Public Interest Environmental Law Conference article at Couterpunch. So here it is, “Lessons Learned at the 30th Environmental Law Conference: Of Advocates and Activists.”

As you’ll see, Donnelly’s provides a link to this blog in his article (as he did in his pre-piece too), which I believe is one of the reasons why this blog has seen a steady up-tick in traffic over recent days. Counterpunch has a huge readership and personally, I think it’s a good thing that some of those readers – who may not be that versed in national forest policy issues – are having a look at what we’re discussing over here. These national forest lands do belong equally to all Americans after all and NEPA ensures that any American who wants to participate in the management of these lands has a meaningful opportunity to do so.

 

Interior- Employee Freedom to Speak to the Press

Department to allow employees more freedom to speak publicly
From E&E news..

Published: Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Interior Department is close to releasing a new communications policy that would give employees more freedom to speak to reporters and publish scholarly articles.

Under the new rules, employees would be able to publicly speak about departmental operations and activities as long as they follow rules that include not disclosing information protected by the Freedom of Information Act, according to a draft of the policy obtained by Greenwire. The new policy encourages scientists to publish research based on departmental projects and directs public affairs officials to be open with the news media.

The move is Interior’s latest step in complying with the White House’s order to develop policies that promote transparency and keep politics out of government research.

Interior earned praise for its overall scientific integrity policy, which it released in September 2010 (E&ENews PM, Sept. 29, 2010). But it has not updated its communications policy since 1999, and the new one has been a year in the making.

Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher said the department was in the “final stages” of revising the policy, which will apply to all the department’s agencies and bureaus.

“The new communications policy will affirm the importance of promoting the free flow of scientific, scholarly and technical information, and will emphasize openness, transparency, and accuracy,” he said in an email. “The new policy also will reflect key changes in the media landscape — including the emergence of social media tools and expanded access to online information. The policy will be available to the public once it is finalized.”

But the policy does include some restrictions for employees who publicly voice their opinions on agency work. For example, employees can speak to the news media but must notify the Office of Communications of any interviews that “may generate significant news coverage, public interest or inquiry.”

Employees also must seek guidance from a supervisor if an interview will involve information that Interior hasn’t already published or publicly released. They cannot disclose anything protected by FOIA, a notoriously nuanced law that protects some federal documents from public disclosure.

When shown the draft, advocacy groups applauded the overall policy but said it wasn’t clear enough to ensure a free exchange of ideas.

The FOIA provision, for example, reminds employees that they cannot disclose “pre-decisional and deliberative information” — a FOIA exemption that OMB Watch’s Gavin Baker said is often overused by agencies. Though employees should be following FOIA when speaking publicly, he said, Interior could give better guidance on how that might be applied in employees’ public comments.

“I think it has the risk of shutting down some valuable conversations,” said Baker, who follows scientific integrity efforts as a federal information policy analyst at OMB Watch. “I think there’s a concern that people will interpret this far too broadly, and it will really discourage information from getting out that ought to get out.”

Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, also contended that such unclear restrictions would dilute a policy that otherwise encourages more openness than at many agencies.

“Under these rules, scientists can speak out so long as they don’t say anything new or interesting,” Ruch said. “A scientist would have to consult a lawyer to know whether he or she could submit a paper for peer review, speak at a conference or answer questions from a reporter under these provisos.”

But Ruch and Gavin both commended the inclusion of a provision that prohibits public affairs officials from altering scientific information and gives internal experts a chance to review news releases for accuracy.

Overall, Interior’s draft policy is more lenient than those of many other agencies, such as U.S. EPA, which lacks specific communications rules. It would expand the opportunity for scientists to “take off their government hat” and give their opinions on their research, said Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“This is a terrific step forward for protecting the public good,” Grifo said. “We want and need to hear from federal scientists, and this policy makes that easier than it has been in the past.”

Note from Sharon: This seems very broad, but perhaps I am reading too much into it. Am I a federal scientist because of my job (not) or my background (yes). What if others in the agency think that the federal scientist has overstated the applicability of the researcher’s results? Can those employees also talk to “the press”?

I think posting whatever federal scientists want to say on a public blog where their interpretations can be openly debated would be far better for transparency and science education. We need to move some of these discussions “beyond traditional media,” in my opinion.

Would that give me free rein to give my opinion on my observations if they are not “research”? I like to share my opinion, as y’all know, so maybe I should start applying for jobs in Interior.

Post Interview on Planning Rule

With an Interior West flavor..

New national forest rule to focus on restoration of damaged ecosystems
Posted: 03/09/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Bruce Finley
The Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20134895/new-national-forest-rule-focus-restoration-damaged-ecosystems

Obama administration officials are emphasizing restoration of degraded ecosystems as they roll out a final new rule for managing the nation’s 193 million acres of forests and grasslands.
Thirty years in the making, the rule to be officially issued this month will direct regional foresters to use science and more monitoring to improve conditions, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in an interview Thursday.
“If we don’t restore our forests and grasslands, we’re going to continue to see more loss of the benefits,” Tidwell said. “More loss of the clean water that is produced on healthy forests. More loss of wildlife habitat. More soil erosion.”
The congressionally required rule sets a framework for regional plans that govern all activities on national forests — from tree-cutting to oil-and-gas drilling to hiking on trails.
It replaces a 1982 rule that was meant to protect forests but failed to prevent widespread damage from intensifying wildfires, insect epidemics, climate change and human population growth.
That Reagan-era rule “focused on restricting activities,” Tidwell said.
Now, regional foresters’ focus on wildlife “management indicator species” as a basis for assessing forest health is to be replaced with a focus on broad habitat needs for a diversity of species.
“If there is scientific evidence that a species is at risk of starting to lose population, to the point where we maybe would have to list it as ‘threatened’ or ‘endangered,’ then we would take additional steps” to ensure survival, he said. “It all has to be based on scientific evidence.”
Conservationists commenting on drafts of the rule have said it leaves too much discretion to individual forest managers. The final version, Tidwell said, “strikes a very good balance between providing national consistency … and allowing that local discretion.”
National Wildlife Federation attorney Michael Saul said success likely will depend on Congress making sure forest studies and monitoring can be done.
“If the Forest Service has sufficient staff and resources to implement the final rule as intended, then I think, on balance, it will result in more science-based and better management of watersheds and wildlife habitat,” Saul said.
The forest management planning process itself consumes Forest Service staff. Legal challenges and politics repeatedly have frustrated prior efforts to revise the 1982 plan. Federal courts since 2000 have rejected multiple attempted revisions, including a Bush administration rule in 2009.
Meanwhile, the regional plans governing 68 of 127 forests and grasslands have not been updated as required.
The final rule is expected to spur updating of those plans through a speedier process of assessment, revision and monitoring.
Colorado contains 13.8 million acres of national forest, much of it fragmented by roads. Traditional uses such as timber-harvesting have declined. New uses such as motorized off-road vehicle recreation are on the rise. Forest plans still must balance multiple uses.
Restrictions on activities need not increase, Tidwell said. For example, more trees, not less, may be cut to deal with the ravaging of millions of acres of western forests by bark beetles.
And even with population growth driving more recreationists into the woods seeking solace, “there are lots of things we can do to address the impacts,” he said, especially if forest users are sensitive to the environment and stay on trails. “We can do things to harden trails so that they can handle more use.”

Lingering Recreation Fee Issues

With the recent Ninth Circuit Decision, suggesting that the Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 disallows “parking fees” on the national forests, I think it time to begin to think through some issues that surround the Forest Service recreation fee debacle. ‘Area access’ fees have been highly controversial since at least the late 1990s (See, e.g. my To Fee or Not to Fee?)

I think that many would agree that right now we have too many users for some of our public places, e.g. some National Forests, some National Parks, etc. And many would agree that there are too few dollars to oversee recreation programs on public lands. There are law enforcement problems, garbage collection issues, rest-room facilities issues, environmental damage problems, and more. It seems that there are always, everywhere, too few dollars chasing too many initiatives. Or maybe the federal government just doesn’t prune initiatives or programs back to fit the realities of budgets. In any case there is always plenty to fight over when it comes to money.

In this little note and follow-ups we will begin to sort out what is ‘at issue’ regarding recreation programs and dollars, and to see whether we few bloggers and commentators can find any common ground on issues and resolutions. Here are my preliminary issues: congestion (How do we disperse and/or discourage use where resource damage or experience degradation results from congestion?), ease of fee collection and participation, distribution of moneys, government agency culture transformation.

Congestion/Dispersion of Use
Let’s begin with congestion. Some would propose that fees be used to help disperse users from over-used areas to other areas. But in this day it might be that other measures could be used to disperse use. For example, federal land managers could require passes for over-used areas—passes that could be allocated via computer-based lottery and waiting lines at places of entry (e.g. a FS Ranger Station). These could be administered and allocated for free. So, perhaps too easily we can take ‘congestion’ off the table when discussing recreation fees.

Fee Collection—ease of collection, ease of participation
With congestion issues off the table at least for now, maybe we can look directly at fees to used to defray government costs. If the Congress wants to charge access fees, in addition to specific facility fees that are allowed in the 2004 Recreation Enhancement Act, then it would seem prudent to have people buy an ‘all federal lands’ pass, that could be used anywhere on federal lands for specific periods of time. This is not my recommendation, but rather a least impact means to an end. [Here is my plea for free primitive recreation on the National Forests.] At minimum the Congress ought to disallow the piecemeal, nightmarish type fees now common on federal lands. An annual pass comes to mind, that would be available at all federal public lands facilities and also on the Internet. It might be an interesting twist to allow users with scant means a free pass, if they were to pass an income/asset test—although I don’t really see an easy way to administer a test like that.

Distribution of Fee Money
There are problems associated with allowing local units to keep the monies they collect from fees. I would like to see local units keep none of it, except as filtered through governmental funding mechanisms. First, there are equity problems that accrue to, say, national forests that don’t have the attraction points (focal points) that other forests have. Second, there is the incentive to pump up prices to cover costs, a phenomenon known to some as ‘budget conservation and enhancement,’ or simply ‘budget maximization.’ I’m sure there are other issues, but let’s move on. Of course the forests flush with cash from a ‘keep it local’ advantage, will argue the flip side of this argument.

Government Agency Culture Transformation
Finally, there is the problem of creeping commercialization—the problem of government forest managers perceiving themselves to be business people rather than government administrators. This problem has to do with government administrators and their attitude and behaviors toward outfitters and guides and concessionaires (including big-ticket items like ski resorts). Do we really want the US Forest Service to move further into the marketization/commercialization world? If not, how might the Congress work to ensure that government agencies act like government agencies and not perceive themselves to be in business?

Endnote
So. Take your best shot at me, both as to the issues I put on the table and those I left off. Also, what might we do to help the Congress, as well as the Forest Service and other agencies, as they continue to grapple with recreation fee issues?

Highest Number of Comments Yesterday

This blog has had its highest number of views (491) ever in the last few days (since its inception in 2009), perhaps due to the Colt Summit project?

I told Matthew that the fact that we have more views about Colt Summit (and collaboration/litigation) than “Naked ice climber scales frozen waterfall” says something optimistic about human nature ;).

As part of our blog reflection process, I am also considering the question “should we change the name of the blog?”. It appears that more of us are interested in topics broader than NFMA planning. Suggestions are encouraged.

Thanks to everyone commenting for the great discussion on collaboration, its perils and pitfalls. It would be nice if someone would send a post on their positive experiences with it.

Fee Simple: Why We Should Pay to Hike, Boat, Fish, Camp and Just Plain Visit Our National Forests

From Char Miller here:

John McKinney means well, and his sentiments scan nicely: “I don’t think a nature hike is a forest product and that hikers are forest consumers. We’re out there for something that you can’t put a price on.”

That’s what he told the Los Angeles Times following the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in February that the Forest Service had overstepped its bounds when charging for access to the national forests in the American west. According to the court, the agency’s Adventure Pass system, which sold one-day passes for $5 (and an annual one for $30), violated provisions of the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). That legal finding cheered McKinney no end, but he’ll discover that we’ll pay a steep price for the court’s elimination of user fees.

The author of such standards as Southern California: A Day Hiker’s Guide, John McKinney’s Wild LA, and The Hiker’s Way: Hike Smart. Live Well. Go Green, McKinney knows how to navigate in the woods, revel in the joys of a dusty tramp, and find bliss in exertion.
He is incorrect, however, about his aesthetic claims for the non-economic character of a high-country ramble. Wrong too is his implication that spending a day trekking through the Angeles or the Los Padres national forests, or camping out in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area of the San Bernardino National Forest, is an apolitical, non-consumptive act.

Let me address the second point first.

These rough-and-ready terrain are the creature of politics. Each of the four national forests of Southern California – including the Cleveland, located north and east of San Diego – was established shortly after the passage of the passage of 1891 Forest Reserve Act. This legislative initiative gave presidents the power to establish reserves on federally owned public land in the west. Yet as a matter of course no forest was ever the result of a top-down directive from the chief executive. Instead, local conservationists, civic leaders, business interests, and an array of citizens demanded from the bottom up that these public lands secure increased federal presence and regulation that in time a national forest would bring.

In this region, that protection had much more to do with the maintenance of watersheds, as timber cutting was not nearly as important as it was in the well-wooded Sierra, Cascade, or Mendocino ranges. Without downstream interests articulating the essential contribution of clean and plentiful water for community development, then, these national forests would not exist. And the recreational opportunities these mountainous landscapes offer today are a direct result of those earlier advocates’ social convictions and political maneuvers.

Think about that enduring gift the next time you lace up, stretch out, and head into the Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area. When you do, recall as well that this landscape exists within another political context: all public lands that bear the wilderness designation, exist because of the1964 Wilderness Act; its passage took nearly thirty years of wrangling in and out of Congress, and the most passionate and persistent lobbying emanated from the Wilderness Society, founded in 1935.
Benton MacKaye | Photo: Appalachian Trail Conservancy/Wikipedia/Creative Commons License
“All we desire to save from invasion,” asserted the society’s founders Robert Sterling Yard, Benton MacKaye, and Robert Marshall, “is that extremely minor fraction of outdoor America which yet remains free from mechanical sights and sounds and smell.” Their words have had special meaning in car-crazed Los Angeles.

Paying for that silence, or as much quiet as is possible in this hyper-industrialized world, is part of the civic obligation built into the 1905 creation of the national-forest system. From the start, Congress demanded that the forests (and thus their users) operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the optimistic first Chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, promised to fulfill that charge.

His was a tough promise to fulfill. While fees for grazing, later timber harvests, and later still recreation may have bolstered the agency’s efforts to research and regulate resource use; protect critical watersheds and endangered species; and enhance recreational infrastructure, they never have fully balanced the budget.

Nor could they: the rates have been kept artificially low to stimulate economic development, so that until the 1980s the deficits were offset through additional public spending. Caring for the Land and Serving the People – the Forest Service’s longstanding motto and commitment – always has cost money.

These expenses spiked in the late 1980s as timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest were scaled back rapidly in response to the Spotted Owl controversy; to protect the endangered bird’s habitat, clear-cutting of old-growth forests, which once generated considerable income for the Forest Service, was largely shut down. By the mid-1990s, the agency faced declining budgets, and began laying off staff and reducing services.

In hopes of stabilizing these budgetary shortfalls, in 1996 Congress authorized the establishment of a recreational fee pilot project, in which hikers, boaters, campers, and other visitors to the forests would pay a minimal amount to access specific services (a boating ramp, say, a picnic area). The funding collected on an individual forest would remain there, enhancing its ability to rebuild trails, staff visitor centers, or insure a steady supply of the all-important toilet paper at trailhead bathrooms.
A waterfall in the Cleveland National Forest | Photo: Chazz Layne/Flickr/Creative Commons License
Despite these and other assorted benefits, user fees kicked off a heated debate. Hiking guru John McKinney was among those who refused to buy an Adventure Pass, a protest and pushback that in 2004 led Congress to rewrite the conditions of the fee-demo program through the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. It prohibits the Forest Service (as well as the Bureau of Land Management) from charging for these site-specific activities:

• General access to national forests and grasslands and Bureau of Land Management areas; • Horseback riding, walking through, driving through, or boating through areas where no facilities or services are used; • Access to overlooks or scenic pullouts; • Undesignated parking areas where no facilities are provided for • Picnicking along roads or trails; and • In addition individuals under 16 will not be charged an entrance or standard amenity fee.

These provisions would become the basis for a lawsuit filed against Arizona’s Coronado National Forest for levying fees on day hiking from and picnicking along Catalina Highway as it rises up the flanks of Mount Lemmon near Tucson. A lower court dismissed the original suit that alleged the Forest Service was in violation of REA. But in February, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that earlier decision and supported the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding:

REA unambiguously prohibits the Forest Service from charging fees…for recreational visitors who park a car, then camp at undeveloped sites, picnic along roads or trailsides, or hike through the area without using the facilities and services.

While McKinney and other opponents of the Adventure Pass celebrated this legal win, yodeling for unfettered access to all public lands, their victory will prove Pyrrhic.

Because federal land-management agencies such as the Forest Service do not have substantial-enough budgets to cover their real costs. Because the 9th Circuit’s decision has stripped forests raise badly needed dollars to clean up such trash-littered, high-impact areas as Lytle Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest and the San Gabriel River Ranger District of the Angeles. And because the American people persist in their stubborn refusal to pay taxes without curbing their insatiable demand for “free” governmental services, these great scenic assets and essential recreational spaces have and will continue to collapse under the weight of our inaction.

Until we can legislate more robust and consistent financial support for the agencies that steward our public lands, no one – not even hikers – should get a free pass.

Char Miller is the Director and W.M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis at Pomona College, author of “Public Lands, Public Debates: A Century of Controversy” (Oregon State University Press), and editor of “Cities and Nature in the American West.” He comments every week on environmental issues. Read more of his columns here

Note from Sharon: There are other photos in the web version of this story, I just reposted one.

So what do you think; develop better legislation for rec fees, have free will offerings to a non-profit, start a lobbying group for rec funds or ????.

Feather Falls

This large waterfall, near Oroville, California, takes some effort in getting to. A round trip of almost 9 miles will keep the “tenderfoots” away. Luckily, the hike in the Plumas NF is quite shady and enjoyable. The diversity of plant life is impressive, with even some rare plants, like the California Nutmeg, finding places to grow. This view of the falls only includes about two thirds of the entire height.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Larry-Harrell-Fotoware/145797075533465

New Research: Who Litigates, Who Collaborates and Why?

A few years ago I received a phone call from from a researcher conducting a study about grassroots environmental organizations’ attitudes and behaviors toward ‘collaboration’ in national forest management.

Caitlin Burke, Ph.D., with the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources at North Carolina State University wanted to know about the factors that affect state and local environmental groups’ participation in collaboration, and how that affects representation, diversity, and inclusion in collaborative processes.

Burke set out by collecting data from eleven western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming), conducting a survey of 101 environmental groups that addressed forest-related issues and operated in the study area.  The survey gathered information about the organizations and their attitudes and behaviors toward collaboration, to test relationships between organizational characteristics and strategy choice.

Next, Burke did case study research of four organizations operating in US Forest Service Regions 4 and 6.  Fourteen interviews were conducted and various archival documents were analyzed to examine in greater detail the correlations between organizational characteristics and the choice of collaboration or confrontation.

Burke’s full research (all 268 pages of it) is available here.  A more accessible summary of the research findings can be found here.  In Burke’s own words, below are some snipped paragraphs from that summary based on her extensive research:

“The results show that large, more professionalized organizations and those with multiple values use a collaborating strategy; small, less professionalized organizations and those with a single environmental value use a confronting strategy. In other words, collaboration is not representative of all environmental groups – smaller groups and more ideological groups are not involved. This research serves as a caution to those who would use, or advocate the use of, collaboration – its use must be carefully considered and its process carefully designed to ensure the most balanced representation possible.”

“If smaller, more ideological environmental groups are not involved in collaborative decision-making, then collaboration is not representative of all affected interests and collaborative decisions do not reflect the concerns of all stakeholders.”

“Given the rocky history between environmental groups and the US Forest Service, it will be hard for the Forest Service to build relationships and trust as it initiates or participates in collaboration. Moreover, given that collaboration does not ensure representation by all interests, it will be hard for the agency to create representative and participatory processes. Finally, given non-collaborators’ reliance on law and regulations to participate in decision-making, the agency will continue to meet resistance to efforts perceived as undermining the statutory framework for environmental protection”

It goes without saying that Burke’s new research certainly provides some additional – and well researched – food for thought on the topic of ‘collaboration’ and how it’s impacting everything from national forest management, politics and public policy, to the relationships between various environmental organizations. Without a doubt, Burke’s research and findings should be required reading for those currently engaged in collaboration and those interested in the future of national forest management.