A Desktop Reference Guide to

Collaborative,Community-Based

Planning“The long-term protection and use of thepublic lands is everyone’s responsibility.

The BLM cannot achieve this without thefull participation and commitment

of the American public.”– Ann Aldrich, group manager, Planning, Assessment, and Community Support

A collaborative project between the Bureau of Land Management and the Sonoran Institute

About the Bureau of Land Management:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within theU.S. Department of the Interior, administers 264 million acres ofAmerica's public lands, located primarily in the twelve westernstates. The BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity ofthe public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Bureau of Land ManagementPlanning, Assessment, and Community SupportDOI/BLM WO (210), 1075 LS1849 C Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20240Telephone: (202) 452-5110

Web site: www.BLM.gov

About the Sonoran Institute:

The Sonoran Institute (SI) is a nonprofit organization thatworks with communities to conserve and restore important natural landscapes, including the wildlife and cultural values ofthese lands, in western North America. The Institute is pioneering a new approach to conservation called community stewardship,which involves working collaboratively with local people and otherinterests to advance conservation objectives, engaging partners suchas landowners, governments, local leaders, and nongovernmentalorganizations. This report is part of a long-term cooperative effortbetween the BLM and SI to build capacity within the agency andcommunities adjoining public lands to effectively participate in collaborative, community-based planning.

Sonoran Institute

7650 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 203Tucson, Arizona 85710Telephone: (520) 290-0828

201 S. Wallace AvenueBozeman, Montana 59715Telephone: (406) 587-7331

Email: sonoran@sonoran.orgWeb site: www.sonoran.org

COVER PHOTOS:Lower Burro Creek Wilderness Study Area, Wikieup, Arizona; ©Tom BeanVisit to Proposed Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, Arizona; ©Josh SchachterScenic Byway Sign in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado; ©Tom BeanCollared Lizard, Rabbit Valley Fossil Site, Utah; ©Tom BeanRafting the Dolores River, Colorado; ©Tom Bean

A Desktop Reference Guide to

Collaborative,Community-Based

Planning

2

Acknowledgements

The Bureau of Land Management and the Sonoran Institutewould like to thank all of the participants who attendedthe Tucson workshop that formed the basis of the DesktopReference Guide. We would also like to thank those people

who were unable to participate in the workshop itself, but revieweddrafts of the publication. We are particularly grateful to the staff of theBLM Tucson Field Office for co-sponsoring the workshop, which includedan inspiring tour of the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area.

Jenny Grossenbacher was largely responsible for the planning andexecution of the workshop; she also assisted in the organization and writ-ing of this report. We appreciate her patience, persistence, and attentionto detail.

Finally, we would like to give special thanks to Frank Gregg, BLMbureau chief from 1977 to 1980 and current SI board chairman, for providing a lively and inspiring evening discussion for the workshop participants.

Ann Aldrich Ray RaskerGroup Manager, Director,Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Northwest OfficeBureau of Land Management Sonoran Institute

“I am tremendouslyproud of the BLMbecause it was the first public land management agency toembrace collaborative decision-making.”

– Frank Gregg,former BLMbureau chief

For years, theBureau of LandManagement(BLM) has exper-

imented with collaborativeapproaches to planning andland stewardship. BLMfield personnel workclosely with diversegroups and individualsthroughout the West toestablish a sense ofshared responsibility andstewardship for the land.These efforts are oftenlong-term and labor-intensive. Working atscales appropriate to thecommunity and the land-scape, BLM employeesengage local residentswith a passion for theland and their communi-ty, while simultaneouslyrecognizing that these arepublic lands, managed undernational standards and laws inthe interests of all Americans.It is hard work and oftenrewarding. It is also a delicatebalancing act.

Community members—including ranchers, electedofficials, conservationists,retirees, recreationists, andothers—have helped to drivethis new collaborative empha-sis. They too have experiment-ed and learned along the way.Although some efforts havefallen short of expectations,

others have been successful,resulting in improved landconditions; increased trustbetween BLM land managersand the public; and manage-ment plans that are partially

developed by the community,instilling a sense of ownershipand responsibility.

This shift, away from theagency as “expert” and towardshared learning, trust, andresponsibility represents a fun-damental change in the waypublic lands are managed. Therewards of effective collabora-tive efforts are substantial and,for many within the BLM, thisapproach is at the same timethrilling, risky, and rewarding.

This Desktop ReferenceGuide is the result of a two-

day workshop hosted by theBLM Tucson Field Office andthe Sonoran Institute (SI). It ispart of a long-term coopera-tive effort between the BLMand SI to build capacity

within the agency andcommunities adjoiningpublic lands to effective-ly participate in com-munity-based land man-agement planning.Participants includedBLM field personnelfrom around the Westwith extensive experi-ence in collaborativeapproaches to land man-agement. They came totell their stories, to sharewhat works and whatdoesn’t, and to developrecommendations foreffective collaboration.

This Guide is forBLM field personnel—themen and women who liveclose to the resource, areactive members of their communities, and wish to benefit from the experiencesof others. The last section of this Guide lists the work-shop attendees, as well as others who could not attendthe gathering, but reviewedthe draft and can act as mentors. Feel free to contactthem for advice, and to sharepersonal experiences and lessons.

3

Foreward

Collaboration—a cooperative process in which interested parties, often with

widely varied interests, work together toseek solutions with broad support formanaging public and other lands. This

may or may not involve an agency as a cooperating agency.

Collaborative Partnerships and

Collaborative Stewardship—people working together, sharing knowledge andresources, to achieve desired outcomesfor public lands and communities within

statutory and regulatory frameworks.

— draft BLM Land Use Planning Handbook

Workshop DescriptionThe BLM Tucson Field

Office and SI hosted theworkshop in April, 2000, atthe Tanque Verde Ranch adjacent to Saguaro NationalPark—a perfect setting to dis-cuss the need for partnershipsbetween public land managersand neighboring communities.The workshop culminatedwith a field trip to theEmpire-Cienega ResourceConservation Area (RCA) inthe Sonoita Valley, south ofTucson. The Empire-CienegaRCA is an ideal example ofsuccessful collaborative plan-ning between the BLM andthe Sonoita Valley PlanningPartnership (discussed later in this publication).

The purpose of theworkshop was both novel and straightforward: to harvestthe experiences of participantsin order to assess what worksand what doesn’t, and whatchanges are needed to fostereffective collaborationbetween the BLM and itspartners. Specifically, theobjectives were to:

1. Develop a quick, easy-to-read reference guide on principles for effectivecollaborative, community-based planning.

2. Improve information aboutthe tools, techniques, andstrategies for developingand implementing effectivecollaborative, community-based planning.

3. Compile and distribute alist of contact names formentoring and informationsharing within the BLM.

To meet these goals,discussions were structured to address these three topics:

1. Collect and share recentexperiences within theBLM regarding the development of effectivecollaborative, community-based planning efforts.

2. Identify and develop keyprinciples that will guideBLM personnel in collabo-rative planning.

3. Develop recommendationsto encourage effective collaborative, community-based planning.

4

“It’s all about build-ing relationships.”

– Dave Kauffman

Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area, Arizona

Lee Nellis

BUILD LASTINGRELATIONSHIPSSuccessful collaboration

requires a substantial invest-ment in building lasting rela-tionships with neighbors,community leaders, interestedgroups, and individuals.Inclusiveness is the corner-stone of developing trust and building credibility withpartners. Informal, one-on-one dialogue is essential tocreating a safe and friendlyenvironment that encourageseveryone to participate.

Connecting with peopleoutside of formal meetingsand processes is essential andoften overlooked. It helpsengage those who would notnormally come to meetingsand prevents one interest orindividual from dominating.Field trips help people to con-nect to the land as well as toeach other. Many recognized

that the investment of timeand resources involved inbuilding relationships is differ-ent and less tangible than cre-ating a plan or implementing aproject. They agreed, however,that the investment was wellworth the effort.

Some tips to help buildrelationships: (1) Developtrust and credibility bybecoming involved in thecommunity outside of the roleas a public land manager. (2)Make use of festivals andother informal events as a wayto bring people together. Forexample, the San MiguelWatershed Coalition traces itsorigins to an "ideas festival" in1992, sponsored by the non-profit Telluride Institute. Thefestival brought togethermembers of the community,including the BLM, to discusswater and watershed issues,using the arts, music, food,

and talks as a fun way toencourage broad participation.(3) Celebrate successes, evensmall ones, to maintain groupmotivation, involvement,and focus.

“We have in place all the laws, policies, and

regulations. The challengeis to engage the public.”

– Jesse Juen

5

Guiding Pr inc iplesfor Successful Collaboration

The BLM field personnel gathered in Tucson identi-fied several guiding principles of collaboration—call them the seven habits of effective collabora-tion. They also emphasized that no one recipe

works in all instances. Everyone agreed to one essential message:When using community-based approaches to planning and landstewardship, remain flexible and recognize that every situation isdifferent. Also, understand that there are limitations to collabora-tive approaches.

The principles below are offered as a synopsis of that day’sdiscussion:

1

The Seven Principles ofSuccessful Collaboration

1. Build Lasting Relationships2. Agree Upon the Legal

Sideboards Early On3. Encourage Diverse

Participation andCommunication

4. Work at an Appropriate Scale5. Empower the Group6. Share the Resources and

the Rewards7. Build Internal Support

The Gunnison Basin Sage GrouseConservation Plan, Gunnison Basin, Colorado

Beginning in the early 1990s, peoplearound Gunnison began to worry about thedeclining populations and long-term survivalof the sage grouse. As Dave Kauffman of

the Montrose BLM office points out, “Sometimes people arebrought together by fear. In the case of sage grouse in Gunnison,it was the fear of having the bird listed—so it was fear of theEndangered Species Act and enforcement of the act by the USFish and Wildlife Service.” While fear can sometimes polarize acommunity, in this case it resulted in the formation of a forward-thinking coalition of diverse citizens who worked together todevelop a habitat management plan.

The process was helped along by the fact that the responsible BLM employee, Dave Kauffman, had built lastingrelationships through participating in the community. He wasinvolved in a variety of issues, even some not directly related to public land management. Dave Kauffman notes: “At first Ithought ‘what do I care about affordable housing? It has nothingto do with the mission of the BLM.’ But, by being involved in my community I was able to build trust, and this made a big difference later on the ground.”

In 1995, a habitat-protection initiative was started whenthe Gunnison Resource Area of the BLM invited a variety of

groups and individuals to meet and discuss the status and potential future of the Gunnison sage grouse.Within a month, participants representing the Black Canyon Audubon Society, BLM, Colorado Divisionof Wildlife, Gunnison County Planning Commission, Gunnison County Stockgrowers, GunnisonCounty Weed Commission, High Country Citizens’ Alliance, Natural Resources Conservation Service,U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, and several individualsfrom the general public formed a core group (15-25 individuals) that began working on strategies toincrease sage grouse populations in the Gunnison Basin. The goal of the Gunnison Sage GrouseWorking Group was to create a conservation plan that would increase the sage grouse population.The working group identified forty-two factors that may have contributed to the sage grouse declineand developed more than 200 conservation actions to help reverse the decline.

6

“The community wanted to be in charge and that’s why

they developed the SageGrouse Conservation Plan.

The USFWS okayed the plan,but then the community hadto realize that they also had

the responsibility to implementthe plan. In this case theresponsibilities were non-

regulatory and voluntary.”– Dave Kauffman

Male sage grouse©

Branson R

eynolds

7

“It’s about respecting and understanding each other whileworking toward a new relationship with the land. But we

also need to operate within the law. Part of our job is to helppeople understand those laws and how to comply with them.”

— Gary McVicker

AGREE UPON THELEGAL SIDEBOARDS EARLY ON

Field personnel must be clear about the “decisionspace” within which a collabo-rative group functions, and the laws and regulations thatguide federal land manage-ment. Consequently, groupmembers need to learn aboutthe legal mandates agenciesmust uphold, including theNational Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA). In addition,agency personnel need to beclear when federal lawrequires them to maintaindecision-making authority. AsDave Krosting, Lemhi BLMField Office in Idaho,observed: “The key is to leavethe decision-making process inthe hands of the community,but not the decision-makingauthority.” Many of the partici-pants have learned to commu-nicate the essential but subtledifference between responsi-bility and authority. While it is possible to share the decision-making responsibilitywith collaborative partners,the authority always stayswith the agency.

2The’InimimForest Plan,Folsom FieldOffice, California

In NorthernCalifornia, the rural-residential communi-ty of Nevada Countycame together towrite its own forestmanagement plan forthe public lands adja-cent to their homes. They wantedto reduce the potential for cata-strophic wildfire, re-establish anold growth forest environment,and cultivate a sustainable yieldof high-quality timber—of partic-ular interest to local members of the Timber Framers Guild of North America.

The community establishedthe non-profit Yuba WatershedInstitute to implement the five-year plan. Local citizens becamethe experts, developing sixteenforest management principles and a timber-management plan with a200-year cycle. The BLM clarified its sideboards up front to make itclear that they retained management authority. The BLM did theEnvironmental Assessment with help from the community and theplan went through the NEPA process.

This example illustrates two key principles of a successful collaborative. First, be clear about the legal sideboards and, second,operate at an appropriate scale (at 1,800 acres, the ’Inimim Forest Plan was “almost like a neighborhood improvement association”).

“We told the community ‘ifyou don’t like the way BLMis managing, then write upyour own plan, and present

it to us. If it is consistentwith federal law and policy,we’ll adopt it as our own.’ ”

— John Scull

John Scull

Shield’s Camp meadow

8

ENCOURAGE DIVERSEPARTICIPATION ANDCOMMUNICATION

Ensuring broad partici-pation in a collaborative effortrequires talking to a variety ofpeople in a community andwith an interest in the particu-lar area. Workshop partici-pants recommended the following techniques to help

promote diverse participationand effective communication:• Identify the “movers and

shakers” in the community,which often is not limited toelected officials.

• Learn the informal net-works and how informationflows within them. Identifythe informal leaders of thecommunity.

• Involve tribal, state, andlocal governments early inthe process.

• Hold meetings in differentplaces and at different times.Outdoor social events, suchas raft trips and picnics,encourage people to bringtheir families. Engage themas neighbors rather than rep-resentatives of stakeholdergroups. Organize field tripsto encourage people to con-nect with the land.

• Widely circulate a newslet-ter, minutes from the meet-ings, or other outreach mate-rials in order to communi-cate with everyone, eventhose who do not attend themeetings. Make use ofphone trees to encourageparticipation in meetings.

• Involve regional and nationalinterest groups early in theprocess.

• Answer phone calls and e-mails promptly (i.e.,within twenty-four hours).

3

“WEED” Theater National Rural Development Council

One way to involve the public in a non-threatening fashion isthrough the arts. Together with the Colorado Ecosystem Partnership (acoalition of state and federal land management agencies in Coloradoworking to support community-based stewardship), the Colorado RuralDevelopment Council (CRDC) contracted to have a play written aboutthe complexity of public land management. The playwright spent con-siderable time traveling the West and interviewing people before writingthe play. She chose a BLM field office manager as the central character.According to those who have seen early readings of the play, it veryaccurately portrays typical issues and problems surrounding public landmanagement. The play is to be presented to rural communities in a manner that promotes a more objective understanding of these issues,and the differing attitudes surrounding them. After each performance afacilitated discussion will be held with the audience. The same processhas been successfully used to engage community-wide dialogue on suchtopics as teen pregnancy and drugs. The play is entitled “WEED.” TheCreede Repertory Theater is now scheduling performances in a numberof communities in Colorado, Idaho, and Arizona.

9

WORK AT ANAPPROPRIATESCALE

The scales at which collaborative efforts may suc-ceed differ widely. The key isto work at a scale appropriateto the community and to itssense of place—even if the“right” scale may be largerfrom a scientific perspective.Decisions need to be at theappropriate scale in terms ofshared values. In some casesthe watershed is the appropri-ate scale, and in others it maybe smaller or larger, dependingon the community’s sense ofidentity with the land.

In some cases, a collabo-rative approach may not bethe appropriate tool to addressa particular land managementissue. Participants stressed theimportance of understandingthe limits of collaborativeapproaches.

4

“Listen to the locals. They’ll getinvolved, but only at a certain

scale. In a sense, everyone has a home range.”

—Dave Kauffman

San MiguelWatershedCoalition,SouthwestColorado, nearTelluride

The San MiguelWatershed Coalition is an example of a collabo-rative effort at the appro-priate scale. The missionof the Coalition is “topreserve and enhance one of the few relativelyundisturbed river systems andsome of the most beautiful landsin the world.” The Coalitiondeveloped a plan that gives guid-ance, provides a menu of poten-tial actions, and is voluntary andnon-regulatory. So far this processhas led to numerous changes,including improved visitor servic-es and safety; more input fromthe public on recreation needsand planning of new facilities;and combined hydrology studiesand jointly-funded vegetationtreatment projects, which led to increases in resource protection. Theeffort has resulted in more funding, more involvement, and increasedtrust and strengthened partnerships.

“BLM’s position from theonset was that the water-

shed plan would conform tothe BLM’s Land Use Plan.We told them ‘we want to

help you, just don’t break the law.’”

– Dave Kauffman

“The Interior Columbia River Basin Environmental Management Project (ICBEMP) is an effort that involves over sixty million acres of public land, five federal agencies,

twenty-two tribes, and over eighty counties. The key to reaching the project’s goals will rest on the ability to build collaborative efforts at the community level.”

— Jim Owings

San Miguel Mountains

© Jeff W

iden

EMPOWER THE GROUP

Agency personnel mustbe willing to accept the out-come of a collaborative processand must share responsibilitywith the public, both for plan-ning and for implementing theplan. A strong word of cautioncame from many participants:“Do not empower people andthen take that power away.Distrust does not fade quicklyor easily.”

Many noted that the roleof BLM personnel in collabo-rative processes is often toparticipate as an equal partnerin the process, helping to keepthe process open and inclusiveso that everyone feels equallyempowered. The process hasto start with the people of thecommunity, rather than origi-nate with or be driven by theagency.

Agency personnel shouldavoid the temptation to con-trol a collaborative process.A collaborative group shoulddefine its own decision-mak-ing process including groundrules for operation. In collabo-rative processes, the BLM’srole shifts from convener and manager to informationprovider and contributor. Asone participant noted, “Oneway to measure success is to note how the pronounschange from ‘me’ and ‘I’ to‘us’ and ‘we.’”

At the same time, it wasalso clarified that there is a

10

“I have a strong personal belief that this is the right approach toland-use planning on public lands. After all, we are the stewards of these lands for the public, and it is appropriate thatwe try and get the public involved in their management to the greatest extent possible.”

— Karen Simms

The SonoitaValley PlanningPartnership,Sonoita, Arizona.

The NationalEnvironmental Policy Act(NEPA) directs that to thefullest extent possible federalagencies shall encourage andfacilitate public involvement indecisions that affect the quality

of the human environment. Traditionally, BLM and other agencies haveincluded the public in planning at the initial scoping stage, and then “disappeared” until ready to ask for comments on a draft plan. This creates the impression that comments were ignored, and consequently fosters a lack of trust in the agencies and outcomes.

In 1995, the BLM’s Tucson Field Office decided to take a new,collaborative approach to completing the land-use planning needed toguide management of 45,000 acres of public land within the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area. The intent was to do so with fullpublic participation, in a way that truly empowered a diverse local group.As the BLM’s Karen Simms said: “My manager had a vision of an openpublic process, to recognize that our agency is just another member of alarger community. I think that vision and support has been vital to oursuccess.” This effort led to the formation of the Sonoita Valley PlanningPartnership (SVPP).

The mission of the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership is to “worktogether to perpetuate naturally functioning ecosystems while preservingthe rural, grassland character of the Sonoita Valley for future generations.”The Partnership is a voluntary association of agencies, organized groups,and individuals who share a common interest in achieving community-oriented resolutions to local and national issues affecting public landswithin the Sonoita Valley.

While the Sonoita Valley still retains wide open spaces, rural life-styles and values, and a great variety of plant communities and wildlife,it is within an hour of the rapidly growing Tucson metropolitan area andtherefore vulnerable to the impacts of rapid growth and intensifying conflicts at the urban-rural interface. To address these concerns, the SVPPdeveloped a shared vision, goals, and desired future conditions and specif-ic objectives for the Sonoita Valley. The group reached consensus on apreferred management alternative, which the BLM incorporated as thefoundation for the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area’sIntegrated Management Plan.

5© J

osh

Sch

acht

er

Community meeting

11

fine line between empoweringthe group and making surethat the sideboards are clearlyspecified. Appendix A (Guideto Collaborative Planning) ofthe draft BLM Land UsePlanning Handbook outlinesthe benefits of collaboration,including improved decision-making, better leveraging of resources, and improvedrelationships. However, theHandbook also makes it clearthat “the BLM retains thedecision-making authority forall decisions on BLM lands.”

Some helpful tips forempowering a diverse group,and developing a sharedunderstanding of conditions,include: (1) Offering trainingevents to provide the groupwith common knowledge andvocabulary; (2) Hosting guestspeakers, often scientists, whoare trusted by the group andcan help build a commonknowledge base and; (3)Covering a wide array ofissues, including social, ecolog-ical, and economic elements.This will allow for participa-tion from many in the grouprather than only the agencyrepresentatives.

Rio GrandeResource Management Plan,Taos, New Mexico

As part of the Land Use PlanningProcess, the Taos BLM Field Officeworked with commercial and privateboaters, local residents, and agency personnel to obtain consensus on long-term planning for recreationalfloating on the Lower Gorge of the Rio Grande River.

Although the physical capacity of the river could accommodate adiversity of users, the “social capacity”was strained, with conflicts arisingamong user groups, boaters, and adjoin-ing communities. The group developeda plan that would mitigate the impacton towns along the river by allocatingrafting capacity between commercialand private boaters, and by developingmonitoring strategies. With the knowl-edge that their consensus recommenda-tions would be included in the pre-ferred alternative of the ResourceManagement Plan (RMP), the group was able to circumvent previouslyingrained distrust and misperceptions to come together and create acompromise. By the BLM giving ownership to the people, polarity onthe issue was greatly reduced.

Progress was fairly slow on this complex issue, yet morale andfocus were maintained by striving for smaller and tangible interim suc-cesses. Early achievements of the group included boater education,increased respect for private property, and a reduction in conflicts.Ultimately the group agreed on a plan for boating limitations that variedby season, water level, and section of river. Their work, which serves as acase study in how to share the responsibility for a valuable resource, isreflected in the current RMP and is being implemented and adapted tothe dynamic conditions of the river.

“It was very powerful forthe BLM manager to turnthe decision process overto the community andinterest groups withinagency parameters.”

– Steve Henke

© K

.C. S

mith

Lower Gorge of the Rio Grande River

SHARE THERESOURCES ANDTHE REWARDSOne of the benefits

and guiding principles of collaboration is the sharing of resources and informationthat comes from working withmany partners. It is essentialthat collaborative groups haveaccess to the pertinent infor-mation needed to create a suc-cessful decision. This includes

scientific, legal, and socio-economic information. Cast a wide net for outside help—you may be surprised at whowill be willing to come to thegroup’s assistance. Equallyimportant is the sharing of therisks, responsibilities, andrewards of collaboration.Because collaboration requiresa team effort, it is importantto honor all those responsiblefor success.

BUILD INTERNAL SUPPORT

Collaborative approachesto land management requireconstant learning and adapta-tion. As a result, BLM personnelexperimenting with collabora-tion need to also train colleaguesand build support for the proj-ect within the agency. Workshopparticipants felt it essential toactively market collaborativeprojects early on to ensure thatthe budget process will enablethe BLM to follow through withcommitments made to partners.Building internal support willenable field personnel to takerisks and share power with thecollaborative group.

12

“Leadership needs to come from below the power structure,but ideally the process needs to be supported by the power

structure as well, in order to honor the group process.”– Dave Krosting

7

6

© Jeff W

iden

BLM lands in eastern Oregon

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

Hire diverse personnel One important way the

BLM can create a shift inthinking towards collaborative,community-based approachesis to go to the core of theBLM, its personnel. To respondto the increased diversity inthe public, the BLM’s work-force also needs to diversify.

Reward experimentationand risk-taking

The BLM can boost col-laborative approaches byrewarding personnel for theirpartnership traits such as risk-taking, relationship-building,flexibility, and a communalattitude. Staff should be evaluated—and rewarded—based on their success withcollaborative approaches.

Train specifically for collaborative approaches

Training is essential todevelop skills in collaborativeplanning and stewardship.New hires should be speciallytrained in the partnership philosophy. The BLM shouldencourage participation intraining courses on communi-ty-based partnerships, such as those conducted throughthe Partnership Series at theNational Training Center.Sharing of success storieswithin the agency—throughvideos, slide shows, a Web siteon collaborative approaches,periodic gatherings, and work-shops—is a very effectivetraining method.

13

Bui ld ing Effect iveCollaboration

Participants made several recommendations designedto make collaboration an integral part of BLM management practices. While the bulk of these referspecifically to the agency, it should be noted thatparallel recommendations could also be made of non-

governmental organizations, conservation groups, local governments,and other institutions involved in collaborative, community-basedplanning. While it is necessary for the collaborative efforts of theBLM to occur within certain sideboards, other organizations are similarly constrained. County governments, for example, also operateunder their own state laws, rules, regulations, and budget constraints.Understanding each other’s motivations and limitations is necessaryfor achieving effective collaborative efforts.

1

“I’ve seen a lot of good people make efforts to

make change. After theyleave, their work is

destroyed. If we wantchange to last, we need towork collaboratively. Wecan’t do it by ourselves.”

— Dave Krosting

© Jeff W

iden

14

Washoe County and Carson City, Nevada

Some of the most innovative collaborative initia-tives are underway along Nevada’s Sierra Front, out ofthe Carson City Field Office. They illustrate willingnesson the part of the BLM to take a risk, to try somethingnew, and to work cooperatively across public and pri-

vate land boundaries. For example, the BLM and CarsonCity (which has a shared municipal and county government) combinedpublic hearings and planning processes to arrive at a land-use plan thatmet the needs of both parties related to land disposals, acquisitions,recreation and public purpose lands, and the preservation of open spaceon public and private lands within Carson City.

The plan set the stage for the joint acquisition of the SilverSaddle Ranch, a 700-acre historic ranch on the outskirts of CarsonCity, straddling the Carson River. The city was concerned about theproposed development of a subdivision on the ranch that had previous-ly been identified as open space. Carson City offered to buy the waterrights if BLM acquired the property. The property was included in aland exchange in southern Nevada and acquired in 1997. BLM and thecity are putting the final touches on a joint management plan for theranch that emphasizes public access, the retention of key historic features, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife habitat, andhiking trails. The BLM is using the city’s water rights to keep a hayingoperation on the ranch because the public wanted the lands to staygreen and the BLM wanted the irrigation to maintain the wetland and riparian habitat values. When the city’s growth requires this waterfor municipal purposes, city managers have committed to replace itwith tertiary-treated effluent at their expense.

A similar effort is underway in southern Washoe County (theReno area) where the Carson City Field Office is participating in ajoint planning effort with Washoe County to protect open space. Asthe region grapples with urban sprawl and development pressures, it isno longer in the public interest to dispose of BLM lands around Reno,

as specified in the existing Resource Management Plan (RMP). The BLM has agreed to retain the lands it manages in public ownership to protect open space. Adjoining private lands needing protection were similarly identified through the county’s own planning process. To reflect these changes, the BLM and thecounty are developing a plan that will amend both the Regional Master Plan and the RMP.

As urban development encroaches on BLM lands, there is also an increased need for law enforcementto reduce vandalism and regulate off-road vehicle use. As part of the joint planning process, and in responseto concerns raised by the BLM, the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department has committed to take a strongerrole in law enforcement, and the county’s Parks and Recreation Department will manage recreational use on these lands.

“We are initiating a neworder of things in the BLM,fundamentally changing the

way BLM does business.Bureaucracies are designed

to reject change, and to create inertia. It thereforetakes considerable profes-sional risk to view thingsand do things differently.

But the results for the landand natural resources forwhich we are responsible

are positive, and the reaction of the public is

positive, and that is all important.”

— John Singlaub

Silver Saddle Ranch

© Thane H

auntz

15

The Partnership Series Training Courses

The Partnership Series is a group of courses all related to theidea that a more efficient and effective way to manage naturalresources is through partnerships between government, citizens,various interests, and communities. Courses are offered on the following topics:

Community-Based Partnerships and Ecosystems for a HealthyEnvironment

This course is offered at the community level. It is designed topromote an understanding of the concept of "community-based,collaborative stewardship" and seeks to establish new opportuni-ties for government and communities to work together. The coursedefines "ecosystems" as being inclusive of the community, andseeks to find ways in which science, government, and citizens can work together to maintain healthy ecosystems.

Learning Community: People, Place, and Perspective

A continuation of the concepts introduced in the Community-Based Partnerships course, participants learn to identify formaland informal networks, gathering places, and human and culturalresources within a community. This knowledge will help toimprove communication and trust between government and community to more effectively manage natural resources.

Community-Based Volunteering: Enhancing Land Stewardshipthrough Innovative Partnerships

Discover how to plan, initiate, coordinate, and administer vol-unteer programs, including understanding the value of volunteersas a community resource for information and support.

Alternative Funding: Looking Beyond Traditional Sources

Develop creative, new ways to fund projects. Find out how toidentify fundable projects, develop a comprehensive funding plan,and obtain resources through non-traditional funding channels.

For more information:

BLM – National Training Center9828 North 31st AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85051-2517Phone: (602) 906-5669Email: partner@tc.blm.govWeb site: www.ntc.blm.gov/partner

Elko,Nevada

Followinga PartnershipTraining Seriescourse hosted bythe Elko and Battle Mountain BLM FieldOffices, a broad-based community group wasformed, called the Northeastern NevadaStewardship Group (NNSG). The 100-membergroup—comprised of landowners, ranchers,university professors, agencies, and other localinterested parties—focuses on science with anemphasis on such “emerging issues” as thedecline of local sage grouse populations.Funding for NNSG is provided by the BLM,Forest Service, People for the USA, the state legislature, the Board of the Elko GrazingDistrict, and three major Elko County gold mining companies.

NNSG sponsored training on the NEPAprocess to help educate the community on thesideboards and legal requirements for the man-agement of public lands, sage grouse biology,and the natural science and history of the GreatBasin area. A sage grouse subcommittee wassubsequently formed to develop a joint habitatmanagement plan with all area agencies and theNNSG. This planning process is now underway.

BLM

, Elk

o Fi

eld

Off

ice

Sage grouse habitat

Partnership Series course,Tonapah, Nevada

Larry Bauer

16

PLANNING GUIDANCE

For some, regulationsand planning requirementsappear to be rigid and there-fore inhibit collaboration. TheFederal Advisory CommitteeAct (FACA), for example, issometimes seen as an obstacleto collaborative approaches toplanning. There is a genuinefear that agency personnelmay be influenced by specialinterests, and sometimes thelaw is simply misinterpreted.Additionally, the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act(NEPA) is often viewed as achecklist of things to be done,with public participation justone of the items to bechecked off.

BLM Planning Workshop participants

felt that field managers shouldbe given latitude to determineplanning in a manner that sup-ports collaborative steward-ship, in which areas thisapproach is appropriate, andthat the planning processshould be flexible. “Desiredoutcomes,” often measured interms of conditions of the landor productivity, should alsoinclude a sense of shared ownership, understanding,and responsibility.

Participants in the workshop who were closelyinvolved in the re-write of thedraft BLM Land Use PlanningHandbook encouraged the useof multi-jurisdictional, collab-orative approaches.

“While the ultimateresponsibility regarding

land-use plan decisions onBLM-administered lands

rests with the BLM official,managers have discoveredthat individuals, communi-

ties, and governmentsworking together towardcommonly understood

objectives yields a signifi-cant improvement in stew-ardship of public lands.”

– draft BLM Land Use Planning Handbook

Bio-Social Ecosystem Maps

The JKA Mapping Group, through anassistance agreement with the BLM, offersbio-social ecosystem maps. Designed to showhow the West is defined culturally, they areavailable at two scales: Social Resource Unit(101 units) and Human Resource Unit (425units). The boundaries of these units are different from administrative-jurisdictionalboundaries, such as county and state lines.

The maps are used for comprehensiveplanning, strategic issue management,resource management plan revisions, collabo-rative watershed restoration projects, andother community-based partnerships. Thesemaps clarify the social, cultural, and economicrealities of a specific area and the physicalresources that sustain it; simplify issues ofconcern to informal networks in the communi-ty; and help identify ways to communicatewith different cultural groups.

The use of bio-social ecosystem maps is addressed in the Community-Based Partner-ships course offered by the BLM-NationalTraining Center. The maps will be available on-line soon.

For more information:

JKA Mapping GroupP.O. Box 3493 Ashland, Oregon Phone: (514) 488-6978Email: kevpreis@jeffnet.org

or

Charles Pregler National Training CenterPhone: (602) 906-5504Email: cpregler@tc.blm.gov

“Empowerment is very fragile. As a governmentagency, we can damage itvery easily. We must learnto work in a manner thatinstills a sense of sharedownership and responsibili-ty. Our programs, policies,and processes have notbeen designed to do that.”

– Gary McVicker

2

The National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)

What was intended as a law requiring governmentsand citizens to work togetherto attain the act’s purposes hasinstead become a highly for-mal and legal process for gov-ernment analysis and review.However, workshop partici-pants stressed that NEPA canbe used with collaborativestewardship to encouragegreater citizen understanding,ownership, and responsibilityfor the environment.

Among other things,the purpose section of NEPAdescribes the need to achievethe “productive and enjoyableharmony between man (people) and his (their) environment, and to enrich theunderstanding of the ecologicalsystems and natural resourcesimportant to the nation.”Section 101 of the act declaresthat such harmony should beachieved “by the FederalGovernment, in cooperationwith state and local govern-ments, and other concernedpublic and private organiza-tions, to use all practicablemeans and resources, includingfinancial and technical assis-tance.” In other words, collabo-rative approaches to planningand land stewardship areallowed—and encouraged—under NEPA. Finally, Section101 recognizes that each person has a responsibility to

contribute to the preservationand enhancement of the environment.

The Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA)

Agency personnel needto be clear about what canand cannot be done underFACA. The draft BLM LandUse Planning Handbook has asection explaining FACA,including an easy-to-read decision tree to simplify thecompliance process.

Some workshop partici-pants felt that the easiest wayto comply with FACA is tomake sure that the group wasnot initially formed by theagency and that the agencydoes not hold strict controlover the group. This is alsoconsistent with the principlesof successful collaboratives,such as empowering the groupand setting sideboards earlyon. These sideboards shouldinclude a discussion, or insome cases training, on whatthe BLM can and cannot dounder federal law.

BUDGETS AND TIMEALLOCATIONS

Collaborative, communi-ty-based planning is an integraland increasingly recognizedcomponent of the mountingsuccesses created by the BLMand the communities withwhom they work. Workshop

participants had several recom-mendations on how budgetsand time allocations need toreflect collaborative efforts.

BudgetsBudget proposals and

annual work plans shouldaccommodate work associatedwith collaborative, communi-ty-based stewardship. TheBLM has recently reengi-neered its internal budgetingprocedures and is in theprocess of implementing thechanges. Specifically, the newbudgeting procedures aredesigned to: encourage peopleto prepare for long-term proj-ects, focus on achieving resultsin specific geographic areas,and encourage talking withpartners about funding capa-bilities and limitations. Theprocedures are also designedto be more transparent than in the past.

In spite of theseimprovements, workshop participants felt that the cur-rent budget process constrainscollaborative work and land-scape-level thinking. A possi-ble explanation for this is thatimplementation of the newinternal budgeting proceduresvaries depending on the area.

Some workshop partici-pants felt that the budgetingprocess should evolve awayfrom its narrow, programmaticfocus on “desired outcomes.”However, others commentedthat although funding is

17

“In general, a collaborative group is not subject to FACA if the agency does not appoint members to, or retain strict control of, the group and if all meetings are totally open to the public. Also, if the collaborative group is a diverse collection of individuals who are

providing their individual opinions, FACA does not apply.” — draft BLM Land Use Planning Handbook

3

dictated by outcome, a collab-orative approach is sometimesthe best way to achieve thedesired outcomes.

Many workshop partici-pants felt a caveat is necessary:Partnerships should be drivenby the issues and not just byfinancial incentives. There wassome caution expressed aboutpartnerships being createdsolely because there is money.Instead, the funding shouldfollow after a need is identi-fied by the partnership.

Finally, there needs to be a review of current rewardsand incentive programs toensure that they encourageand reward collaborativework.

Time AllocationsThere needs to be an

explicit acknowledgement thatpartnership work is legitimatethrough the creation of aplace for it in time allocations.As one participant said: “Ispend a lot of time on collabo-rative efforts, but I have noplace to code my time.”

Additionally, BLMemployees need to be givencredit for work done on stateand private lands, particularlyif this work has been identi-fied through a collaborativeprocess and if such work pro-motes the health of the land.To accomplish this, the agencymay have to seek expandedauthority to expend appropri-ated funds on work related tostate and private lands.

TOOLS AND ASSISTANCE

Shrinking budgets,reduced personnel, and theincreased workload of labor-intensive collaborative effortscall for a variety of resource-sharing tools. These toolsinclude assistance agreementswith organizations that canhelp the BLM form partner-ships, conduct monitoring,and develop community-basedcollaboration between theagency and its partners.Some specific ideas are:

• Use “how-to” workbooks to help the BLM and its

partners understand economic and ecological conditions;

• Participate in training programs, such as thePartnership Series, to learncollaborative approaches;

• Circulate model agreementsthat have been developedwith county governments;

• Develop certification programs for ecologicalmonitoring by non-governmental entities;

• Share lessons learned fromvarious collaborative efforts;

• Develop curricula for high-school students and involveschools and youth programsin collaborative efforts;

• Make use of assistanceagreements with non-governmental organizationsthat can assist the BLM andits partners to implementon-the-ground collaborativework;

• Develop and circulate an e-mail list of people involved in collaborativeefforts to facilitate information exchange;

• Develop a Web site voted to collaborative,community-based planningand stewardship.

18

4

© J

osh

Sch

acht

er

Red Rock Canyon NCA, Nevada

19

The benefits of collaboration include increasedtrust; improved working relationships with a variety of individuals, groups, and communities;the leveraging of scarce resources; improved management practices; and a sense of shared own-

ership and responsibility for the health of the land. The collaborative,community-based efforts of BLM and its partners are well underway,and have already led to improved land management practices thatmake the most of people’s passions for their community and land-scape, while at the same time adhering to national standards and laws.

From these efforts we have learned important lessons:• Be open, inclusive, and communicate widely;• Stay flexible and adapt to unique situations;• Take risks, but sell your effort internally;• Recognize the limitations of a collaborative approach;• Work at the right scale;• Set the legal sideboards early on in the process;• Become an active member in your own community; and• Have fun.

The BLM is at the forefront of this innovative approach to land management. We can all benefit by communicating each other’s successes and challenges. This Desktop Reference Guidereports the good work already underway and creates a network of individuals with practical knowledge of collaborative approaches to planning and stewardship.

Conclus ions“The long-term protection

and use of the public landsis everyone’s responsibility.The BLM cannot achieve

this without the full partici-pation and commitment of

the American public.”– Anne Aldrich, group manager,

Planning, Assessment, andCommunity Support

20

WORKSHOP ATTENDEESHector Abrego, Realty & Minerals SpecialistBureau of Land ManagementPhoenix Field Office2015 West Deer Valley Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85027623-580-5500Hector_Abrego@az.blm.gov

Steve Henke, Southwest Strategy Coor.Bureau of Land Management435 Montano, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87107505-761-8935Steve_Henke@nm.blm.gov

Jerry Jack, Project ManagerOwl Mountain PartnershipBureau of Land ManagementP.O. Box 68Kremmling, CO 80459970-724-3437Jerry_Jack@co.blm.gov

Jesse Juen, Field ManagerBureau of Land ManagementTucson Field Office12661 E. BroadwayTucson, AZ 85748520-722-4289Jesse_Juen@blm.go

Dave Kauffman, Resource AdvisorBureau of Land ManagementSouthwest Center2465 S. Townsend Ave.Montrose, CO 81401970-240-5300Dave_Kauffman@co.blm.gov

Dave Krosting, Area ManagerBureau of Land ManagementSalmon Field OfficeRt 2, Box 610Salmon, ID 83467208-756-5410Dave_Krosting@blm.gov

Gary McVicker, Special Assistant to the StateDirectorBureau of Land Management2850 Youngfield St. (CO-910)Lakewood, CO 80215303-239-3744Gary_Mcvicker@co.blm.gov

Denise Meredith, State Director, ArizonaBureau of Land Management222 North Central Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85004602-417-9500Denise_Meredith@blm.gov

Jim Owings, RIS Team LeaderBureau of Land ManagementICBEMP304 N. 8th St., Rm. #250Boise, ID 83702208-334-1770Jim_Owings@blm.gov

Jim Perry, Natural Resource SpecialistBureau of Land ManagementKremmling Field OfficeP.O. Box 68Kremmling, CO 80459970-724-3437Jim_Perry@co.blm.gov

Paul Politzer. Deputy Group Manager Planning, Assessment, and CommunitySupportBureau of Land ManagementDOI/BLM WO (210) 1075 LS1849 C St. NWWashington, D.C. 20240202-452-0349Paul_Politzer@blm.gov

Charles Pregler, Ecosystem ManagementTraining CoordinatorBureau of Land ManagementNational Training Center9828 N. 31st Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85051602-906-5504Charles_Pregler@tc.blm.gov

John Scull, Outdoor Recreation PlannerBureau of Land ManagementFolsom Field Office63 Natoma St.Folsom, CA 95630916-985-4474jscull@ca.blm.gov

Karen Simms, Ecosystem PlannerBureau of Land ManagementTucson Field Office12661 E. BroadwayTucson, AZ 85748520-722-4289Karen_Simms@blm.gov

John Singlaub, ManagerBureau of Land ManagementCarson City District Office5665 Morgan Mill Rd.Carson City, NV 89701775-885-6151John_O_Signlaub@nv.blm.gov

Dave Stout, Associate Field ManagerBureau of Land ManagementElko Field Office3900 East Idaho St.Elko, NV 89801775-753-0200Dave_Stout@nv.blm.gov

ADDITIONAL REVIEWERS The following individuals were unable toattend the workshop, but, because of theirexpertise in this field, were asked to reviewdrafts of this Desktop Reference Guide. Theircontributions added significantly to the qualityof this resource. They also may be contactedfor information and advice on collaborative,community-based planning.

Anne Aldrich, Group ManagerPlanning, Assessment, and CommunitySupportBureau of Land ManagementDOI/BLM WO (210), 1075 LS1849 C St. NWWashington, D.C. 20240202-452-7722Ann_B_Aldrich@wo.blm.gov

Helen Hankins, Field ManagerBureau of Land Management3900 East Idaho St.Elko, NV 89801775-753-0200Helen_Hankins@nv.blm.gov

Kate Kitchell, District ManagerBureau of Land Management3948 Development Ave.Boise, ID 83705208-384-3390Kate_Kitchell@blm.gov

Kit Muller, Special Assistant to the DirectorBureau of Land ManagementDOI/BLM WO (210) 1075 LS1849 C St. NWWashington, D.C. 20240202-208-5922Kit_Muller@blm.gov

Joan Resnick, Southwest Strategy SpecialistBureau of Land Management435 Montano, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87107505-761-8700Joan_Resnick@nm.blm.gov

Carl Rountree, Deputy State DirectorBureau of Land Management2135 Butano Dr.Sacramento, CA 95825916-978-4631Carl_Rountree@ca.blm.gov

Listed below are the people who participated in the workshop and contributed to this DesktopReference Guide. They are part of the growing network of BLM personnel who can be contacted foradvice on collaborative approaches.

About the Bureau of Land Management:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within theU.S. Department of the Interior, administers 264 million acres ofAmerica's public lands, located primarily in the twelve westernstates. The BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity ofthe public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Bureau of Land ManagementPlanning, Assessment, and Community SupportDOI/BLM WO (210), 1075 LS1849 C Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20240Telephone: (202) 452-5110

Web site: www.BLM.gov

About the Sonoran Institute:

The Sonoran Institute (SI) is a nonprofit organization thatworks with communities to conserve and restore important natural landscapes, including the wildlife and cultural values ofthese lands, in western North America. The Institute is pioneering a new approach to conservation called community stewardship,which involves working collaboratively with local people and otherinterests to advance conservation objectives, engaging partners suchas landowners, governments, local leaders, and nongovernmentalorganizations. This report is part of a long-term cooperative effortbetween the BLM and SI to build capacity within the agency andcommunities adjoining public lands to effectively participate in collaborative, community-based planning.

Sonoran Institute

7650 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 203Tucson, Arizona 85710Telephone: (520) 290-0828

201 S. Wallace AvenueBozeman, Montana 59715Telephone: (406) 587-7331

Email: sonoran@sonoran.orgWeb site: www.sonoran.org

COVER PHOTOS:Lower Burro Creek Wilderness Study Area, Wikieup, Arizona; ©Tom BeanVisit to Proposed Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, Arizona; ©Josh SchachterScenic Byway Sign in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado; ©Tom BeanCollared Lizard, Rabbit Valley Fossil Site, Utah; ©Tom BeanRafting the Dolores River, Colorado; ©Tom Bean

A Desktop Reference Guide to

Collaborative,Community-Based

Planning“The long-term protection and use of thepublic lands is everyone’s responsibility.

The BLM cannot achieve this without thefull participation and commitment

of the American public.”– Ann Aldrich, group manager, Planning, Assessment, and Community Support

A collaborative project between the Bureau of Land Management and the Sonoran Institute