Each of the groups listed in Section 2 may provide potential partnerships to managers, as well as potential adversarial relationships, as rangeland restoration planning and management is undertaken. Partnerships may exist more commonly among stakeholder groups and local management field offices than at national offices, because of a perception that too large a political influence and agenda may exist at the upper hierarchical level. There may also be geographic variation in stakeholder group-land manager interactions, as management offices in certain locations are perceived to have more experience in dealing with and involving the public. Stakeholder groups may generally consider these offices more progressive, and this attitude may be based on the level of coordination within the management office as well as desired and perceived personality characteristics of land managers. Some recommendations made by interviewed stakeholders for improving working relationships with land managers include:
- The inclusion of local expert knowledge into future management planning
- Increased clarity and consistency in management objectives and goals
- A shift in focus from post-disturbance restoration to recognizing and addressing the root causes of rangeland degradation
Adversarial relationships often manifest as legal opposition to planned restoration activities and management. Stakeholder groups who pursue this course have indicated that decisions to do so may be driven by:
- The need for environmental protection
- Perceptions that federal management often “cuts corners” in administrative and publicparticipation processes
- The belief that restoration treatments are applied at too broad or too large a scale
- The suppressing of relevant information
- Non-consideration of the entire set of restoration treatment alternatives by managers (compiled from Brunson and Peterson 2007).
While not all litigation can be averted, being aware of the local or regional environment in which restoration management takes place can inform and potentially improve the planning process. Knowing which groups are prone to or likely to file litigation to prevent certain restoration treatments from occurring allows land managers to recognize and plan for contentious situations that may arise. The following stakeholder groups have filed such preventative litigation in the past five-year period; once again, this is not a comprehensive list. It is meant to be a regional guide to help managers identify potential adversarial interest groups that may become active in their respective areas.
- Blue Ribbon Coalition
- Center for Biological Diversity
- Defenders of Wildlife
- Earth Justice
- Forest Guardians
- Friends of the Earth
- Idaho Conservation League
- Idaho Wildlife Federation
- National Audubon Society
- National Wildlife Federation
- Natural Resource Defense Council
- Oregon Natural Desert Association
- Sierra Club
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
- Western Watersheds Project
- Wilderness Society