4-3 (a) Initial Screening: Mudbogging

BLM and mudbogging in French Flat

The Issue:

I was hired to facilitate a meeting among representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, of Fish & Wildlife, and six members of the public. They will be generating ideas to stop mudbogging by off-hIghway vehicles in French Flat, which is a designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Mudbogging destroys habitat, and in particular the BLM is charged with protecting “desert parsley,” which is a threatened species.

(I can’t help it, every time I hear “mudbogging” I think of the song “Barefootin” by Robert Parker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzGJkmoREs  Or, perhaps mudbogging was the subject of the song by Nancy Sinatra: “These boots are made for mudbogging – that’s just what they’ll do – one of these days these boots are gonna mudbog over you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRkovnss7sg    😉

Although the issue is simple and all parties want the same result – the end of illegal mudbogging – possible solutions are elusive. The most obvious solution is more policing, but that is not possible because of budgetary anorexia. After the defeat of a proposed tax increase in this week’s primary election, the entire county will have only two sheriffs for patrol . The focus of policing in the rural areas is to thwart marijuana cultivation by drug cartels, clearly a much more compelling problem. Therefore, solutions need to be more creative, and the BLM field manager is congruently looking for help from outside.

People:

The invitees are people who have squawked to the BLM about the illegal use. They include representatives of environmental groups, well known to the BLM, who are in their turn knowledgeable of how the government operates. Some of these groups use the courts to advance their agenda, which results in headaches for the government. There is also arepresentative of local business development group. The local folks have pride in the area, and see the value of adding to recreational opportunities.

Parameters

Fish and Wildlife designated the species as threatened and BLM administers the land. BLM is strapped for resources, but Fish & Wildlife currently has more money. Although BLM has authority over the area, it moves slowly and any changes on the ground require careful planning and an environmental analysis.There is a resource management plan in place that calls for mixed use of the area. Furthermore, the area is open to entry for mineral extraction; it is not possible to prohibit mineral extraction without a protracted process.

The target land is bordered by private lands. Some or all of the prohibited vehicles enter the land via the private land. It would be an ideal solution if the Nature Conservancy bought the private land, because they could prevent access. However, because of the cost, this seems like a long shot.

Advisory committees to the government are strictly regulated. BLM is careful not to call this a meeting of an advisory committee; this group has been convened only to generate ideas. The BLM field manager retains decision-making authority.

The field manager who convened the meeting is interim. The new field manager reports on May 21, ten days before the meeting. My impression is that he does not know any of the other participants. If this is true, he would have positional power, but he might have no relational power / influence.

One of my client’s objectives for the meeting is to acknowledge the complaints made by the participants and review the actions taken by the agency to deal with the problem. I don’t understand why that is a concern of hers. Does she want to avoid litigation, is she uncomfortable with their frustration, has she gotten pressure from her managers to make progress on the issue?