Public Participation: Lessons Learned Implementing the 2012 US Forest Service Planning Rule
An Early Review of Lessons Learned on 12 National Forests
Prepared by:
February , 18 2015
-‐ Page 1 -‐
Acknowledgements
This report would not exist without the invaluable contributions of several people. Erin Swiader and Bill Avey at the Helena and Lewis & Clark National Forests deserve credit for the vision of harvesting lessons learned on public participation in implementing the 2012 planning rule. The 19 dents stu in our graduate level course on Natural Resources Conflict Resolution completed most of the heavy lifting by contacting the interdisciplinary team leaders and facilitators responsible for public participation in the 13 national forests that are revising and updating their land management nt plans consiste with the 2012 planning rule. Finally, a huge thank you to all of the people graduate that talked with the students about public participation, collaboration, tribal consultation, local government coordination, and the National Advisory Committee on implementing the 2012 planning rule.
The Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy accepts full responsibility for any omissions, errors, or misrepresentations in this report.
We hope that this report and project is the – beginning not the – end of harvesting and sharing lessons on public participation to implement the 2012 planning rule.
For more information, please contact: Matthew McKinney, Ph.D. Director, Center for Natural Resources onmental & Envir Policy Chair, Natural Resources Conflict Resolution Program The University of Montana [email protected] 406-‐459-‐5166
or
Shawn Johnson Associate Director, Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy The University of Montana [email protected] 406-‐381-‐2904
-‐ Page 2 -‐
Table of Contents
About this Report ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Findings: By-‐the-‐Numbers ...... 11 Synthesis of Lessons Learned ...... 12 Developing a Public Participation Strategy ...... 13 Managing Logistics & Expectations ...... 16 Informing & Educating the Public ...... 18 Seeking Input & Advice from the Public ...... 19 Using Professional Facilitators & Managing Public Effective Processes ...... 20 Consulting Tribes ...... 22 Coordinating with Local Governments ...... 24 Case Studies ...... 27 Carson National Forest ...... 28 Cibola National Forest (Mountain Ranger Districts) ...... 31 El Yunque National Forest...... 36 Flathead National Forest ...... 39 Francis Marion National Forest...... 46 Inyo National Forest ...... 50 Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests...... 54 Nez Perce-‐Clearwater National Forest ...... 59 Santa Fe National Forest ...... 63 Sequoia National Forest ...... 66 Sierra National Forest ...... 70 Tonto National Forest ...... 74 Best Practices for Consulting with ...... Tribes 78 Best Practices for Coordinating with Local Governments ...... 91 Lessons Learned from the National Advisory Committee, Forest Planning Rule Implementation ...... 102
-‐ Page 3 -‐
About this Report
Public Participation: Lessons Learned Implementing the 2012 US Forest Service Planning Rule synthesizes lessons learned US by Forest Service Int erdisciplinary Team (IDT) leaders and process facilitators and mediators that have begun working on forest plan revisions under the 2012 planning rule. The primary purpose of the report is to begin to assemble in one place the collective wisdom and experience of Forest S ervice personnel and professional facilitators as they relate to public participation during the forest plan revision process.
One overarching lesson learned is that a national forest’s approach to public participation should be thoughtfully tailored to the unique conditions and context of that individual forest. Accordingly, any lesson learned highlighted in this report is just that – a lesson learned from experience on one or more forests based on the unique circumstances facing that orest, f including its historical norms use, local and culture, and administrative and management capacity. At the same time, every forest is moving through similar steps and processes, and there is a tremendous opportunity to learn from one another and begin to assemble and share a set of best ngredients practices and key i for success. The key lies in critically analyzing each lesson shared and a considering how lesson from one forest planning process might inform the design and implementation of another orest’s f public participation plan.
This collection of lessons learned is – like each of the lessons themselves – best considered in the context of what it is and what it is not. It is an early and important look at lessons that can help an individual national forest craft its own public participation plan. Furthermore, it’s a useful look at sues, the collective is challenges, approaches, tools, and lessons that are playing out across . multiple forests is It not, however, rigid a prescription or blueprint for an individual national forest’s public participation plan. Nor is it representative of the views of the broader community of stakeholders or of local, state, federal, or tribal governments. Finally, it is not a full collection of e lessons spanning th entire plan revision process – as the breadth and depth of public participation experiences in the forest plan revision process moves forward, there will be a need to revisit and build upon these lessons.
The report is organized in a way to provide multiple opportunities to examine /is what is not working across the national forests currently working through the plan revision process. First, there are general lessons distilled across all forests as they relate to various stages of the planning process. Second, there is a of case study each national forest that provides a more detailed example of how the public participation process is playing out in a specific place. Finally, there are lessons focused on consulting with tribes; coordinating with local governments; and learning from the nal work of the Natio Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning.
We hope you find the report useful and informative.
-‐ Page 4 -‐
Introduction
According to section 36 CFR 219.4, Requirements for public participation, the US Forest Service (more specifically, the “responsible official,”) shall “provide opportunities to the public for participating in the assessment process; developing a plan proposal, including the monitoring program; commenting on the proposal and the disclosure of its environmental impacts in accompanying NEPA documents; and reviewing the results of monitoring information.” The regulation goes on to say that the responsible official “shall engage the public … early and throughout ng the planni process … using collaborative processes where feasible and appropriate.”
To facilitate opportunities for public engagement, the 2012 planning rule states that the responsible official shall encourage participation by:
v Interested individuals and entities, including those interested at the local, regional, and national levels;
v Youth, low-‐income populations, and minority populations;
v Private landowners whose lands are in, adjacent to, or otherwise affected by, or whose actions may impact, future management actions in the plan area;
v Federal agencies, States, counties, and nments local gover (where appropriate, the responsible official shall encourage States, es, counti and other local governments to seek cooperating agency in status the NEPA process for development, amendment, or revision of a plan; and
v Interested or affected federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The US Forest Service Handbook (February provides 14, 2013) a series of directives on implementing the 2012 planning, including guidance on public participation and the role of collaboration. The first paragraph in Section 43 of , the handbook explains “the full spectrum of tools for public engagement d should be use in the planning process” (page 17). The handbook goes on to explain the objectives, principles, and levels or types of public participation.
Beginning in the summer of 2014, the Helena and Lewis & Clark (HLC) National Forests in Montana started the process to revise and update its forest plan consistent with the 2012 planning rule. As part of this effort, the HLC or engaged the Center f Natural Resources & Environmental Policy (CNREP) at The University ntana of Mo to help design and facilitate a fair, effective, and efficient public cess. engagement pro
To inform the design and facilitation of this public participation process, HLC and CNREP agreed on the following process: (1) harvest lessons learned from the 13 national forests that are in the process of revising and updating their forest plans consistent with the 2012
-‐ Page 5 -‐
planning rule; (2) conduct “listening sessions” with key stakeholders in the HLC region to seek their input and advice on the public participation process; and (3) prepare a public participation plan based on these two ormation, bodies of inf along th wi best practices for public participation based on over 50 years of experience by CNREP staff.
This report represents the first – deliverable harvesting lessons on public participation from the other national forests.
Methodology
The first step in preparing this report was to identify which national forests are currently working to revise and update their forest plans under the 2012 planning rule. Working closely with the HLC and the Washington Office of the US Forest Service, the following national forests were identified:
v Carson National Forest v Cibola National Forest v Chugach National Forest (this is the only forest we have not talked to) v Inyo National Forest v El Yunque National Forest v Flathead National Forest v Francis Marion National Forest v Nantahala-‐Pisgah National Forest v Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forest v Santa Fe National Forest v Sequoia National Forest v Sierra National Forest v Tonto National Forest
Based on this list, graduate students working with CNREP contacted the interdisciplinary team leader for each of these national equested forests and r some time to learn about their approach to public participation and collaboration. The graduate students also asked to visit with any outside professional facilitators that a orest particular national f used to design and/or implement the public participation ess. proc After the graduate students completed a “listening session” with the interdisciplinary team leader and the professional facilitator – all of which were overseen by senior staff at CNREP – they prepared a draft case study. The case studies were revised and edited by senior staff at CNREP and then shared with the interdisciplinary team leader and facilitators to ensure that the information captured and presented was accurate. The peer -‐reviewed case studies are presented in this report.
In addition to focusing on the activities each and strategies national forest used to engage the public, CNREP and the graduate students also harvested lessons on (1) tribal consultation; (2) local government coordination; and the (3) role of the National Advisory
-‐ Page 6 -‐
Committee for Implementation of the National tem Forest Sys Land Management Planning Rule. A memorandum on each one of these topics ed is also includ in this report.
A draft of this report is being circulated to all of the people consulted during the research phase of this project (see page 9), along with the HLC interdisciplinary team and the graduate students that contributed to the research and analysis. CNREP will integrate any and all feedback it receives from reviewers in an effort to present the most complete and accurate picture of how public participation is proceeding in national forests revising their forest plans under the 2012 planning rule.
University of Montana Graduate Students v Donald Belile, Ecology v Benito Bursick, Wildlife Management v Amanda Coelho dos Santos, International Conservation v Graham Coppes, Law v Dylan DesRosier, Natural Resources Policy v Benjamin Donatelle, Environmental Studies v Jonathan Drygas, Environmental Studies v Amanda Farias, International Conservation v Brittany Goers, Natural Resources Conflict Resolution v Orry Hatcher, Public Administration v Andrew Hursh, Ecology v Hong Jin, International Conservation v Shefije Miftari, International Conservation v Gabrielle Ostermayer, Environmental Studies v James Person, Law v Nicola Preston, Environmental Studies v Kenneth Rand, Journalism v Gregory Sangster, Public Administration v Tracy Wendt, Natural Resources Management
-‐ Page 7 -‐
People Consulted in Preparing this Report
The following people were contacted before, during, and/or after preparation of this report. In most instances, these individuals were asked to provide information about the experiences and lessons learned with respect to public participation in the context of an individual forest’s plan revision process. In addition, individuals these were provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback liminary on a pre draft of full the report. The names are listed in alphabetical by order last name. ______
Mike Anderson, Senior Policy Analyst, Wilderness Society [email protected] and 206-‐624-‐6430 x227
William Barquin, Tribal Attorney, Kootenai Tribe [email protected] and 503-‐719-‐4496
Gina Bartlett, formerly Mediator, Center for Collaborative Policy; currently M ediator, Consensus Building Institute [email protected] and 415-‐271-‐0049
Kathleen Bond, Facilitator, KTB Decision Resources, Inc., [email protected] and 970-‐323-‐0290
Ken Born, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, nal Tonto Natio Forest, Arizona [email protected] and 602-‐225-‐5280
Christine Bradbury, Nez Perce-‐Clearwater Tribal Liaison [email protected] and 208-‐476-‐8332
Dirk Charlie, Tribal Liaison, Sierra and Sequoia , National Forests California [email protected] and 559-‐288-‐3529
Jennifer Cramer, Forest Planner, Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico [email protected] and 505-‐438-‐5449
Philip Crump, Mediator & Facilitator, ew Santa Fe, N Mexico [email protected] and 505-‐989-‐8558
Edgardo Gonzalez, Facilitator, Center for Landscape Conservation [email protected]
Annie Eberhart , Goode Ecosystem Management Coordination, U. S. Forest Service [email protected] and 202.205.1056
-‐ Page 8 -‐
Dorian Fougères, Senior Mediator , Center for Collaborative Policy [email protected] and 916-‐531-‐3835
Champe Green, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Cibola National Forest, New Mexico [email protected] and 505-‐346-‐3889
Larry Hayden, Independent Facilitator [email protected]
Carol Hennessey, Recreation Program Manager/Collaboration Coordinator, Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, Idaho [email protected] and 208-‐935-‐4270
Laura aplan, K Facilitator, Center for Collaborative Policy [email protected] and 916-‐529-‐4971
Joe Krueger, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Flathead National Forest, Montana [email protected] and 406-‐758-‐5243
Connie Lewis, Senior Partner, Meridian Institute [email protected] and 970-‐296-‐3055
Heather Luczak, Acting Forest Planner, Nantahala-‐Pisgah National Forest, North na Caroli [email protected] and 828-‐257-‐4817
Caelan McGee, Facilitator, Center for Collaborative Policy [email protected] and 16 9 -‐445-‐2079
Bruce Meneghin, Policy Analyst, Ecosystem Management Coordination, US Forest Service [email protected] and 970-‐295-‐5725
Mary Morrison, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, s Franci Marion National South Forest, Carolina [email protected] and 803-‐561-‐4058
Kevin Naranjo, Forest Planner, Carson National Forest, New Mexico [email protected] and 575-‐758-‐6221
Martin Nie, Professor, Natural Resource , Policy The Univer sity of Montana [email protected] and 406-‐243-‐6795
Timory Peel, [former] Interdisciplinary Team z Leader, Ne Perce Clearwater National Forest, Idaho; currently Natural Resource Specialist, Kootenai National Forest, Montana [email protected] and 406-‐283-‐7660
-‐ Page 9 -‐
Mary Rasmussen, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, h Chugac National Forest, Alaska [email protected] and 907.743.94
Pedro Rios, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico [email protected] and 787-‐888-‐5655
Tahnee Robertson, Director, Southwest Decision Resources [email protected]
Kathleen Rutherford, Independent Facilitator [email protected]
Judith Tapia, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Sierra National Forest, California [email protected] and 559-‐297-‐0706
Sharon Timko, U.S. Forest Service, National Collaboration Cadre [email protected] and 202-‐205-‐1140
Maria Ulloa, Interdisciplinary Team r, Leade Sequoia National Forest, California [email protected] and 559-‐784-‐1500
Lesly Yen, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, nal Inyo Natio Forest, California [email protected] and 760-‐873-‐2524
Deb Whitall, Social Scientist, US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (R5) [email protected] and 707-‐526-‐8823
-‐ Page 10 -‐
Findings: By-‐the-‐Numbers
v 12 of the 13 national currently forests revising forest s plan under the 2012 planning rule are included in this study; the Chugach National Forest is not included.
v All 12 of these national forests prepared some type of ipation public partic plan.
v Stage in the Planning Process
o Six national forests (Santa Fe, Flathead, Tonto, Cibola, El Yunque, and Carson) are near the beginning of the formal ther NEPA process, ei identifying the need for action or publishing the notice of intent.
o Three national forests – Sierra, Sequoia, and – Inyo are developing alternatives for various plan components.
o Three national forests – Nantahala, Francis Marion, and Nez Perce – Clearwater – are either analyzing alternatives or c seeking publi comment on the draft EIS.
v All 12 national forests used some type fessional of outside pro facilitation.
v 8 national forests member had a of their interdisciplinary team dedicated to public participation (although in many cases, supporting public participation for the planning process was not that person’s only task).
-‐ Page 11 -‐
Synthesis of Lessons Learned
The following synthesis of lessons learned about public participation under the 2012 planning rule emerged by looking across all 12 case studies, along with the three memos on tribal consultation, local government coordination, and the work Nationa of the l d A visory Committee. The lessons are organized by the following categories, which reflect in large part the general objectives of public participation:
1. Developing a Public Participation Strategy
2. Managing Logistics & Expectations
3. Informing & Educating the Public
4. Seeking Input & Advice from the Public
5. Using Professional Facilitators and Managing Effective Public Processes
6. Consulting Tribes
7. Coordinating with Local Governments
We want to emphasize, once again, that there is no “one size fits all” process for public participation and that these lessons will need to be considered in the context of a particular forest’s culture, history, and capacity. In addition, a these lessons are beginning – not the end – of documenting and highlighting lessons learned. Given the experience to date, this report nly o tracks lessons and best practices through the forest very early stages of planning under the 2012 rule and only includes the input of those listed above. e Th process of learning as the planning process unfolds should continue on an ongoing basis.
As forest plan revisions continue across the National Forests, everal s of the people consulted in the process of preparing ommented this report c that it would invaluable to:
v Learn from the public participation xperie e nces of other national forests;
v Provide opportunities for US Forest Service officials to periodically come together to exchange information, identify and document best practices, and discuss common concerns; and
v Use this information to build the capacity of US Forest Service officials and stakeholders to design and engage in more effective public participation processes.
We hope that this report and the body of work that went into it might catalyze a commitment to ongoing learning about fair, effective, and efficient public participation as it relates to forest planning under the 2012 rule.
-‐ Page 12 -‐
Developing a Public Participation Strategy
According to the US Forest Service Handbook, c “A publi participation strategy should be developed at the beginning of the planning process. The responsible official is strongly encouraged to work with the public to develop a broadly supported strategy for public participation recognizing that public participation opportunities will likely evolve as more participants gage en and the process develops. The type and exact timing of public participation opportunities may not be known at the beginning of the process.”
As mentioned earlier, all 12 of the national forests included in this study prepared some type of public participation strategy. In some cases, the strategy was apparently never publicized because it changed so quickly. In at least one case, the Flathead National Forest, forest officials and the facilitation th team worked wi stakeholders to collaboratively develop the public participation strategy. The value of engaging stakeholders in helping design the public participation strategy ey is that th will not only have more ownership in the process, but also will become more sensitive to the mission, mandates, straints and con faced by the US Forest Service in facilitating public participation during the planning process.
At a minimum, according to the 2012 planning rule, public participation is required:
v During the assessment process;
v When developing a plan proposal;
v On a draft proposal and accompanying NEPA documents;
v At the beginning of the objection period for a new plan, amendment, or revision;
v To approve a final plan; and
v When eviewing r the results of monitoring information.
Ten common lessons emerged from the case studies to help achieve these requirements and aspirations:
1. Design a clear road-‐map for the public participation process, including detailed schedules and opportunities to participate. Throughout the process, ask “what do we need rom f the public and why?” Be intentional.
2. Follow the guidance provided in the US Forest Service Handbook to:
-‐ Page 13 -‐
a. Facilitate participation during ssessments a -‐-‐ the intent of public participation in the assessment phase is to “gather as much relevant information as possible to inform the plan development process. Participation offers opportunities to share concerns about existing conditions and trends and perceptions ocial, of risks to s economic, and ecological systems. Public participation ssment in the asse phase also supports the development of relationships with and among stakeholders and can begin to develop a joint understanding of current conditions and available data, and it offers an opportunity for feedback to support a strategic, efficient planning process.”
b. Facilitate participation during development of plan components -‐-‐ “The intent of public participation during nt, plan developme revision, or amendment is to develop and identify zones of agreement relevant to plan components, where possible, acquire assistance designing in effective plan components, and obtain other feedback as needed. Topics that may be included in public participation include potential desired conditions, objectives, other plan components, and ntent.” other plan co
3. Build on existing and/or ng emergi collaborative groups as much as possible.
a. To the degree that these groups include multiple stakeholders with diverse interests and have demonstrated their ability to engage and produce outcomes, it can save a lot of time ign and energy to ass them cular parti tasks and deliverables.
b. It is important to keep in mind that relying on existing and/or emerging collaborative groups should be supplemented with opportunities for other people – that may not be part of a collaborative group – to provide input and advice.
c. This strategy can augment the capacity of the US Forest Service and its facilitation team to mobilize and engage people that represent diverse interests and viewpoints.
d. Established collaborative groups often have sufficient legitimacy and credibility to convene and sponsor public gatherings and thereby attract a larger, more diverse crowd.
4. Engage stakeholders in designing the public participation process, as demonstrated by the Sierra Cascades Dialogue and the Flathead National Forest.
a. Consult th wi key stakeholders via “listening sessions” early on to identify key issues and to seek input and advice on the public participation process.
-‐ Page 14 -‐
b. Provide an opportunity for stakeholders and others to review and refine the public participation process enting by pres a draft of the plan at an open public meeting (or perhaps even online).
5. Keep public participation plans (or road-‐maps) realistic; clearly define sideboards and constraints related to timeframe, budget, staff, and why some issues or topics may fall outside the scope of the planning process.
6. Use a variety of tools -‐-‐ including teleconferences, web-‐based tools, and e-‐ collaboration -‐-‐ to inform and educate the public, and to seek their input and advice.
a. Move beyond the use of “open houses” to present information, educate participants, and seek their input and advice.
b. Teleconferencing and web-‐based tools such as Skype allow more people to participate without incurring travel costs, particularly people that live long distances from the meeting sites; or f example, OurForestPlace is designed be a focal point for collaborative engagement in the virtual world. It allows stakeholders to be engaged in a transparent way, share ownership in the process and foster a community of learning to capitalize on shared knowledge.
c. However, not every person interested in the national forest and/or the planning process will have access to high-‐speed internet service. E-‐ collaboration should be designed to supplement, not replace, other forms of public information and engagement.
d. Different strategies need to be used to reach different audiences e.g., ( minority, rural, or under-‐served populations);
e. Use “potlucks” or other ways to facilitate informal conversations; bring coffee and food to every meeting!
7. Make the public process fun; offer gifts and food at public booths to encourage citizens to learn about the planning process.
8. Recognize that the public participation and collaboration process should continue beyond the planning phase. This means that engagement mechanisms should be designed to facilitate ongoing dialogue.
9. Consider ways to measure the effectiveness of public participation and collaborative processes.
10. Build on the experience and expertise of professional facilitators and mediators, the International Association for Public Participation, and the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
-‐ Page 15 -‐
Managing Logistics & Expectations
The top ten lessons that emerge from the case studies relative to managing logistics and expectations – both internal and external -‐-‐ are as follows:
1. Use project management principles to lay out the whole process from the beginning instead of going from step to step. This will help you “focus on the forest and the trees.”
2. Dedicate a staff person to manage all of the public engagement and collaboration activities; it is next to impossible to expect the interdisciplinary team leader or any other member of the team to manage their workload along with coordinating the public participation process.
3. Take time to build the capacity of US Forest Service staff to engage in public participation, and for stakeholders to know how best to engage in the planning process (e.g., use a professional facilitator to design and lead an orientation/training workshop, or use one of the off-‐the-‐shelf programs provided by the International Association for Public Participation, the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, or the Collaborative Cadre).
4. Aspire to “proper pacing.” Provide sufficient time for the public participation process to take place.
a. In some cases, citizens and stakeholders complained that the pace of the planning process is “moving too fast.”
b. While the pace of the process is partially driven by the US Forest Service deadlines and other sideboards, it takes time to meaningfully engage the public.
5. Clarify and remind the public about the process, schedule, and constraints or sideboards of the plan revision. Most national forests are revising and updating their forest plans with limited resources and a limited timeframe of four years.
6. Emphasize early and often that final decisions have not been made prior to seeking input and advice from the public. Explain that citizen input and advice will influence the shape of the plan; then demonstrate how public input and advice was used to shape the plan.
-‐ Page 16 -‐
7. Schedule public meetings, workshops, and other events at times that are most convenient for the public; be aware of what else is happening in the community and avoid competition with other social and public events.
8. Demonstrate the commitment of the US Forest Service to the public participation process by asking the Forest Supervisor or other decision-‐maker to participate in as many public meetings and community-‐based workshops as possible.
9. Engage US Forest Service staff in the design and implementation of the entire planning process.
a. Build a sense of excitement and ownership in the process.
b. Avoid staff turnover within the US Forest Service during the planning process since this erodes trust and confidence in the process and thus the outcomes.
c. Be careful about imposing a planning process from the outside, whether that is from the national or regional office. Allow local US Forest Service officials, working with local stakeholders, to design and implement the process that best fits their circumstances.
d. Given the amount of time you are asking citizens and stakeholders to invest in the planning process, make sure that US Forest Service can likewise commit the attention that the process deserves.
e. Be prepared, make people feel welcome and comfortable, and engage totally for the period of time you are working with the public. Give them your undivided attention.
10. Be patient, transparent, and adaptive.
a. To build trust and ownership in the process, take one thing at a time, stay in constant communication, be timely and prompt in answering questions and providing documentation, and openly communicate with everyone as much as you can given your capacity.
b. Communicate to the public that the US Forest Service will meet with stakeholders that request meetings.
c. Don't be afraid to adjust the format of a public meeting based on how many people show-‐up. Be flexible and adaptive.
d. Maintain transparency by sharing activities and progress continuously throughout the public participation process (e.g., via a short monthly online newsletter), instead of disappearing for months at a time.
-‐ Page 17 -‐
Informing & Educating the Public
The case studies provide nine lessons related to informing and educating the public during the plan revision process.
1. Manage public expectations by taking time to inform and educate people about the planning process, timeframe and schedule, opportunities for public participation, and sideboards – including what is/is not part of the planning process.
2. Clarify the objectives and thods me for public participation to minimize confusion and frustration.
a. Some participants may expect the public meetings to be more akin to a public hearing and thus expect there to be opportunities to address the entire meeting -‐-‐ rather than an open house format or working in small groups.
b. Discourage “grandstanding” to keep meetings productive and maintain a collaborative spirit.
3. Provide a fact sheet about planning terms and definitions (e.g., “standard,” “guideline,” and so on), but don't get bogged down in terminology and semantics.
4. Move beyond jargon to share information; use everyday language that will resonate with most people.
5. Use maps and other visual images to share information about natural resources, issues, options, and other information; keep in mind that many people are visual learners and that a picture (or image) is worth a thousand words.
6. Provide information, reports, meeting summaries, and videos online so people everywhere can access, review, and learn from them.
7. Encourage informed participation by providing suggested readings/homework and engaging directly with stakeholders to learn of their specific concerns before public meetings and events.
8. Begin each public meeting or workshop by reviewing where you are in the planning process, ow h you arrived at this point, the role of public participation so far in the process, specific objectives for this particular meeting or workshop, and any substantive information that may be necessary to facilitate an informed dialogue.
-‐ Page 18 -‐
9. Invest time and effort in mobilizing, engaging, and informing the public early on in the process; this should provide a solid foundation for future engagement.
a. The initial investment should catalyze interest and commitment to participate throughout the planning process.
b. However, beware that investing a lot of time in public participation during the assessment phase [while exhausting] is not a substitute to public participation throughout the rest of the planning process.
Seeking Input & Advice from the Public
Seven ssons le from the case studies focus on ways to seek input and advice from the public.
1. One of the most useful meeting formats to solicit public input and advice is to:
a. Present factual information first to ensure that everyone has a common understanding of the ssue i or topic in question;
b. Allow participants to then work in small groups focused on specific tasks and deliverables to maximize interaction and participation;
c. Ask each small group to then report-‐out to the full group;
d. Ask the full group to then identify areas of agreement/convergence and disagreement/divergence; and
e. Encourage participants to mingle and engage in more informal dialogue during a closing open house. This entire meeting format is best when it runs about four hours, though sometimes more time is helpful.
2. Allow and encourage participants to self-‐facilitate during small groups if there is an easy-‐to-‐follow format they can use and they are comfortable playing that role.
a. Alternatively, ask US Forest Service officials to facilitate small groups if they and the small groups are comfortable with that approach; be sure to coach any and all facilitators about their role and responsibility to maintain an open, inclusive, and unbiased dialogue.
b. Working in small groups encourages participation by people who would be unlikely to make comments to entire rooms. It helps participants feel more comfortable speaking up and sharing their opinions in such settings.
-‐ Page 19 -‐
3. Maintain realistic expectations about participants staying within sideboards. Clearly defining issues for discussion and the reasoning behind why some issues are not on the table helps to focus discussion, but some participants will inevitably want to comment on other issues and topics.
4. Use e-‐collaboration tools (e.g., collaborative mapping and/or a Wiki page) as a supplement, not a replacement for other methods to seek public input and advice.
a. Be aware that the use of such tools for public participation is limited given the lack of interaction and give-‐and-‐take with other participants and experts.
b. Online or e-‐collaboration methods also limit people’s ability to understand other interests and viewpoints, as well as trade-‐offs among options.
5. Listen when people are talking and use their words when capturing their input and advice during public sessions.
6. Demonstrate to stakeholders and other participants how and why the US Forest Service used their input and advice.
a. Given the divergent nature of interests and demands from groups with differing ideologies, carefully explain alternative scenarios, trade-‐offs, and consequences with each alternative.
b. Be careful about characterizing any outcome as “consensus.” Like collaboration, this terms means different things to different people.
7. Ensure that at least some “listening sessions” are open to everyone who is interested. Balance open sessions with “invitation only” listening sessions.
Using Professional Facilitators & Managing Effective Public Processes
The top ten lessons that emerge from the case studies relative to using professional facilitators and managing effective public processes are as follows:
1. Use professional facilitators to establish and maintain an open, transparent public process.
2. Use a professional facilitation team to design, facilitate, and manage public participation.
-‐ Page 20 -‐
a. The interdisciplinary team leader cannot manage public participation on top of all their other duties and responsibilities.
b. Facilitators can support interdisciplinary teams by assisting with the logistics of the planning process.
3. Focus the planning process, and thus the facilitation team, on the strategic rather than perational o level/detail; emphasize desired outcomes and avoid allowing the discussion to devolve into wordsmithing.
4. Realize that a recognized, credible outside facilitator can initiate and explain the planning, public participation, and NEPA process; update community members who are not consistently involved in the process; and build credibility and legitimacy to the planning process and the US Forest Service.
5. Don't over-‐estimate what a professional team can/cannot do, and approach it as an investment of time and money to meaningfully engage the public, stakeholders, tribes, and other governments.
6. The right facilitators can make all the difference.
a. It is essential that the facilitators establish and maintain positive working relationships with all of the stakeholders and officials (including the US Forest Service), in addition to having good facilitation skills.
b. The facilitation team should also suggest when and how to gather input and advice from the public, stakeholders, and other governments, and to otherwise design and manage the collaborative process.
c. The facilitator can and should also help maintain an open, transparent process when it comes time to integrate public input and advice nto i the planning and decision-‐making process.
d. The facilitator may also deflect some of the tension and mistrust directed at the US Forest Service, and maintain communication channels to interest groups that would otherwise not be as engaged in the process.
7. Take advantage of forest staff as facilitators/note-‐takers.
a. Provide orientation and training as appropriate.
b. Clarify their role as facilitators to the public – as facilitators, they are nonpartisan and impartial. Explain that they may also have other roles in the process, such a resource expert and/or decision-‐maker.
-‐ Page 21 -‐
8. Using more than one facilitation team during the process can be inefficient and perhaps ineffective.
a. In some of the national forests included in this study, two different facilitating teams were used in this first phase of the planning process. Members of the team noted that this can be a tricky transition, as collaborative efforts and public engagement are centrally questions of managing people, relationships, and shared motivations.
b. Facilitators are professional process planners and thus prefer to be involved at every stage of the game.
9. When engaging with a facilitation team on public participation and collaboration, avoid the inward-‐focused decision-‐making that is common within the US Forest Service culture.
a. Professional acilitation f works best when the facilitators are part of the interdisciplinary team and decision-‐making process.
b. The facilitation team should be involved in all aspects of the planning process, both internal and external.
10. Plan for newcomers at public meetings and workshops. Save time by reviewing at the beginning of each meeting where you are at in the process, how you got here, and the role of public participation to date. If ther newcomers have o questions, encourage them to meet with the facilitation team, US Forest Service officials, or other participants during breaks or after the meeting.
Consulting Tribes
The following lessons and prescriptions are designed to guide representatives from the US Forest Service and tribes as they engage in government-‐to-‐government consultation consistent with the 2012 planning rule:
1. The first step in the consultation process is critical. The Forest Supervisor should initiate government-‐to-‐government consultation as early as possible through formal consultation with tribal leadership. This initial consultation should:
a. Clearly describe the purpose, schedule, rationale, and importance of the plan revision process and the phases involved;
b. Ask tribal leadership (and tribal taff) s what their preferred methods of communication are and options for proceeding with formal consultation or (f
-‐ Page 22 -‐
example, Memorandum of Understanding, Partnership Agreements, and Cooperative Agency Status);
c. Invite tribal experts in both cultural and natural resource issues to engage in the process; and
d. Explain how tribal input will be taken into account.
2. Be flexible and allow the tribe time to deliberate.
a. It may be necessary to allow tribal leaders or staff to think about the question and discuss it with tribal committees, members, or tribal councils.
b. Make an explicit, intentional plan to follow-‐up and be sure to implement it.
3. Distinguish formal consultation procedures from informal types of communication. The Forest Service should be clear on whether it is notifying the tribe of an action or consulting with them and seeking agreement.
4. Forest Service officials should identify a single point of contact for each tribe during the planning process.
a. Having one person engaged and able to communicate with Forest Service staff and tribal staff is critical to successful communication.
b. The tribal contact or liaison should also ensure that tribal departments and tribal natural resource staff are updated and informed.
5. The demands of informally and formally consulting tribes through the entire revision process stress the need for designating a full time position to the task.
a. Communicating on a face-‐to-‐face level to facilitate consultation through the entire revision process with multiple tribes is going to be a challenging undertaking for planners.
b. This challenge highlights the need for Forest Service personnel to be well prepared, familiar with the consultation requirements and tribal expectations, and to plan ahead for designing effective ways of building relationships with tribes.
c. Keep in mind that tribes do not often have the capacity to dedicate the necessary time or resources for either informal or formal consultation.
6. Explore opportunities to integrate tribal interests by including tribal representatives on interdisciplinary teams.
-‐ Page 23 -‐
a. On the Fremont-‐Winema National Forest, the forest included a Klamath Tribal Member on the interdisciplinary team.
b. In that case, a 2005 Memorandum of Agreement mandated that consultation not only be carried out with quarterly meetings between tribal program managers and forest supervisors but also include tribal involvement on the forest’s interdisciplinary team.
c. This may be one of the most effective and meaningful ways for tribes to describe sacred sites, traditional ecological knowledge, and other sensitive cultural information; keep in mind that tribes are often reluctant to share such information because it may lead to potential degradation and/or abuse of such resources. he T Forest Service should communicate that tribal input about sacred sites and cultural resources can be protected by law from becoming public information.
7. Explore the value of working with intertribal groups and organizations (e.g. Montana-‐Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council) to seek additional tribal input. However, contact or consultation with these types of groups is not a substitute for conducting government-‐to-‐government consultation with elected tribal leaders.
8. Clarify and emphasize that tribes have the ability not only to participate in planning through government-‐to-‐government consultation but also through the public comment process, collaboration, and other forms of agreement, such as cooperating agency status.
9. Ultimately, the Forest Service must not only consult with Tribes during planning revision to meet the planning rule regulations but also to meet its broad trust responsibilities.
10. Show tribes how their information was used. Incorporate the information from such consultations into planning documents and the decision making process.
Coordinating with Local Governments
Several lessons emerge from an independent ow study on h best to coordinate with local governments. The full memorandum on this nted topic is prese later in the report.
1. Standardize planning processes among agencies -‐-‐ To local government officials, it often seems that all federal employees work for the “federal government.” It is understandable then why local officials (and others) find themselves perplexed when one agency planning process differs m vastly fro another. Wh ile planning processes across various federal agencies will never be identical, even the most
-‐ Page 24 -‐
marginal standardization among agencies could cantly signifi improve coordination. Start by using uniform language among the different agency processes.
2. Build bridges between federal and local planning processes -‐-‐ While federal and local planners may use similar language to ings, mean different th federal planning processes share significant overlap with their local counterparts, including: use of inventories; goals and objectives; mandatory elements; fixed planning windows; public processes; and periodic review and updating. However, local governments often lack resources, expertise, and time operating to seek co agency status. Thus, to increase efficiency, federal agencies should devise mechanisms to ir coordinate the planning schedules with local governments.
3. Provide early, genuine involvement and include all stakeholders -‐-‐ In the words of one seasoned federal planner, “The goal [of planning] should be to ve invol as many people as possible who are willing to spend the time and share their expertise, and to work on a team toward a common e goal. This is how th best planning is done and how teams make really strong, relevant hensive long term compre plans.” Like other cooperative processes, the benefits of substantive and thoughtful engagement of local stakeholders flows both directions. Not only do strong federal-‐local relationships benefit local concerns, but also these bridges create opportunities for local citizens and groups to better understand mands the rigorous de and difficult directives which typify federal planning across the board.
4. Create planning areas that mirror resource areas -‐-‐ Arbitrarily signing de federal planning areas without consideration of ecological boundaries often results in plans that do t no meet aspirational . goals The result is local “frustrat[ion] about the fragmentation of planning”. To counter this frustration, federal planners working on the Roan Plateau Resource Management worked Plan with multiple county stakeholders, each with differing interests, to design local resource management boundaries that mirrored county boundaries. Ultimately, this shift helped decision-‐ makers prioritize which areas could be opened for oil and gas leasing and which areas should be protected as critical watershed areas.
5. Have a succession plan for turnover during the planning process -‐-‐ There are both positive and negative effects of the enormous timespan over which federal planning procedures take . place One positive outcome is time for local participants to become acquainted with the complex setting. However, prolonged planning periods are not without their pitfalls. One of the most obvious is turnover. High turnover rates not only result in a loss of valuable institutional knowledge, but also lead to unconformity in application of critical nciples. planning pri Thus, both local stakeholders and federal planners are well served by training “understudies”, or designating multiple individuals with the same role.
6. Maintain relationships over the long term -‐-‐ Long-‐term relationships between local and federal officials make the largest difference in planning outcomes. Under the 2012 Forest Planning , Rule local involvement should not be relegated merely to
-‐ Page 25 -‐
cooperating agency status. Rather, local ould involvement sh be robust “early and throughout” the process. As a best practice, some federal offices are extending local officials broad participatory rights, even if they are not able to fulfill them, or attain official cooperating agency status. Successful and meaningful coordination is often the result of individual staff members who take the time to develop relationships with local officials.
-‐ Page 26 -‐
Case Studies
In the pages that follow, brief case studies explain the public participation efforts by the 12 national forests currently revising and updating their forest plan consistent with the 2012 planning rule. After the case studies, two memos are presented that highlight lessons learned about consulting ibes with tr and coordinating with local governments. nal The fi memo synthesizes lessons learned so far by the National Advisory Committee on Forest Planning Rule Implementation.
Once again, we want to emphasize that this report is only the beginning, . not the end It only captures the early stages of implementing 2 the 201 planning rule, and it does not include the perspective of citizens, stakeholders, tribes, and other government officials in terms of how well the process is working. We hope that this report, and the body of work it represents, not only informs the practice of public participation in ongoing and emerging national forest planning processes, but s also create a baseline and catalyzes a commitment to ongoing learning and sharing lessons about public participation in national forest planning.
-‐ Page 27 -‐
Carson National Forest
Location: New Mexico Size of Planning Area: 1.5 million acres Revision Start Year: 2014 Phase of Planning Process: Assessment
History of Planning “key people.” The topic and questions to be asked and discussed in the meeting The existing forest plan for the Carson were shared as a part of the invitations National Forest was signed in 1985, and notifications so the public would be under the 1982 rule. No attempt has been prepared and understand the purpose of made to revise this plan, although some the meeting. amendments have been made over the years. The current interdisciplinary team The public meetings lasted approximately (IDT) leader credits previous leadership two hours each. For the first hour, the for being engaged and well-‐informed IDT presented the background and a about forest issues as being the likely description of the forest planning process. reason for the lack of a need for revisions. They clearly described the purpose of the meetings so the public would be prepared The Carson National Forest is currently in and likely to stay on track. Each meeting the assessment phase and expects to also allowed a short period for “airing finalize the assessment in July of 2015. grievances,” which was kept on a tight schedule.
Public Participation Process For the second hour, attendees broke into small groups and met with USFS USFS staff attended facilitated workshops representatives. They were asked to write and listening sessions that helped prepare down their answers to the following them for the planning process. They questions: worked with a facilitation team to plan outreach, organize public meetings, and • How is the Carson National Forest prepare questions for the public to important to you and why? respond to at these meetings. • What changes have you seen on the At the onset of the assessment phase, the Carson National Forest? IDT leader held formal and informal public meetings in 14 local communities, • How do you hope the forest will serve with a total of approximately 225 future generations? attendees. The public was made aware of these meetings through notices on The USFS representative read back the buildings, in newspapers, and direct answers to all questions and they were mailings. Additionally, USFS employees discussed within the small groups. After called and issued personal invitations to the small group dialogue, the USFS
-‐ Page 28 -‐
representative from each small group positive. Many of the communities in presented a summary of the group’s which public meetings were held are answers to the entire room. small, so the IDT leader was pleased with an overall turnout of 225. The objectives of these exercises were for the participants to know that the USFS The feedback received ublic at the p was listening, and for participants to meetings was overwhelming and very speak to one another. The public was positive. Attendees were given index encouraged to avoid discussion of specific cards on which to respond to the three projects or issues in order to focus on the forest questions, and often they filled one overall plan. USFS representatives did or both sides with their answers. In the not wear uniforms to the public meetings end, over 1,500 responses were in order to remove any barriers to trust catalogued and transcribed. and provide a more relaxed atmosphere.
The Carson National Forest used Based on the surveys given out at the facilitators to help design and facilitate conclusion of the public meetings, it is the public engagement process. The clear that the majority of the attendees facilitators advised the IDT on public were pleased with the meeting and outreach, created the questions for the planning process – frequently returning public meetings, and compiled and scores of /10. 10 It was noted that many transcribed the 1,500 responses to the attendees who arrived with negative forest questions. The facilitation team feelings about the USFS left with a also surveyed public meeting ipants partic positive attitude about the meeting, and as to their level of satisfaction with the as a result, an improved attitude about meeting process. Public responses to the the USFS. Many attendees commented forest questions and surveys were then that this was the first time they felt like compiled in a final report by the the USFS was really listening, and that facilitator, which was given to the IDT this was the first time they themselves leader. spoke and listened to different forest user groups.
Results Lessons Learned The USFS has a large obstacle to overcome in the New Mexico region. It v The most important lesson learned so has been seen by the public in a negative far is that it is important to educate light, often viewed as that an agency the public about the planning process "stole" the public's lands. The IDT is and timeframe in order to manage hoping that by having an inclusive, open public expectations. format for the forest planning process, they can reverse some of the previous Conversations with the public about negative perspectives. the forest plan began very early and there has been some frustration at the The response to the assessment phase length f o time the process takes. In from the public to date has been very retrospect, the IDT leader d indicate that the public could have been better
-‐ Page 29 -‐
informed about the timeline for the provide advice to one another. planning process. For More Information v During the initial public meetings, the IDT leader learned that there are The Carson National Forest has several complications with scheduling events planning and strategic documents in small rural communities. For some available to the public: public meetings, attendance was low (or nil) due to other events happening http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/carson/la in the community at the same time. ndmanagement/planning Meetings held on Saturdays also yielded a turnout poor . v Another lesson has been that the right facilitators make all the difference in this process. It is essential that the facilitators establish and maintain positive working relationship with all of the stakeholders (including the USFS), in addition to having good facilitation skills.
Next Steps
Carson National Forest is now working to engage key groups in the planning process and make a conscious, deliberate effort to bring representative voices into the fold. They are making a deliberate effort to include environmental groups, which have been hardest to reach. Other key groups include recreationists – bicycle, grazing, rock climbing and OHV organizations. Over the next nine months Carson National Forest plans to contact these groups and discuss effective collaboration, what forest plans could look like, and attempt to get the right people at table. the
Given that other nearby national forests are also working on updating their forest plans, the Carson National Forest and these other national forests are working together to compare lessons learned and
-‐ Page 30 -‐
Cibola National Forest (Mountain Ranger Districts)
Location: Central New Mexico Size of Planning Area: 4 Ranger Districts, 10 counties, 2,553 square miles Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: Assessment
History of Planning publicly through -‐ a web based reading room. Public comments received were The existing plan for the Cibola National considered for integration in the draft Forest was adopted in 1985 using the assessment report and preliminary needs 1982 Planning Rule. There were no for change statements. attempts to revise in previous years. The 1985 plan was amended 15 times and has The National Environmental Policy Act never been brought to litigation. The (NEPA) scoping process will start with process was started in October 2012. publication of a notice of intent (NOI) to develop an environmental impact The goal of plan revision is to identify statement EIS ( ) on a revised forest plan areas of the existing plan (1985) that and alternatives in the Federal Register, need to change to address current risks to anticipated in January 2015. Further sustainability and to provide a vision for input on plan revision topics will be future management. This is being gathered from the public, tribes, land accomplished by the development of a grants (Hispanic landholding rapid assessment of 15 resource topic communities granted land by the Mexican areas pertinent to the Cibola and through or Spanish Governments before annex by public collaborative sessions. the United States), agencies, local governments, and other entities. In April 2014, the Cibola National Forest released a draft assessment report The Cibola National Forest has not yet followed by a series of public meetings to initiated the scoping process. However, review, discuss, and accept input and they expect the public participation advice on the draft report. Additional process for the scoping process to be collaborative work sessions allowed the similar to the public participation process public to contribute ideas on needs for used during the assessment phase. change to the existing plan based on an understanding of the assessment findings. Following the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register, a scoping phase will The forest planners also gathered provide people the opportunity to wilderness inventory comments Sept. 9 comment on the NOI for 45 days. The NOI through Nov. 21, 2014 with the online will provide a condensed summary of the mapping tool and written submissions. needs for change to the existing plan and provide the justification for revising the As a part of the assessment phase, existing plan and developing alternative planners made comments available plans in an EIS.
-‐ Page 31 -‐
More detailed need-‐for-‐change one of the fundamental principles of adult statements will be posted on the forest social learning. plan revision webpage for public review and will inform the development of To that end, the planning staff and KTB components and direction e for th revised Decision Resources identified meeting plan. In this document, each public objectives for each phase and reviewed comment received during the for needs-‐ -‐ tools/techniques to reach those change collaborative work sessions was objectives. identified as to whether it was incorporated into a need-‐for-‐change For example, the three objectives of statement; was redundant with existing meetings for the Draft Assessment law, regulation, or ; policy would be useful Release (May 2014) were to: in other plan content; or was outside of the scope of a forest plan or Forest v Present information about the Draft Service authority. Assessment and key findings.
Scoping will include formal consultation v Identify additional opportunities for with tribes (a federal requirement), involvement in plan revision. Government entities such as, counties, state recognized grants, land soil and v Provide an opportunity for water conservation districts, and other participants to discuss specific topics government agencies. The BLM and New in the assessment and provide Mexico Department of Game and Fish will feedback. be invited during the scoping period to participate as cooperating agencies in the The Draft Assessment Release public development of an EIS. meetings used Open Space Technology (OST) as a tool for participants to learn and discuss the 15 key themes/findings in Public Participation Process the document. Participants self-‐selected into break out groups, learned about the The US Forest Service hired KTB Decision topic from the discussion, contributed Resources to help design and facilitate the ideas, and freely moved from group to public participation process. group. At the end of the meeting, a spokesperson from each topic area The public participation process followed shared comments/ideas from that the tenets of social learning, which discussion to the larger group. provides opportunities for mutual Participants were encouraged to fill out learning and dialogue in the context of an evaluation form before they left in complex public policy decisions. The order to help inform the process. meetings and workshops were designed to enhance understanding of technical In addition, the facilitator conducted a aspects of plan revision and to provide debriefing of Cibola NF staff after each opportunities for participants, and Cibola meeting to evaluate the progress of the NF staff, to share information about procedure (process), substance, and issues and concerns. Small group work is relationship-‐building of the meeting. The facilitator and Cibola NF staff reviewed
-‐ Page 32 -‐
the feedback and made the appropriate A number of groups hosted their own adaptations for the next meeting. meetings and invited Cibola NF staff to attend and present findings and discuss The facilitator and Forest ff Service sta issues. One particularly successful self-‐ conducted 35 public meetings using the convened group meeting was hosted by following format: the Canon de Carnuel Land Grant Community and was facilitated by Land v Present an overview of the plan Grant members. This was a first in the revision process and assessment long history between Cibola NF and local findings, along with the process to land grants where Cibola staff came to a inventory potential wilderness areas. meeting hosted and moderated by land grant members. Both Cibola staff and land v Allow participants to choose grant members were extremely pleased engagement in various break-‐out by this successful collaborative event. work groups, organized around Similar presentations were given to non-‐ resource topic areas (often referred to governmental organizations (NGOs), civic as an “open space collaborative groups, trade associations, county technique”) to ask questions and to commissions, and tribal and inter-‐tribal provide input. These sessions were groups at their hosted meetings. based around maps and resource topic areas. Public comments were accepted l by emai at a dedicated email address, web forms, Public meetings and collaborative work recording of public comments at meetings, sessions lasted approximately three postal mail, and through a collaborative hours. The public meetings were held in mapping tool used for location-‐based the afternoons or evenings. concern mapping and potential wilderness inventory and evaluation. The The independent, contract mapping tool allowed the public to draw facilitator/collaboration coordinator points, lines, or polygons on a map moderates and documents workshops identifying areas and features to inform a and public meetings as well as reviewing decision regarding whether an area was public documents posted on the web and potentially suitable for wilderness press releases. The coordinator also consideration. Photos ould c also be generates ideas on how to structure the attached to a point location. workshops to get the most meaningful input from the public. The forest plan revision webpage is designed to be accessible and lays out all One ollaboration c tool being used to information related to the plan. Among gather input are self-‐convening, self-‐ other documents on the website are a directed groups. These groups are formed summary of key points and FAQs that by topic and/or locality with members of clarify questions that have come up in the group reporting comments to the public discourse. planning team. Groups are asked to review planning documents and facilitate The Cibola National st Fore has a mailing their own meetings. Questions can be list of about 2,000 individuals, tribes, land referred to planners, if needed. grants, NGOs, and state agencies. The US
-‐ Page 33 -‐
Forest Service notifies people on the Lessons Learned mailing list about upcoming public meetings, new information on the web The Cibola National Forest has site, and opportunities to provide input approached the plan revision process by and advice via the mapping tool. using every tool available to them engage the public. They feel that so far Maps are available on the planning they have had a successful public website that can be downloaded and engagement program and have gathered printed out to show the initial inventory substantial public comment on the of potentially suitable areas for assessment of conditions, trends, and wilderness consideration. The maps are risks to sustainability pertinent to the used to inform the public about what ecosystem services the Cibola National areas are being considered in the Forest provides. inventory phase of the potentially suitable wilderness assessment. The Cibola has also gathered substantial input on the needs for change to the existing plan to be addressed in the new Results plan. The Cibola has limited resources and a team of three is charged with the Within the Cibola National Forest rewriting the plan within a limited mountain ranger districts, some groups timeframe of four years, due to budgetary are not as interested in the actual restrictions. The tion addi of the facilitator assessment but oppose the wilderness has been helpful in gauging when and inventory and evaluation process and the how useful information can be collected previous travel management decisions and for figuring out what to do with the from previous years. These groups have information and make it useful to the been passionate about their opinions on process. the process and have been vocal at public meetings and collaborative workshops. The facilitation and collaboration coordinator has also been ul helpf in Other interagency tools were used during deflecting some of the tension and the assessment phase that were valuable, mistrust directed at the Forest Service such as the “Sharepoint” -‐ site, a web based and has maintained open channels of forum, where all early and mid-‐adopter communication to interest groups that forests post documents used for a would otherwise not be as engaged in the particular aspect of forest plan revision. process. This resource is available ther for o forests to learn from, and to adapt whatever methods meet their particular needs and For More Information interests. Sharepoint allows planners to learn everything other national forests “Cibola Forest Plan on." Revisi (2012) 15 have done within the plan revision Nov. 2014 process, including public participation
-‐ Page 34 -‐
"Potential Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Process." 15 Nov. 2014
-‐ Page 35 -‐
El Yunque National Forest
Location: Northeastern Puerto Rico Size of Planning Area: 28,434 acres of wilderness Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: Scoping
History of Planning Researched and developed a robust public ngagement e plan centered on El Yunque National Forest (EYNF) public notification, professional survey, published the existing Forest Plan in 1997 and public discussion campaigns. under NFMA planning regulations under the 1993 planning rules. The 1997 Forest The EYNF team began engaging the public Plan was, in part, a response to public by broadcasting their work through an outcry over a 1996 attempt at a Forest active public notification initiative. These Plan revision. Three amendments have ongoing efforts are “…related to the been adopted to the 1997 plan since its Inform and Consult strategies in the inception. These amendments were Spectrum of Engagement (NEPA) section. largely made in response to changes in The objective of the public notification environmental, social, and economic initiative is to communicate with the conditions. T he EYNF team initiated the public the revision process and to gather latest revision of their forest plan late in comments about the scope, and multiple 2012. drafts of the plan.”i The initiative includes facilitated listening sessions, traditional media campaigns, workshops, and public Public Participation Process engagement through festivals and local events. With 1996 still fresh in their memory, the EYNF team began by building their Next, he t EYNF team launched a capacity for public engagement as follows. professional survey with the goal of The team: creating a baseline understanding of different sectors’ “… environmental • Used information collected from the knowledge, behavior, and dispositions, public in 1996/1997 as a base and understandings about environmental platform to address nine areas of policy/management.”i This information improvement identified through was needed to develop meaningful public listening sessions; opportunities for public participation and to reach common understanding between • Engaged the Center for Landscape the Forest Service and the public. Conservation* (CCP) to facilitate the public participation process; and The Forest Service also began a public discussion campaign. The campaign consisted of meetings and activities designed to generate public discussion .
-‐ Page 36 -‐
The content and format of the discussions • Encourage broad involvement and was determined collaboratively between dialogue throughout the entire 2012 the National Forest, CCP , and the group revision process. members. Additionally, this strategy supported the Forest Service’s efforts to Additionally, the EYNF team, in increase communities’ long-‐term conjunction with the PCCC and the Center environmental literacy across the . region for Landscape Conservation Collaboration, The objectives of the campaigns were : further developed and refined eir th public participation strategy based on the ideas v Coordinate “…a regional discussion and information generated during these through environmental and initial sessions. community-‐based organizations and municipalities during the three phases In preparation for the scoping phase of of consultation”i in accordance with the process, the team dipped into their the Revision Plan calendar; pool of contacts (generated by the PCCC) and formed a second professional v Share, collect, and discuss information committee comprised of a balanced related to the environment and the sample of leaders from: EYNF’s Planning Process; and • Local municipal planning teams v Increase participation of, and • Protected land management awareness among a key target • Traditional business population: low-‐income youth. • Universities/research professionals Out of these workshops, spontaneously a • Non-‐governmental organizations formed, self-‐organized public engagement • Outfitters/tourism committee emerged. The committee, known as the Public Committee for Both the PCCC and the professional Collaboration Consultation ) (PCCC , is committee described above then began to comprised of 22 volunteer community work in tandem to increase the overall members and took upon itself the task of understanding of public . opinion developing additional ways to increase community involvement. As a result of the Both committees also wrote a revised list PCCC’s yearlong efforts to gain of goals and guidelines in accordance with community buy in, the EYNF team was the EYNF USFS mission statement. A able to extend their reach by: preliminary initiative sheet outlining proposed courses of action and educating • Presenting their findings and seeking the public on the planning process was input from scientific forums; generated and distributed throughout the broader community. This is where the • Discussing past experiences and process stands currently. future goals with stakeholders at numerous public venues (i.e. public schools, etc.); and
-‐ Page 37 -‐
Results • Balance lay participation with professional opinion; Throughout the planning phase, the EYNF team has received extensive public input • Use professional facilitation teams to and grassroots involvement. This positive design and execute information-‐ energy has generated feedback about: gathering processes, but realize this will delay the overall process. Build • Public use of the forest and associated timelines accordingly; resources and the values attached to the land; • Keep professional facilitation teams focused on the strategic level (rather • Public perception of emerging ues iss than operational); Keep them on and trends, especially surrounding the track; issues associated with climate change; • Use project management principles to • Public opinion on what is working or lay out the whole process from the not working in the current Forest Plan beginning instead of going from step with special emphasis placed on to step; seek help if needed. This will concerns raised during the 1996 help you focus; and Forest Plan iteration. • Recognize that the collaboration process should continue beyond the Lessons Learned planning phase. This means that engagement mechanisms should be Although the process is not yet complete, retained to handle ongoing dialogue. lessons learned about public participation thus far by the EYNF include: For More Information • Provide sufficient time for the public participation process to take place; El Yunque National Forest http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/elyunque/ • Augment the USFS staff’s reach by landmanagement/planning building and maintaining public committees; * The Center for Landscape Conservation Planning • Provide sufficient time for scientific http://www.ccpaisaje.org/ research to be synthesized—make sure staff/consultants know and i CCP: Framework for Collaboration at understand the difference between EYNF, summary dated May 2014, conducting science proper and Prepared by Federico ón-‐ Cintr Moscoso performing a rapid assessment; On file with the author.
• Give freedom to the xpress public to e their thoughts in an open and safe environment;
-‐ Page 38 -‐
Flathead National Forest
Location: Northern Montana Size of Planning Area: 2.4 million forested acres; 1million wilderness acres Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: Scoping to begin early 2015
History of Planning Public Participation Process
The existing Flathead National Forest In 2012, the Flathead NF hired the U.S. (NF) Plan was adopted in 1986 under the Institute for Environmental Conflict 1982 planning rule. Since then, it has Resolution (USIECR) and the Meridian been amended 27 times. The Flathead NF Institute, a professional facilitation and attempted to revise the existing plan a mediation organization, to help design number of times between 1986 and 2000, and facilitate the public participation and in 2006 produced a draft proposed process. The facilitation team completed a plan as part of an ecosystem-‐wide series of interviews with Flathead NF planning revision process that included employees and epresentatives r of key the Flathead, Lolo, and Bitterroot National stakeholder groups to determine their Forests. However, the ecosystem-‐wide willingness to participate in a planning process was halted due to collaborative effort to revise the forest litigation on the planning rule. plan.
When the new planning rule was adopted Prior to interviewing stakeholders, the in 2012, the Flathead again NF sought to Meridian Institute and the US Forest revise its land management he plan. T Service imagined designing and Flathead NF completed the 2012 Planning convening a collaborative process with an rule required ssessment A that included inclusive, balanced, multi-‐stakeholder field trips throughout the Flathead NF to group representing all of the different discuss existing conditions and trends of interests. The vision was that people the various resources. representing different organizations and viewpoints would participate on a regular While the Flathead IDT was completing basis its Assessment, the Forest ated staff initi a public collaborative public participation For the most part, stakeholders across the process, using the 2006 draft plan as a board rejected this vision due to the lack starting platform, to encourage input of transparency and inclusivity. The from the general public in designing plan stakeholders preferred a more inclusive components to be considered in a draft public process. Additionally, USFS proposed plan. The draft proposed plan is personnel realized it would be difficult to expected to be released as part of the organize and convene such a group given Notice of Intent (NOI) February in 2015. the diversity and intensity of the interests. Either way, for an inclusive, open process to be successful, it would be essential to
-‐ Page 39 -‐
include people that are committed to and -‐ up to-‐date on the other working in good faith to listen, learn, and proceedings; jointly solve problems – and apparently there was some concern about the • Provide a completely transparent feasibility of satisfying his t basic format by conducting larger periodical condition. meetings to bring together members of working-‐groups, and individuals from The interviews with stakeholders and the general public who may not be in a agency personnel covered a variety of work-‐group. issues, including but not limited to the value and structure of a collaborative • Form an nteragency i group made-‐up of working group to guide the planning county, state and federal agencies to process, the transparency and inclusivity provide insight into their particular of a collaborative process, substantive land requirements and desired interests and concerns, and the role of the outcomes. U.S. Forest Service in any collaborative process. • Use E-‐Collaboration (electronic collaboration) by incorporating -‐ web More specifically, using the input from the based opportunities for participation interviews, the Meridian Institute and communication among proposed an almost year-‐long participants. collaborative process for the forest plan revision during a “process design” To ensure that the suggested public workshop held by the Institute and the participation process satisfied the needs USFS. The workshop allowed interested and interests of stakeholders, the stakeholders to hear and comment on the Meridian Institute used the public following proposed components for this workshop to review the interview results public participation process: and refine the suggested public participation process proposal (i.e. • Convene an initial public meeting including topical working group (orientation) to introduce and explain meetings). The feedback received during the overall planning process and policy the workshop was incorporated into the sideboards; public participation design , process including suggestions to: • Organize and initiate work ing-‐groups around selected topics. Groups would • Use teleconferencing in order to meet as-‐needed to work through maximize participation from specific issues and develop ntative te participants in geographically distant recommendations for the new forest areas; plan; • Schedule public meetings during • Any changes from previous meetings weekday evenings to better as well as changes in the forest-‐plan accommodate the work schedules of direction would be taken to the next participants and encourage more meeting, to keep participants informed attendance;
-‐ Page 40 -‐
• Provide ore m clarity and definition literature, and suggested homework about the policy sideboards to bound regarding pertinent issues that were up the work group deliberations; for discussion. The orientation also allowed individuals to sign-‐up for the • Use up-‐to-‐date aps m on a regular basis topical working groups based upon the to inform participants and working-‐ issues that they were interested in or group deliberations. concerned about the most, as well receive tutorials regarding the • The public participation/collaborative implemented electronic based resources. process should address a core set of significant issues, but there should be This orientation s wa followed by five ample opportunity through the NEPA months of meetings designed to process for public mment co on the full collaboratively provide input and develop suite of issues covered f by the orest recommendations on plan components: plan. January-‐February: Forestwide Desired Conditions; March: Forestwide The collaboration process also Objectives; April: Geographic Area incorporated field-‐trips for ID Team Desired Conditions; May: Mapping members and members of the general Management Areas. Working from large-‐ public. The field trips allowed scale, forest-‐wide, desired conditions and participants to visit specific sites or places objectives to smaller and more localized and examine the resources that were on areas of management and land use the table for discussion during the planning for the Flathead NF, these planning process. The field trips were meetings were designed to operate at well attended and facilitated a hands-‐on different scales and focuses throughout approach to learning about the topical the process. issues.
Additionally, Meridian Institute offered The Results two “process advice calls,” to any interested individual or group. These calls One outcome of interviews completed by were open, and participants could call the the facilitation team was a broad-‐based facilitator at -‐time any during the process agreement among diverse members of the to express any concerns or ideas. public that the new plan should be based on “sound science.” However, members of The public engagement effort, as the public did not necessarily agree on proposed by Meridian and refined what the “best available science” was through the help of interviews and the exactly or what it might There look like. process design workshop, kicked off with was also a suggestion that emerged from an orientation meeting. This orientation the interviews that an impartial third-‐ was open to all interested stakeholders. party facilitator would be needed to This orientation explained the 2012 coordinate a successful public National Forest Planning Rule, the policy participation process for the planning sideboards for the public ticipation par effort. process, and provided information,
-‐ Page 41 -‐
Building on the feedback received during • An opportunity for individuals to sign-‐ the interviews and process design up for participating in working groups workshop, the Meridian Institute based upon their interests/concerns; developed a public participation and collaborative strategy (Meridian 2014). • Suggested homework and readings for potential participants. Over 100 citizens participated in the orientation meeting on December 2013 to The orientation outlined the -‐ stakeholder kick-‐off the public participation process. collaboration-‐meetings that were The intent of this initial meeting was to designed to focus components on key that explain the planning process, the comprise the st Fore Plan (i.e. -‐ desired associated schedule, as well as the new conditions, objectives, and management planning rule. It provided: areas). The meetings would start at a “forest-‐wide,” scale and then move to the • An overview of the purpose and “geographic area,” scale, addressing more process for orest the f p lan r evision; specific/localized regions within the forest boundary. Furthermore, the USFS • An introduction to forest plan clearly defined sideboards to help focus components .e. (i -‐ desired conditions, the discussions. agency objectives, management areas such as Wilderness, ; etc.) In addition to initial this orientation public meeting, the Forest has been • An xplanation e of policy “sideboards” engaged with a variety of other agency for the forest-‐plan revision process, and partners including representatives from the topics for discussion. Topics were the following government agencies: limited to “moveable” desires or conditions within the forest, • Bureau of Reclamation eliminating discussion surrounding • Flathead County Planning Department topics and plan direction determined to Flathead County Commissioners not need to be changed (i.e. Grizzly Bear • Glacier National Park conservation direction). • Montana Department of Natural Resource • An opportunity for stakeholders to ask • US Fish and Wildlife Service questions and request more • US Border Patrol information; • Confederated Salish-‐Kootenai Tribes Flathead County Commissioners • An overview of expectations and • Missoula County Community & ground rules for the working-‐group Planning Services meetings; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Region 1 • An introduction to topics up for discussion wildlife ( habitat, vegetation This engagement allowed for agencies to and disturbance, recreation, access, become familiar with each other’s agency and recommended wilderness); objectives regarding the new NF plan. These meetings also allowed for
-‐ Page 42 -‐
participants to become acquainted with Staff from the Meridian Institute and one another and discuss possible Flathead NF ID Team members facilitated roadblocks, topics for discussion, and the working groups. Facilitators and concerns before the process began. agency staffs acted as the third-‐party-‐ neutral and professional authority in each The January 2014 meeting was the first of the specific working groups. large-‐scale topical working group session, Facilitators with the USFS ID Team with facilitated groups specific to worked in groups, as well as roaming wilderness, vegetation, and from group to group to provide assistance access/recreation. The scope of this based on their area of expertise to meeting was forest-‐wide in scale and multiple groups. focused primarily on the desired set of conditions. The meeting was attended by Subsequent topical working-‐group citizens who participated in the meetings were held surrounding the same orientation meeting and/or up signed-‐ for issues (i.e. desired conditions and the meeting in advance, as well as many objectives for vegetation, others. The Meridian Institute and the recreation/access, and -‐ land use, and Flathead NF had planned to facilitate a Wilderness). However, each meeting was smaller meeting with working groups of focused on different scales or scopes of 15-‐20 participants. owever, H somewhere planning, starting with the geographic between100 people were actually in areas such as Swan Valley, Hungry Horse, attendance during the meeting. The larger and Salish and eventually focusing on number of people (as many as 50 people specific management areas within each in a single working group) made it very individual geographic region. difficult to facilitate the working groups that had been initially designed. In addition to topical working groups, Meridian Institute and the USFS To further complicate the process, many implemented a variety of web-‐based, and of the participants in the ting second mee electronic collaborative tools throughout had not attended the , orientation and the process. These tools allowed the consequently were unfamiliar with the facilitators and agency members to schedule, process, topics, and sideboards , receive input from the general public via a as well as had not attended field trips or variety of platforms, as well as allowed received/reviewed applicable literature. the public to interact on a virtual scale when physical distance was an obstacle. The Meridian Institute, in consultation Tools such as Google groups -‐ where with e th Flathead accommodated NF, the comments could be shared through a unexpected interest by adapting the forum style “chatting” process, as well process in future meetings and taking on teleconferencing – by which members of working groups of 6-‐8 people ather r than the public could participate in some of the large groups that became disorganized, larger meetings. un-‐focused, and tended influenced to be by larger, “stand-‐out,” voices within the Additional communications tools such as group. conference calls and various social media tools were also used to provide additional opportunities for the public to engage in
-‐ Page 43 -‐
the process. An additional E-‐tool used in v Use a variety of tools, including the public participation process was a teleconferences, web-‐based tools, and Talking Points Collaborative Mapping e-‐collaboration to inform and educate Tool (TPCMT). This tool allowed the the public, and to seek their input and participants to engage program on a advice. Teleconferencing and web-‐ where comments could be d submitte and based tools such as Skype allow more attached to certain geographic areas people to participate without within the forest via the mapping feature. incurring travel , costs particularly This aggregation of participants’ people that live long distances from comments distributed over geographic the meeting sites. regions allowed for USFS s staff, a well as participants to visualize the questions v Provide information, reports, and and concerns from a broader perspective. videos online so people everywhere can access, review, and learn from After the final stakeholder meeting in the them. public participation process, several members of the stakeholder community The inclusion of e-‐tools contributed to were invited by the USFS and Meridian stakeholders having a more in-‐depth Institute to share their perspectives about understanding of the resource issues and the process with the National Forest trade-‐offs associated with national forest Planning Rule Federal Advisory system land-‐use planning. These Committee. This committee provided a technologies allowed greater valuable opportunity for those communication outside of the “planning-‐ stakeholders to reflect and provide room”. feedback on their experience, as well as compare notes with stakeholders from As the Flathead NF moves forward in the other national forests in the region. This planning process, the Meridian Institute opportunity ultimately provided has identified the following lessons from recommendations for what forests the public participation process: around the country might learn from the public participation process under the v Design c a lear r oad-‐map for the public new 2012 Planning Rule (Meridian 2014). participation process, including detailed schedules, opportunities, .; etc
Lessons Learned v Clear selectivity of issues, meaning that issues or topics up for discussion v Have realistic expectations about should be clearly defined and outlined, participants staying within sideboards. and literature regarding such issues Clearly defining issues for discussion provided; and the reasoning behind why some issues are not on the table (i.e. – v Define sideboards and why some federal or state law such as ESA, etc.) topics are not available for discussion helps to focus discussion but not (i.e. – state r o federal mandates); entirely. v Provide extensive, updated, and synthesized information regarding
-‐ Page 44 -‐
topical issues as well as maps http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/flathea referencing the particular d/home/?cid=stelprdb5422786&width=f management and geographical areas ull of interest; v Encourage knowledgeable engagement through suggested readings/homework, and engagement with other stakeholders to learn of their specific concerns; v Take advantage of forest staff as facilitators/note-‐takers; but beware of their inclusion and the possibility of biases that their participation may have; v Use teamwork through group participation and encouragement of diverse viewpoints, as well as opening the process to adaptation of the proposed participation-‐plan to accommodate participants (i.e. – number of people, size of groups, timing of meetings, etc.) v Using “potlucks,” or other ways of carrying conversations and discussions to less intimidating and more familiar settings, allowing for participants to communicate around the same issues in a less formal environment.
For More Information
Meridian Institute. Flathead National Forest Management Plan Revision-‐ Stakeholder Collaboration Final Report. October 2014. http://www.merid.org/FNFplanrevision. aspx
USFS Flathead National Forest Plan Revision,
-‐ Page 45 -‐
Francis Marion National Forest
Location: Berkeley and Charleston Counties, South Carolina Size of Planning Area: 258, 942 acres Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: End of Scoping Phase
History of Planning v Interviewed stakeholders represented interests from state, federal, , county The Francis Marion National Forest and local government, as well as completed their most recent Forest Plan industry, nonprofits, recreation, and in 1995 (implemented 996) in 1 under the conservation groups. 1982 Planning Rule, in response to the environmental impact of Hurricane Hugo v Stakeholders identified concerns, how in 1989. Three amendments have been they wanted to be involved, public made to the 1996 Forest Plan and this meeting formats they preferred, and existing plan will be considered the “no what they understood about a Forest action” alternative within the upcoming Plan and the revision process. EIS for the Francis Marion National Forest. v These telephone interviews were in The Francis Marion National Forest lieu of public “listening sessions,” initiated the Assessment Phase to revise which USFS staff had identified as the 1996 Forest Plan in October 2012. being disliked by the public. They plan to distribute the Draft EIS for public review in early 2015. The USFS also hosted two public meetings in October 2012 to gather input that would guide the overall organization of Public Participation Process the revised plan. The objectives of these two initial public meetings were to target The USFS team laid the foundation for the local community members, provide Assessment process and corresponding background information to the public, public engagement using three neutral and gather public concerns and input facilitators who assessed public interest regarding the social, cultural, and and understanding of the forest planning ecological value of the forest. process. The facilitation team interviewed 30 key stakeholders/opinion Overall, public engagement during the leaders (by telephone) who were Assessment and Scoping Phases was identified by the USFS District Office. organized and facilitated using an independent facilitator (retired USFS The interests represented and the planner) who also facilitated internal objectives of the interview process were planning staff meetings. The USFS also as follows: completed a Public Engagement Strategy document to guide their public
-‐ Page 46 -‐
engagement efforts (see More v Two public meetings planned for fall Information for link to document). 2013 had to be cancelled due to government shutdown and a storm. Public engagement thus far (for both These meetings would have focused Scoping and Assessment Phases) involved on findings in the Assessment and opportunities for online collaboration, Need to Change documents . Because four public meetings (on weeknights and of these unexpected delays, the weekends), one public workshop a (on Assessment document was posted weeknight), and three technical working online in December 2013 and notice sessions (on weekdays), all of which sent out via Listserv. varied in their focus and format, between February 2013 and September 2014. Public engagement during the Scoping Phase (2014) involved: Following the two initial ublic p meetings in October 2012, public engagement v Three public meetings focused on the during the Assessment Phase (2013) Preliminary Need to Change specifically involved: Document, Recreation/Wilderness, and Proposed Plan Components. v One well-‐attended workshop in February 2013 focused sustainable on v Three technical working sessions recreation using an online focused on at-‐risk species and collaborative mapping/crowdsourcing targeted at resource professionals. tool (Crowdbrite) made available for two months of public input on how v An interactive mapping website the public uses and values the forest. (Talking Points Collaborative Mapping Attendees shared their desires, needs Tool) through USGS was introduced to and values for sustainable recreation allow online, place-‐based public and benefits provided by the Forest in comment, but experienced technical small groups. difficulties and generated very little public input. v One well-‐attended public meeting (Ecological Sustainability Forum) sponsored by the Nature Conservancy Results and Coastal Conservation League in August 2013 focused on educating the The Francis Marion NF received very few public on preliminary findings from public comments on its Scoping the Assessment process (regarding Document and also experienced poor wildland urban interface, climate risks, meeting attendance early in the and various aspects of ecological Assessment process (Fall 2012). The integrity) in various break-‐out planning documents and process ave h sessions/presentations and provided also been viewed as largely opportunity for public input and noncontroversial. The outcomes of public discussion. comment periods and public meetings are as follows: v A Listserv was set up to enable the public to get email alerts.
-‐ Page 47 -‐
v The first two public meetings (in • Partner organizations are useful October 2012) were poorly attended sponsors for public meetings and can because the public was mainly asked help draw a larger crowd. about their concerns and didn’t have something concrete to react to. • Based on varied public meeting formats, the most useful meeting v When the Scoping document (which format allows time for interaction included the Assessment document, among all attendees. This is best Need to Change document, and facilitated by asking each group to Management Strategies) went out for report the results of their discussion public review in April 2014, the 45-‐ after small-‐group breakout sessions, day comment period ended with only thus allowing everyone to hear what 5 public comments, despite having each group discussed. The ideal 231 individuals on email Listserv. meeting format includes one hour of presentations, one hour of group v The Crowdbrite tool brought in large sessions, followed one by hour of open amounts of public input about the house. value and usage of the national forest. • Different strategies need to be used to v Public meetings with more specialized reach different audiences (ex: African topics later in the process e.g., ( Americans). Successful strategies for Ecological Sustainability Forum, engaging minorities in the planning Recreation/Wilderness, Proposed process, however, have yet to be Plan Components) brought the largest identified. attendance. v It has been difficult to engage For More Information minorities. The population of the area is about 50% African American, but Francis Marion National Forest Planning about 90% of meeting attendees have Overview, Timeline, Public Meetings, and been white. Documents: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnfs/lan dmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB Lessons Learned 5261459
The key lessons learned about public Francis Marion National Forest participation by the Francis Marion NF Public Participation Strategy: Land and are Resource Management Plan Revision, 2012-‐2016 v Using the website and Listserv as http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D primary means of communication OCUMENTS/stelprd3798212.pdf with the public during Assessment phase was problematic, since most Crowdbrite: Online Collaboration Space. people in e th area only have dial-‐up http://www.crowdbrite.com/ internet access.
-‐ Page 48 -‐
Talking Points Collaborative Mapping Tool. USGS. Francis Marion Forest Plan Revision Collaboration Mapping Website: https://my.usgs.gov/ppgis/studio/launch /13328
-‐ Page 49 -‐
Inyo National Forest
Location: Eastern-‐Central California and -‐ South western Nevada Size of Planning Area: ~ 2 million acres Revision Start Year: 2014 Phase of Planning Process: Developing Alternatives
History of Planning government agencies for an ongoing dialog. The existing land management plan for the Inyo National Forest was adopted in The Sierra Cascades Dialogue was also 1988 under the 1982 planning It rule. was used to seek input and advice from amended seven times between 1991 and stakeholders on design of the public 2007. Some of these amendments were participation process to revise and update written as regional and included but were the forest plans consistent with the 2012 not limited to the Inyo National forest. planning rule.
In 2012 the Pacific Southwest Regional As the regional office began the planning Office initiated the planning process for process, it ecruited r a social scientist to the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National help design and implement the Forests. The regional office coordinated collaborative planning process, and ired h the assessment and public scoping the Center for Collaborative Policy at process or f all three , forests but each Sacramento State University to help forest will prepare their own revised design and facilitate the public forest plans. engagement process.
During the assessment phase of the Public Participation Process planning process, the regional office assisted the Inyo National Forest in The regional office, in conjunction with accomplishing the following: the three national forests, used several different methods to inform and educate, v The Science Synthesis Report, and seek input and advice from the public prepared by the Pacific Southwest during the early phases of the planning Research Station, covers the Sierra process. Nevada mountain range and excludes the Great Basin portion of the Inyo The public participation process actually National Forest. began in 2010 with the Sierra Cascades Dialogue. The Pacific Southwest Regional v A Bioregional Assessment was done Office worked with professional for the entire region and integrated facilitators from the Center for the information from the living Collaborative Policy to design and assessment as well as other data convene a group consisting of submitted to and collected by the approximately 150 interest groups and region’s scientific staff.
-‐ Page 50 -‐
Nevada which is a small ranching and A Living Assessment, that included farming community. individual assessment documents for each of the three forests and one for the (2) Held separate meetings with local entire region, were posted on a non-‐US tribes. Forest Service website (www.ourforestplace.org) and the public (3) Extended the scoping process was encouraged to review, comment, and comment period due to computer edit. The US Forest Service imposed strict issues. rules for the editing process, any and information added had to be cited in a precise style and format. Both peer-‐ Results reviewed and “gray ” source materials were allowed to be cited. The public participation process facilitated by oth b the r egional office and The regional office also used an ArcView the Inyo NF generated several results: GIS based mapping tool that allows people to identify their values, interest, v The Sierra Cascades Dialogue on the and concerns on an online map. People upcoming collaboration process for were invited to participate in this value the forest plan led the top mapping exercise through a random representatives from the timber selection process using area zip codes and industry and the environmental separate invites were sent to groups to enter into an issue based stakeholders. negotiation. This resulted in a joint letter that was submitted to e th The regional office also reached out to Regional Forester on how the plan minorities in local public schools. This should be put together and how to involved bringing students to the involve the key stakeholders. Supervisors’ Office, where USFS personnel gave learning presentations. v The local public meetings were very important to the given Inyo NF that its The regional office held regional public ecosystem is much different than the meetings and a “road show” at the two other forests included in this different forest district offices as well as regional planning initiative. attended forest-‐level public meetings. v Due to the slower process in the lead To supplement the public outreach up to the assessment phase and the activities coordinated by the regional amount of public involvement before office, the Inyo NF: the forest planning process began, the public has felt that they are not as (1) Convened public meetings in the involved during the scoping phase of communities near the forest during the the planning project due to the short scoping phase explain to the purpose and comment period requirements. planning process, including a small town on the eastern edge of the forest in Dyer,
-‐ Page 51 -‐
v The living assessment was not as helpful as the regional office had The major lessons learned from the public hoped as some stakeholder groups participation process coordinated by the were reluctant to offer input since Inyo National Forest are as follows: they felt it would give away potential strategies and goals to o early in the v The local meetings were very helpful process. in identifying local interest and issues. v The value mapping lead to some v The Inyo NF did not include specific confusion that the Inyo National objectives within their document draft Forest was considering more areas to presented during the scoping phase. be possibly designated as wilderness While it saved time in the writing areas and would restrict activities. process, several members of the This was not the goal of the mapping public were apparently quite project. frustrated because they wanted to know what the forest would be doing.
Lessons Learned v Be clear and transparent about the complexity of the project and the The major lessons learned e from th planning process. planning process coordinated by the regional assessment are as follows: v In the future, the Inyo National Forest would be much more cautious about v The Sierra Cascades Dialogue has the value of a regional, three-‐forest been successful in breaking down approach to planning – particularly barriers and has encouraged opposing given the different ecosystems and groups to come together for the issues facing the different forests. In common goal of planning. this case, the Great Basin part of the forest was getting lost in the overall v The living assessment project did not approach. work nearly as well as expected. Some members of the public did not understand how to properly cite the For More Information articles/papers that they were trying to reference. Additionally some Inyo National Forest Planning, stakeholders were reluctant to http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/inyo/land participate as they felt it would give management/planning up their position before the formal commenting period. Regional Living Assessment, http://ourforestplace.ning.com v Outreach to youth was successful in catalyzing dialogue and getting the Pacific Southwest Region 5 Planning, perspective of younger people on the http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/landm future of the forest, but it was time anagement/planning consuming and took US Forest Service personnel outside their comfort zone.
-‐ Page 52 -‐
Center for Collaborative Policy, http://www.csus.edu/ccp/selectproj/publi clands.html
-‐ Page 53 -‐
Nantahala and ah Pisg National Forests
Location: Western North Carolina Size of Planning Area: 18 counties, 1,044,906 acres, ~1,633 square miles total 531,148 acres (Nantahala) 512,758 acres (Pisgah) Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: Plan Development
History of Planning Public Participation Process
The existing plan for the Nantahala and Assessment Phase – Public participation Pisgah National Forests was signed in during this phase of the planning process 1987, based on the 1982 Planning Rule. consisted of three rounds of public Environmental groups appealed the plan meetings during 2013. A total of 14 public leading to part of it being remanded in meetings were held as follows: 1989. Based on the remand, the plan underwent a significant amendment The first round of public meetings process beginning in July 1990. The consisted of six meetings corresponding outcome of this process, Amendment 5 to to the six ranger districts involved. the 1987 Plan, was passed in 1994 and implemented in 1995. Some key The purpose of these meetings was to highlights of Amendment 5 include inform and educate participants about the directives to restore -‐ old growth areas, 15 assessment items required by the lower the overall allowable sale quantity 2012 Planning Rule. Following of timber, and an emphasis on presentations explaining the plan revision “environmentally sensitive silvicultural process, the public was engaged in practices.” information sessions organized around the aforementioned assessment items. At the time of this writing, the Plan The information sessions were structured Revision for the Nantahala and Pisgah around stations addressing resource Forest is in the plan development stage – topics, which were staffed by Forest staff are putting together plan Service personnel knowledgeable in those components and writing the proposed areas. This format allowed participants to plan, as well as a draft Environmental engage in conversation with USFS staff. Impact Statement. The assessment phase Participants were encouraged to ask lasted from November 2012 -‐ March 2014, questions and to provide input. and the plan-‐development phase, which began March 2014, is expected to be The public meetings also offered an complete in August 2016. opportunity for participants to engage in small groups to identify the values and benefits they receive from the national forest. It is worth noting that the Forest Service personnel sought input on
-‐ Page 54 -‐
assessment items from both the small Federal Register. This was followed by a groups and individuals. 45-‐day public comment period.
Following this initial round of public Next was a pair of meetings held in meetings, the Interdisciplinary (ID) team Asheville (April & July) to seek input on created word-‐clouds from the public key issues. A further set of six public comments received. The USFS staff then meetings held at different locations is shared the word clouds with the public to scheduled for October through November validate the ndings fi and to create a visual 2014. These meetings are all to be representation of major themes identified structured in the same manner, and held during the public meetings. at each of the six ranger districts in the area. The meetings are planned to open The second round included two large with a presentation addressing public meetings and focused broadly on management areas and the development the themes that emerged as primary of plan components. The planning team public concerns during the first round of will then share proposed desired public meetings, such as recreation, condition statements and further wildlife, scenery, and access. These resource information during an open meetings were structured in the same poster session. way as the previous ones, simply with a narrower range of items being addressed. To track, manage, and analyze public The public input from these first two input, the USFS is using CARA (Comment rounds formed ideas erns and conc that Analysis and Response System). In made it into the draft assessment addition to analyzing content and trends document issued in September 2013. in this public input, CARA also allows the results of public comment sessions to be The final major component of public made available to the public quickly. participation during the assessment phase consisted of six public open houses The fall 2014 series of public meetings held across the six relevant ranger may be the last major public engagement districts during November and December. effort before the USFS develops a draft These open houses sought to frame the plan and associated draft environmental Need for Change document. The six open impact statement (EIS). houses consisted of eight resource information stations staffed by Forest Public Input on Plan Components -‐-‐ Service personnel. Public input was The public's desired future conditions for sought and recorded by these personnel. the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are expected to be major topics at Scoping & Plan-‐Development Phase – the series of public meetings beginning In March 2014, the USFS issued the this fall. Preliminary Need for Change document. Shortly thereafter, it issued a scoping Some of the relevant public input from letter and published the Notice of Intent previous meetings is being used in with Need for Change statements in the creating objectives, standards, and guidelines in the draft plan. It is also
-‐ Page 55 -‐
anticipated much public feedback document that was largely generated via regarding desired future conditions will public input. be input relevant to the creation of objectives, standards, & guidelines. The USFS staff working on the plan revision also created a draft Management Professional Facilitation -‐-‐ The Area Framework in response to public Nantahala-‐Pisgah NF did not engage or input, and will be used during the fall use professional facilitation to help design 2014 public meetings. and facilitate the public participation process. Two professional facilitators were initially hired in 2013 to play a Lessons Learned significant role in designing and facilitating the public process, but the Many citizens and stakeholders explained 2013 federal government shutdown that the pace of the planning process is effectively canceled their contracts and no “Moving o to fast.” The pace of the process new outside consulting was sought. is apparently driven by the USFS’s deadlines and other duties and responsibilities. Future planning efforts Results should recognize the amount of time it takes to meaningfully engage the public, The public meetings convened during the along with the trade-‐offs in terms of other assessment phase generated considerable duties and responsibilities public interest. According to the March 2014 scoping letter, the assessment phase v When producing documents aiming to meetings included approximately 800 take public input into account, the participants and over 1000 public primary complications stem from the comments. divergent nature of many desires and demands from groups with differing People representing a diversity of ideologies and the impossibility of perspectives participated in these initial fully appeasing everyone. While not public meetings -‐-‐ including recreation necessarily profound, the lesson here groups, state agencies, wildlife would be to check one's expectations enthusiasts, the timber industry, Boy regarding the possibility of consensus Scout troops, and environmental groups when heading into collaborative such as the Sierra Club & Wilderness processes. Society. v Allowing and encouraging citizens and The turnout of groups focused on wildlife, stakeholders to work all in sm groups hunting, and fishing exceeded facilitated by USFS staff improves the expectations. sharing of information and ideas and mutual learning. It also encourages Public participation was also robust participation by people who would be during the scoping process, allowing unlikely to make comments to entire production of a Need for Change rooms, helping them to feel more
-‐ Page 56 -‐
comfortable speaking up and sharing participation process, the USFS staff their opinions in such settings. believe it would be time and money v Some participants apparently well spent given the expertise of such expected the initial public meetings to people, along with the amount of time be more akin to a public hearing, and required to meaningfully engage the expected there to be opportunities to public. address the entire meeting, rather than small groups and the se open hou v Staff edicated d , specifically to working format. Perhaps common sense, but on public-‐engagement efforts, would the lesson here is that discouraging be nice were it within budget “grandstanding” is an important constraints, especially considering the element of keeping meetings time-‐intensive nature of public productive and maintaining a engagement processes, which are collaborative spirit. especially burdensome when the USFS personnel must also continue with v And lastly, there are lessons to be their daily management duties as well. gleaned regarding the logistics of public participation. The use of technology and the trend towards For More Information exchanging information primarily via the internet informed the process of The Nantahala & Pisgah National Forest public engagement, primarily for Public-‐Participation Strategy ailable is av purposes of outreach. These tools at were used as means to keep the public (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D informed f o the current state of the OCUMENTS/stelprd3815717.pdf) public participation process, such as This strategy presents planned public announcing meetings, times, and engagement sessions along with ground locations. However, it is essential to rules and guidelines for these sessions. It maintain more also explains what methods will be used conventional/traditional lines of to facilitate public engagement. communication with the public -‐-‐ such as office postings, press releases, and National Forests in North Carolina FAQ paper mailings, particularly in rural Sheet for the Nantahala-‐Pisgah NF areas where some people may not revision (particularly relevant to Need for have access to the internet -‐-‐ .g e the ID Change document): Team has ~700 signed-‐up to an email (www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUME list, and ~300 -‐ signed up for paper NTS/stelprdb5441357.pdf) mailings. Original news release announcing the v Again looking at the idea of hired beginning of the process: facilitators from outside USFS, the (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D idea was looked upon favorably. OCUMENTS/stelprdb5399617.pdf) Although the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests did not use Brief background on the CARA comment professional facilitation in this -‐ public management system:
-‐ Page 57 -‐
(http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nsg/index.ht Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern m) Region.
Collection of the informational materials presented at the first round of meetings: (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/ho me/?cid=stelprdb5411927)
The Assessment Report: (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D OCUMENTS/stelprd3793034.pdf)
References
Luczak, Heather. 2014. [Personal communication] October 3. Asheville NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 2013. November 2013 Nantahala-‐Pisgah Forest Plan Revision Update. Asheville, NC. 4 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. March 2014. Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Assessment. Asheville, NC. 235 p. plus appendices.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. September 2014. Public Participation Strategy: Nantahala-‐Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Revision 2016. 2012-‐ Asheville, NC. 10 p.
Wescott, Stevin. [In Press: November 20, 2012] Forest Service Kicks off Revision of Nantahala-‐Pisgah Management Plan. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
-‐ Page 58 -‐
Nez Perce-‐Clearwater National Forest
Location: North Central Idaho Size of Planning Area: 4.0 million acres Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: Preparation of EIS
History of Planning consisted of the following four types of sessions: The Nez Perce National Forest and the Clearwater National Forest were v Community Orientation Meetings: combined in 2012. Previously each forest establish a basic understanding of the had different management plans that new planning rule, explain the level of were both signed in 1987. The most commitment required to participate, recent attempt to revise both plans prior obtain an estimate of numbers of to the 2012 rule began in 2002. Action participants that want to be involved. was proposed in 2006 as a combined effort to revise both forest plans, however v Forest Plan Summit: 3 day workshop to this effort was put on hold due to national start the collaborative process ncluding i level planning rule litigation, and a draft an informational session, a learning of the EIS was never written. session about positions versus interests, and a group session to create a common Friends of the Clearwater litigated the vision. Clearwater National Forest plan ; in 1987 a settlement was reached in 1990. v Monthly Collaborative Sessions: focus on interaction with team resource specialists using working groups to Public Participation Process provide specific resource input to Forest Plan Components. The assessment phase was initiated in spring 2012, immediately after the new v Working Groups: small focus groups planning rule went into effect. A draft of 6-‐8 people of diverse interests that assessment was published in fall 2012 worked to outline specific purposes, when the initial collaboration phase objectives, and outcomes for each of began. The assessment remains in the the Plan Components, led by a peer draft form allowing opportunity for appointed public chair person and a ongoing input and updates. The public Forest Service facilitator. Working was engaged through a collaborative groups used Google Groups between process that was initiated ctober, in O sessions to coordinate input. 2012 and continued for about 20 months. The process was open to everyone who v Community Check-‐in Meetings: wanted to participate, either in person or summarize the information developed through -‐ e collaboration. The process at the Monthly Collaborative Sessions, provide an opportunity for
-‐ Page 59 -‐
community participants to ask the next Monthly Collaborative Session questions and give feedback. for discussion and review.
Professor Ed Krumpe from the University Six open house style community meetings of Idaho together with the Forest Service were held to engage the public in designed the collaborative platform understanding the new 2012 planning described above. He facilitated the rule the scoping process. These meetings Summit, the Community Orientation and were used to train people how to draft Check-‐in Meetings, as well as some of the formal, productive, and substantial Collaborative Sessions. Forest Service comments. staff facilitated the Monthly Collaborative Sessions including the small working Throughout the entire process, the web group sessions. was an essential tool of communication. All meeting notes were posted and open Attendance at monthly collaborative to public questions and comments. People sessions was approximately 60-‐80 who were unable to attend the meetings persons of diverse ests, inter with many could submit documents and stay up to more providing input through e-‐ date. Information and resources on the collaboration. Some represented interests revision process and the forest were included those affiliated with: available at all times. backcountry aviation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Backcountry Results Horsemen, the Idaho Conservation League, the Wilderness Society, the Great As of July 2014, a proposed action for the Burn Study Group, Idaho Departments of revised forest plan has been drafted and Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game, distributed for review under the and members of the Nez Perce tribe. provisions of NEPA. Youth participation was supplemented through an outreach program led by a The Nez Perce-‐Clearwater National Forest University of Idaho student. encouraged the public to comment on the proposed action, and extended the Participants were engaged in developing comment period by an additional 60 days plan components in the small Working ending on November 14, 2014. Groups. Each working groups would receive the topic -‐ and pre work at least The public can comment via a public two weeks in advance, which consisted of comment website, via email, via mail, or draft plan components as well as at one of the community meetings. assessment information to prepare for the Monthly Collaborative Session. A Forest Service specialist on the topic was Lessons Learned present for each meeting. The specialist used the input from all Working Groups v Have a dedicated staff person to to edit the plan component. A revised handle all of the public engagement draft of the plan components would be and collaboration. It became a very posted on the web and brought back to challenging workload to combine the
-‐ Page 60 -‐
roles of revision team est member, For valuable because many people don’t Program staff, and revision trust the Forest Service, and the collaboration coordinator. University of Idaho is very well respected. By explaining the role of v Orient collaborative discussions to the Forest Service, the NEPA process, focus on broad levels of desired and the challenges therein to the outcomes; facilitate working sessions public, e th facilitator bought the to avoid participant focus on specific Forest Service credibility and they edits targeted to -‐ group re writes of were able to build on that trust from draft documents. Clarify that there. participants are revising for substance rather than grammar. v It takes a tremendous amount of commitment from staff to give the v Have the Forest Supervisor or collaborative process the attention decision maker present at every that it fully deserves. If you’re going to community meeting and collaborative ask participants to give up their session. This presence allows private time for free, you have to bring participants to feel that they are truly your trust, preparedness, focus, being stened li to. provide the social aspect of feeling comfortable and welcome, and be v Make sure participants have a good totally engaged for that period of time. understanding of all Forest Plan components as defined in the new v Have patience, take one thing at a time, 2012 planning rule. These definitions stay in constant communication, be are substantially different than in past timely and prompt in answering planning rules. For instance, a questions and providing thorough understanding of the documentation, openly communicate differences between a “standard” and with everyone as much as you can a “guideline” is essential. within your capacity in order to build trust. v In the collaborative sessions, plan for newcomers by saving time in the v Maintain transparency by continuing beginning of the meeting to cover all to share the process and progress the basics so that the rest of the being made following the public meeting can go on uninterrupted with participation process, instead of questions that most of the participants disappearing for a few years of already know about; or rely on small analysis. working group chairpersons and facilitators to orient and welcome v Bring coffee and food to every newcomers. meeting! v The use of an outside facilitator to explain and initiate the process and to For More Information update community members who are not involved monthly was incredibly
-‐ Page 61 -‐
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nezpercec learwater/landmanagement/planning/?ci d=stelprdb5447727
-‐ Page 62 -‐
Santa Fe National Forest
Location: Northern New Mexico Size of Planning Area: 291,669 acres of wilderness Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: Assessment
History of Planning v Cadre conducted a two-‐day training for USFS staff from the Sante Fe and The Santa Fe al Nation Forest published Caron National Forests on the current Forest Plan in 1987 under understanding collaboration. NMFA planning regulations. Although amendments have since been made to The USFS then kicked off 27 public account for changes in environmental, “listening sessions” for the Santa Fe and social, and economic conditions, the Carson NFs facilitated by the Cadre, with Forest Service believes the 1987 lan P small groups (six to eight people per does not ct refle the most current group) composed of formal and informal management needs of the forest and its leaders, representatives from the public, communities. and tribes. Participants self-‐selected. The Cadre views the listening sessions as an Prompted by the 2012 Planning Rule, the important first step in understanding the USFS initiated the Assessment hase P to context of local situations. The Cadre revise the 1987 orest F P lan in early 2014. advised the USFS to not participate in these small groups’ discussions to encourage frank and open conversation. Public Participation Process The objectives of these listening sessions The USFS team began by building their were to: capability for public engagement and preparing for a robust effort. In sum, they: v Discuss how communities and stakeholders work together and with v Hired a full time staffer focused on the Forest; public engagement; v Describe opportunities for and constraints on collaborative v Engaged the USFS National engagement; Collaboration Cadre (Cadre) to help v Exchange ideas about how to conduct organize for public engagement; public involvement; v Reveal topics rends or t that might v Contracted with professional emerge during plan revision; facilitators to assist the Forest v Begin networking, sharing knowledge throughout the multi-‐year planning and experience, and identifying effort; and participants for future collaborative work.
-‐ Page 63 -‐
With the information generated from the listening sessions, Cadre designed and Results lead two, -‐ one day workshops with the public and USFS to build relationships The Santa Fe NF has received extensive between the Sante Fe National Forest, public input about: Tribes, communities, and stakeholders and identify values and expectations for v How the public uses and values the public participation. forest and associated resources;
The Santa Fe National Forest then v Public perception of emerging issues published a Notice Assessment of and and trends; held 14 -‐hour two meetings in 12 locations to inform the public about the v Public opinion on what is working or forest planning process, answer questions, not working in the current Forest Plan. and take public input.
The Santa Fe National Forest worked with Lessons Learned a professional facilitation team to conduct the public meetings, which ranged from The key lessons learned about public formal to informal sessions and included participation by the Santa Fe National a variety of different entities (county Forest are: officials, recreation groups, etc.). The meetings were divided into small groups v Prepare early for public participation; to encourage productive discussion and concluded with the facilitator aggregating v Build the capacity of USFS staff to and summarizing feedback from the small engage in public participation (e.g., group discussions. attend a five-‐day training by the International Association for Public USFS staff then dentified i which groups Participation); were not in attendance at the public meetings and conducted outreach in v Maintain an open, transparent public multiple languages and formats (web-‐ process; based, print flyers, etc.). Staff also set-‐up booths at public events (e.g., farmers v Hire a professional facilitation team to markets, health fairs, to etc.) distribute design, facilitate, and manage public flyers, expand their mailing list, and participation; the interdisciplinary answer questions. team leader cannot manage public participation on top of all their other Looking forward, the USFS use plans to duties and responsibilities; field trips during the scoping to process facilitate public iscussion d about desired v Make the public process fun; offer free conditions for each resource. gifts and food at public booths to encourage more citizens to learn about the Forest Service planning process;
-‐ Page 64 -‐
v Ensure that at least some “listening sessions” are open to everyone who is interested. Balance open sessions with “invitation only” listening sessions;
v Clarify early and often that final decisions have not been made prior to seeking input and advice from the public; emphasize that citizen input and advice will influence the shape of the plan, then demonstrate how public input and advice was used to shape the plan; and
v Use all available tools, including but not limited to the NEPA handbook, IAP2 toolbox, and the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
For More Information
Santa Fe National Forest: Forest Plan and Monitoring Reports http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/santafe/la ndmanagement/planning/?cid=FSBDEV7 _021064
Description of USDA Forest Service Collaboration Cadre http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/collabor ative_processes/default.htm
International Association for Public Participation “Spectrum of Public Participation” http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/ files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf
-‐ Page 65 -‐
Sequoia National Forest
Location: East-‐central California Size of Planning Area: 2 counties, 629 square miles Revision Start Year: 2013 Phase of Planning Process: Developing Alternatives
History of Planning Planning Process for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests). The existing forest plan for Sequoia National Forest was signed in 1988. Since In August 2014, the regional office then no attempt has been made to revise published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the the plan under y an other rule before the federal register. The public was notified 2012 rule. of the NOI release via press and the NOI was linked to the Region 5 website. A In 1990, environmentalists pursued Region Scoping 5 Letter and Proposed litigation to protect the Giant Sequoia Action (PA) for the three forests were also groves from logging. After a period of 1 ½ released in August 2014. The Forest years, mediated negotiations concluded in Service then announced and opened a 30-‐ the multi-‐party “Forest Plan Settlement day public comment period in response to Agreement of July 1990.” the Notice of Intent, Scoping Letter, and Proposed Action documents via an USFS In January 2013 the Sequoia, Inyo, and public website (Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia Sierra National Forests began drafting a National Forests Land Management Plans single bio-‐regional assessment (BRA) Revision). because of the forests’ similar bio-‐ physiographic characteristics. The BRA The scoping process for the Sequoia draft was posted to a website called National Forest was completed in October Living Assessment and was open to public 2014. In November 2014, the Sequoia comment and/or edits. il On Apr 8, 2013 National Forest is scheduled to begin the regional office released the Final Tribal Forums and Public Workshops to Forest Assessments, Bio-‐regional identify preliminary alternatives (Forest Assessment, and Preliminary Need to Plan Revision Public Involvement Change by posting them to the Region 5 Milestones and Timeline and Collaboration, website (Pacific Southwest Region). Tribal, and Public Involvement . Plan)
The final BRA will be used by the Forest The regional office of the USFS, rather Service to develop a three-‐forest than the national forests themselves, led Environmental Impact Statement to be the assessment and scoping processes. released spring 2015 FACT ( SHEET AND More specifically, the regional office FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS for the facilitated communication and outreach Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation related to planning on the three different forests. Then the forest supervisor for
-‐ Page 66 -‐
each national forest communicated the during assessment and subsequent overarching approach to staff and phases of est for planning. In addition to stakeholders Forest ( Plan Revision clarifying public interests and concerns, Regional Collaboration & Communication the SCD provided an opportunity for the Plan). The regional office was positioned US Forest Service to explain the plan to initiate plan management revision, revision process and schedule. because the process was new and the forests were biologically and Forest Service staff also visited youth at physiologically similar. Latino dominated schools in the Fresno area and asked them three questions: (1) What makes you happy? (2) How does it Public Participation Process connect to nature? (3) What rules would you suggest we live by to continue being In November 2010, the Regional Office happy? This outreach was beneficial for catalyzed the Sierra Cascade Dialogues gaining a youthful perspective, as well (SCD) to bring people together around serving as a conduit to the children’s similar interests and to gain familiarity parents. with people’s expectations of the USFS. The SCD were designed and lead by the During the assessment and scoping Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP), a processes, the regional office also used a professional facilitation team hired by the Public Participation Geographic USFS 5. CCP offered an extremely valuable Information Systems (PPGIS) to obtain a “middle of the road” perspective random sample of Californians’ opinions according to some observers. and concerns (Brown et al. 2013). PPGIS allowed the broader California public to People from all over California were identify geographic areas of interest and invited to participate in the SCD via press concern. PPGIS used the cost-‐effective releases, postal mail, and email. SCD Google maps for the online GIS platform. participants included everyone on the regional Forest Service mailing list, which The public contributed to various plan consisted of people ressed who exp components as follows: interest to participate early on in response to press releases. Websites such v Desired future conditions were as Facebook, Twitter, and Our Forest discussed in Public Workshops, Tribal Place were used for outreach and public Forums, and Steering Committee engagement as well. meetings. They were also included in the NOI, Scoping Letter, and PA; The SCD were designed to identify the big issues facing all three national forests, v The objectives were omitted from such as wildfire management, the wild-‐ proposed action due to feasibility – land urban & interface, accumulation of that is, time and money. fire fuel, and water retention -‐ for year round availability. From the perspective v Standards were also discussed in of the USFS, identifying the big issues Public Workshops, Tribal Forums, and early on made it easier to concentrate on Steering Committee meetings. what was really important to the public
-‐ Page 67 -‐
v Guidelines were also brought to them where all the government attention in Public Workshops, Tribal documents and data were located on or Forums, and Steering Committee otherwise linked to the Region 5 website. meetings. They were also included in Currently public comments and/or edits the PA. regarding bioregional assessments and proposed actions are being categorized v Suitability of areas for certain uses into respective forests for review to were also discussed in Public identify issues. After determining how Workshops, Tribal Forums, and involved the issues are, the Steering Steering Committee meetings. The Committee will decide if they are going to suitability of areas for timber have the scheduled Tribal Forums and production and Wilderness and Wild Public Workshops in November 2014 and, & Scenic Rivers designation were if not, when. included in the PA as well. The Steering Committee has 20 members, including soil and water conservationists, Results environmentalists, recreationists, county officials, fish and wildlife representatives, A key outcome of the SCD was the state officials, fire and safety interests, formation of a working partnership and forest service staff, among others. On between a leader of an environmental average, 150 people participate in events. group and a leader of a timber interests alliance. Collaboratively these two individuals joined with a CCP facilitator Lessons Learned and Forest Service staff to draft a mutually agreeable letter to the Regional The most important lessons learned are Forester. Their two key suggestions to the as follows: Regional Forester were that the Forest Service develop science a -‐based synthesis v Listen when people are talking and related to ecological restoration and that use their words capturing when their it be included in the BRA. input and advice during public sessions; The Forest Service has combined the forest plan revision comments for v Focus and prioritize projects so that Sequoia, Sierra, and Inyo National Forest full attention is duly given to each; into one project within the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) v Designate special use -‐-‐ areas such as (Planning, Appeals, and Litigation ) System . wilderness, wild & scenic rivers, and PALS in an integration system designed to recreation areas Pacific ( Southwest track Forest Service documents during Region) -‐-‐ during the assessment the NEPA process. They also combined phase so that the public can comment and uploaded all the emails and postal early on; mail comments from stakeholders to PALS. After which an email and postcard v Be sensitive to engaging the public in were sent via government delivery to a meaningful way without over-‐ everyone on the mailing list informing whelming them or Forest Service staff;
-‐ Page 68 -‐
v Move beyond the use of “open houses” Forest Service, Stakeholders, and CCP, to present information, educate 2012. USDA FOREST SERVICE PACIFIC participants, and seek their input and SOUTHWEST REGION 5 Forest Plan advice, e.g., Our Forest Place and Revision Collaboration Guide v2.0 http://www.tinyurl.com/r5earlyadopte http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_ rs; DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5364034.pdf
Brown, G., et al. 2013. Which ‘public’? For More Information Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered Pacific Southwest Region geographic information (VGI) systems http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/lan for public lands management. Journal dmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPR of Environmental Planning and D3802842 Management, DOI:10.1080/09640568.2012.741045 Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests Land Management Plans Planning, Appeals, and Litigation Revision System http://www.tinyurl.com/r5earlyadopte http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa rs ult/files/microsites/ceq/nepa_pilot_pro ject_nomination_-‐ Forest Plan Revision Public Involvement _sid_1217719_jim_smalls_usda_forest_s Milestones and Timeline ervice_-‐ http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D _planning_appeals_and_litigation_syste OCUMENTS/stelprd3804577.pdf m_pals.pdf
FACT SHEET AND UENTLY FREQ ASKED QUESTIONS for the Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Planning Process for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D OCUMENTS/stelprd3816791.pdf
Collaboration, Tribal, and Public Involvement Plan http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D OCUMENTS/stelprd3804576.pdf
USDA Forest Service Region 5, Forest Plan Revision Regional Collaboration & Communication Plan (2012). http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_ DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5364034.pdf
-‐ Page 69 -‐
Sierra National Forest
Location: Central California: Western Slope of the Sierra Nevada Size of Planning Area: 1.3 million acres Revision Start Year: 2012 Phase of Planning Process: eveloping D Alternatives
History of Planning Public Participation Process
The existing Forest Plan of the Sierra The SNF hired outside facilitators from National Forest (SNF) was published in The Center for Collaborative Policy 1992. The plan was amended in 2001 and (http://www.csus.edu/ccp/) to assist 2004. Recently, -‐ a ten year long legal with the design and facilitation of the battle initiated by environmental groups public participation process. Facilitators over the 2004 amendment was settled conducted a stakeholder analysis to (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/n identify stakeholder interests, potential ews-‐events/?cid=STELPRD3820877). The obstacles, and then developed a public plaintiffs and the SNF identified mutual participation and collaboration plan interests regarding conservation (Bartlett 2012). strategies, and agreed to work together on revising the new Forest Plan rather The SNF used Facebook, Twitter, SNFS than continue litigation. websites, email, and hardcopy mail to reach stakeholders, as well as the The 2004 amendment revised the 1992 following collaborative techniques: existing plan. The revision effort focused on the need to change identified through Science Synthesis -‐-‐ The science synthesis a public process. The revision did not was conducted by the Pacific Southwest attempt to change areas of the existing Research Station identify to and compile plan where the science was unclear or the most recent and relevant science. The there was not a compelling reason to Science Synthesis was an outcome of change existing management direction discussion held with the representatives (e.g. noxious weed management). This of the major opposing factions related to allowed the SNF to create a more focused forest management after the relationships revision while adhering to time and and understanding began to be built budget constraints. through the Sierra Cascades Dialogs. Rather than continuing legal action, The 2012 Planning Rule Assessment compiling the most current scientific Phase was initiated in the summer of information and determining its influence 2012. The Planning Rule requires each on forest management would encourage National Forest (NF) to provide resolving long-‐standing conflict. meaningful opportunities for public participation. In designing Science the Synthesis the SNF and stakeholders:
-‐ Page 70 -‐
v Jointly framed questions at th method of public engag ement from the scientists addressed in the synthesis; scoping process onwards. v Engaged in informal discussions that not only facilitated a common Results understanding of selected issues, but also strengthened relationships and Information from the SCD and built trust among stakeholders. stakeholder interviews for the onal nati forests in Region 5 were used to develop a Sierra Cascade Dialogues (SCD) -‐-‐ The SCD Collaboration and Communication . Plan is a series of public dialogues hosted by the Regional Office and facilitated by the This plan provides information and Center for Collaborative Policy. It’s a advice on engaging the public in revising forum where stakeholders come together, and updating national forest plans. The discuss salient issues, and encourage guide was robust and included input from mutual understanding. The dialogues: stakeholders (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D v Helped build capacity; OCUMENTS/stelprdb5408076.pdf). v Helped solicit input on salient issues from stakeholders; The FS used the plan as a tool for v Built consensus on issues that didn’t effectively engaging with stakeholders. require problem solving (i.e. how The best practices of collaboration, should questions be framed in the outlined in the guide, can be tailored by synthesis, how should the public be each national forest to meet the local engaged in the planning process, etc.); goals and interests of their respective v Allowed stakeholders expressed stakeholders. preferences of public engagement. Strides have been made to improve the Living Assessment (Wikipedia Page) -‐-‐ The relationship between the SNF and Wiki page was a public platform that stakeholders through the SCD ence and Sci allowed stakeholders to post information Synthesis. Some relationships among on salient issues regarding the SNF stakeholder groups have also improved. A assessment topics. large timber industry stakeholder group and an environmental stakeholder group v The Wiki page was ntended i to reach a were able to establish common interests younger demographic; and forge a working relationship as a v However, other stakeholders had result of these fforts. e some difficulty with this platform; v It was designed to facilitate a sense of ownership among stakeholders by Lessons Learned allowing them to create the page. v The organizational dynamics of the FS The SNF spent considerable time on the complicated the facilitation processes. initial assessment phase, compounding The FS supervisors opted for a single time restraints later in the process. Thus, team to work from the regional office open-‐house meetings were the primary to write the plan for each forest
-‐ Page 71 -‐
(Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia). Some FS employees did not agree with this v Collaborative techniques being used approach; they would have preferred need to be measured for effectiveness; planning at the forest level. This created tension within the agency and v It’s important to communicate to the conflict resolution was necessary to public that the FS will meet with resolve internal problems. Decisions stakeholders that request meetings; agreed upon through conflict resolution were recorded and binding. v Demonstrate to stakeholders that the Facilitators built capacity among IDT FS is using public comments; leaders, FS supervisors, and regional leaders with team-‐building exercises. v Don’t overlook the importance of the planning phase. Keep plans realistic. v The Sierra Cascade Dialogues were positively reviewed and supported by both the FS and stakeholders because For More Information it allowed stakeholders to ide help gu Final Sierra National Forest Assessment the planning process; http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D
OCUMENTS/stelprdb5446556.pdf v The SNF found that, prior to public meetings, providing a -‐minute 15 Sierra N ational Forest Plan Revision presentation on the proposed actions Collaboration and Communication Plan being discussed was well received by http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D public. The brief presentation OCUMENTS/stelprdb5408076.pdf informed the public and allowed them to engage in a more meaningful way; Article: US Forest Service, Conservation Groups Reach Agreement v The Wiki page confused stakeholders http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/ne and required a lot of time/effort from ws-‐events/?cid=STELPRD3820877 the FS. The strengths and weaknesses of engaging the public in this way Forest Plan Revision Collaboration Model should be considered prior to using http://www.csus.edu/ccp/presentations this method in the future; /stelprdb5422900.pdf
v Create a space for FS regions to Sierra Cascades Dialog Overview communicate with one other about Document successful strategies (logistics, public http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D engagement, etc.) used in the Forest OCUMENTS/stelprdb5411999.pdf Plan revision process; v High FS turnover and limited budget, USFS, Pacific Southwest Science Synthesis resources, and time hurt the process; (2013). http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/ v Facilitators can be used to support the documents/psw_gtr247/ understaffed FS teams in their work by assisting with the logistics of the planning process;
-‐ Page 72 -‐
US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Plan Revision website http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/landm anagement/planning
Public Involvement Milestones/Timeline http://mltpa.org/images/downloads/025 _25_USFS_Sched_stelprd3804577.pdf
Our Forest Place http://ourforestplace.ning.com/
History page for Sierra Nevada Forest Planning http://livingassessment.wikispaces.com/ Brief+History+of+Sierra+Nevada+Forest+ Planning
USFS Pacific Southwest Region Ecological Restoration http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landm anagement/?cid=STELPRDB5308848
Current Sierra ational N Forest Land and Resources Management Plan http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D OCUMENTS/stelprdb5373730.pdf
The Living Assessment http://livingassessment.wikispaces.com/
The Center for Collaborative Policy (http://www.csus.edu/ccp/)
Bartlett, Gina, (2012). Initial Summary of Stakeholder Analysis Interview Findings: Sierra National Forest Plan Revision. The Center for Collaborative Policy, Sacramento California.
-‐ Page 73 -‐
Tonto National Forest
Location: Central and Eastern Arizona Size of Planning Area: 2,873,200 acres across 4 counties; 583,000 acres managed as wilderness in 8 Wilderness Areas Revision Start Year: 2014 Phase of Planning Process: Assessment
History of Planning the collaboration process, planning and public involvement strategies, and to The current plan for the Tonto National begin to strategize who should be Forest was adopted in 1985, under the involved in the plan revision process and 1982 revised NFMA planning r egulations. how. US Forest Service officials began the process of redrafting a forest plan under The Collaboration Cadre engaged more the planning rules in 2005, but when than 100 people (out of an initial pool of those regulations got tied up in court they about 500 people) in the “listening discontinued their efforts after sessions”, representing a diversity of completing about 20% of the process. interests and perspectives -‐-‐ ranchers, recreation groups, Center the for Under the new 2012 planning rule, the Biological Diversity, off-‐road-‐vehicle Tonto National Forest began the process users, equestrian groups, government to revise and update the forest plan in officials, and university faculty. January 2014. This process is expected to be complete by 2018. The US Forest One goal of the Collaboration Cadre was Service officials expect that they will to identify “the right 40 people” who prepare the first draft of the new plan in would be most actively involved in public 2015, release it in early 2016, and then participation efforts and provide the most prepare a final draft in 2017 after public input and potential collaboration to the review and comment. forest. These listening sessions and subsequent workshops were meant to offer those interested an ppor o tunity to Public Participation Process seek involvement.
The public was engaged heavily during Following the listening sessions, the the assessment phase. Several sequential Collaboration Cadre was succeeded by steps were taken to he engage t public. Southwest Decision Resources, a First, the forest hosted -‐ 27 hour long professional facilitation organization. In “listening sessions.” This effort was the spring of 2014, the Tonto National facilitated by the USFS Collaboration Forest hosted two -‐ day long “workshops” Cadre. (which included field trips) with the most active attendees of the listening sessions, The purpose of the “listening sessions” a self-‐selected group of representatives was to gather public input and advice on from most of the relevant lobbies.
-‐ Page 74 -‐
The goal of these workshops was to “plan the word out and generate continued for the plan,” and they resulted in interest in the forest plan evision. r summary strategy reports for moving forward into later stages of the plan For use by agency personnel, Southwest revision, including suggestions for public Decision Resources designed a strategy involvement. called “meeting-‐in-‐a-‐box.” This set of documents and forms is intended to allow In May, June, and July 2014, the Tonto employees of the Forest to gather public National Forest hosted numerous input in a concerted fashion through “community forum” sessions. More than avenues that may exist independently of 1500 people – the entire mailing list the plan revision. Agency members created and managed by the national frequently attend the meetings of forest -‐-‐ were invited to listen to stakeholder groups and other public presentations on specific topics by agency forums; “meeting-‐in-‐a-‐box” provides members and speakers from partner them the resources to effectively convey groups. Discussion sessions followed the information, distribute forms, and seek presentations during which participants input in a uniform manner which will be were encouraged to voice their values useful to the plan revision team. and concerns related to that evening’s topic. Attendance at these sessions ranged from 12 to 60 or 70 people. Results
The Tonto National Forest also contracted v The Tonto National Forest has now with Voces, LLC to help the forest with received extensive public input outreach and engagement of Latino regarding various user groups’ communities. They began their work in interests, values, and concerns early October with interviews of 30 regarding future management efforts individuals and 18+ organizations in on the forest. Phoenix and the -‐Miami Globe area. The purpose of these interviews was to gather v They have established a central pool from the Latino community their of interested parties for future knowledge of and interest in the USFS and planning stages. their attitudes regarding use of these lands, barriers to engagement, and best v Public participation strategies for communication practices. They future phases of the plan revision are documented their findings with behavior-‐ yet undecided, but will likely follow based recommendations for effective similar models. connection and engagement, many of which will be incorporated into the Forest v The Tonto National Forest has hired Plan Revision Collaboration and Public an intern to focus on outreach, Participation Strategy. collaboration, and future efforts at public participation. In November 2014, the forest began attending local events such as festivals, v The forest is also reaching out to expos, and farmers markets to help get youth and Latino groups to search for overlooked or -‐ under represented
-‐ Page 75 -‐
knowledge, concerns, and needs. Such v Using more than one facilitation team information might become relevant to during the process can be inefficient the plan assessment. (The Tonto NF is and perhaps ineffective. Two different especially close to Phoenix, so there is facilitating teams were used in this an inherent tension between the first phase of the process. planning needs and opinions of local folks from Members of the team noted that this communities like Globe and the large can be a tricky transition, as number of more urban-‐oriented forest collaborative efforts and public users. Planners wish to make sure engagement are centrally questions of they understand the concerns of all managing people, relationships, and communities, especially the often less shared motivations. Facilitators are vocal but certainly relevant Latino professional process planners, and population in Arizona). thus prefer to be involved at every stage of the game. This transition has worked smoothly for the Tonto, but Lessons Learned the potential for headache was noted.
v Investing time and effort in mobilizing, v When engaging with a facilitation engaging, and informing the public team on collaboration strategies, early on in the process should provide avoid the inward-‐focused decision-‐ a solid foundation for future making that has been bred into agency engagement. Planning leaders were practice. Facilitation works best as satisfied with the results of these fully a team effort, and process collaborative sessions, and remain planning by facilitators should be hopeful that this huge initial push will considered as much if not more keep everyone interested and more important than the hosting of public informed uring d future stages of the meetings. plan revision. v Learn from the public participation v However, a lot of time invested in experiences of other national forests. public participation in only the Independently and prior to this assessment phase of revision can be current effort, US Forest Service exhausting. It remains unclear what officials realized the need to look the “return on investment” of this elsewhere for advice and relevant initial push will be in the future; experiences regarding public planners are certain that important participation. Through their facilitator, information, relationships, and trust Southwest cision De Resources, they was gained by these sessions, but began to reach out to other forests for stress that it pays to be “goal-‐oriented” this information. They also encourage with public engagement strategy. Ask other managers and forest planners to “what do we need from the public and be unafraid to look to other outlets for why?” before simply seeking sal univer important lessons, such as the input. This can help avoid overlap in experiences of city, county, and state effort at later planning stages. level government regarding local issues.
-‐ Page 76 -‐
v Additionally, traditional practices relating to forest planning are not necessarily undesirable; it is important to remember that the need to pursue collaboration can “ebb and flow,” and effective -‐making decision requires an understanding of this balance.
For More Information
Tonto National Forest Plan n Revisio http://www.tontoplan.org/
Tonto National Forest Plan, 1985 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1wq3f 66mAw_ajN2Sl8zcHNaMU0/edit
Tonto National Forest Plan Revision Overview Flier https://drive.google.com/viewerng/view er?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dG9udG9wbGFu Lm9yZ3x0b250by1uYXRpb25hbC1mb3Jl c3QtcGxhbi1yZXZpc2lvbnxneDo0NjI5ZTg 1ZTJkYTFhMThj
Southwest Decision Resources www.swdresources.com/
USDA Forest Service Collaboration Cadre http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/collabor ative_processes/default.htm
-‐ Page 77 -‐
Best Practices for Consulting with Tribes1
Introduction
The US Forest Service is required to rican consult with Ame Indian Tribes prior to and throughout the land management plan revision process under the 2012 planning rule. Thus far, there has been little nce guida into how US Forest Service planners should meet this requirement. This memorandum (1) reviews the work legal frame for government-‐to-‐ government consultation between the US nment federal gover and tribes (see Appendix A); (2) clarifies the requirements for consultation r unde the 2012 planning rule; (3) examines tribal feedback on the development of the 2012 rule; (4) highlights insights from early adopter national forests; and (5) presents lessons learned and best practices for tribal consultation under e th 2012 planning rule.
This memorandum was prepared through an examination of the legal and departmental tribal consultation policies, and by communicating with early adopter forest IDT leaders and tribal liaisons. While it provides some practical guidance to national forests on how best to achieve the intent of the on tribal consultati requirement, these best practices are, in many ways, only half the picture. A more complete, robust, and credible menu of best practices requires seeking input and m advice fro tribes on what, from their perspective, constitutes meaningful consultation under the 2012 planning rule.
The 2012 Planning Rule Requirements for Tribal Consultation
The 2012 Planning Rule (the rule) describes Tribal Consultation as an ongoing, iterative process, which can occur at any time, and should continue through the issuance of the final rule. The rule directs the agency to “work with federally recognized Indian Tribes, government-‐to-‐government, as providing in treaties nsistent and laws co with Executive orders when developing, amending, ing or revis plans.”2 Further, it explains that it is the Forest Service’s responsibility to “consult early with Tribal governments and to work cooperatively with them where planning issues affect Tribal ests.” inter 3
In the national forest system land management planning requirement section, the Rule begins with a disclaimer that the part ect “does not aff treaty rights or valid existing rights established by statute or legal 4 instruments. Then under the Rule’s requirements for public participation, it states that the responsible official shall:
1 This memo was prepared by Dylan DesRosier, , M.S. Candidate University of Montana, College of Forestry 2 2012 Planning Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 68/Monday, April 9, 2012/Rules and Regulations. 21258 (97). 3 Id. 4 Id. at 99.
-‐ Page 78 -‐
a. “Encourage participation by: “(v) Interested or affected federally recognized Indian Tribes or Alaska Native Corporations.”5
b. “Request information from Tribes about ge, native knowled including information about land ethics, cultural issues, and sacred and culturally significant sites, during the planning process.”6
c. “Review the planning and land use policies of federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations.”7
The Rule also requires agencies to “encourage federally recognized Tribes to seek cooperating agency status.”8 Additionally, the 2012 Planning Rule frames the responsibility as an obligation; an obligation on Forest Service officials to provide opportunities to consult, and further, to reach out early to engage them throughout the planning process.9
a. Section 219.4 requires opportunities for public and Tribal participation and coordination throughout the planning 10 process.
b. Section 219.4(a)(3) requires that the responsible official request ‘‘information about native knowledge, land ethics, cultural issues, and sacred and culturally significant sites’’ during consultation and enable opportunities for Tribal participation.
c. Section 219.6(b) res requi assessment content to include cultural conditions and cultural and historic resources and uses.
d. Section 219.10(b)(1)(ii) of the states rule that ‘‘plan components… for a new plan or plan revision must provide for protection of cultural and historic esources,’’ r and ‘‘management of areas of Tribal importance.’’
Tribal Consultation on the 2012 Planning Rule
Prior to the 2012 Planning Rule’s final promulgation, the Forest Service consulted with Tribes through a National Tribal Conference Call and solicited Tribal input during scoping. The conference call included broad commentary e that th Forest Service has a responsibility to acknowledge and protect Tribal reserved rights (harvest traditional forest resources,
5 Id. at 101. 6 Id. 7 Id. at § 219.4(b)(2) 8 Id. The Rule also discusses that cooperating s agency status doe not “replace or supersede the trust responsibilities and requirements for consultation also recognized and e included in th final rule.” 9 Id. 98. 10 Id.
-‐ Page 79 -‐
food resources, and medicinal resources), as well as religious and ceremonial practices on the programmatic planning level.11
Additionally, the commentary included more focused input, including the following recommendations that the Forest Service and the 2012 planning rule should:
a. Provide ibes tr with continued access and use of the flora and fauna that they have traditionally used within national 12 forests.
b. Provide for tribal -‐management co of sacred 13 sites
c. Provide opportunities to formally include the voice of indigenous elders. This should be done in a traditional way (meaningful, purposeful, face to 14 face).
d. Reduce the impact of unfunded mandates equests (“We get more r from the forest service for input then we have staff 15 to respond”).
e. Prioritize meeting face-‐to-‐face and provide funding or f Tribal representatives to attend meetings if they are held at rest-‐ a regional or fo wide level.
f. Contain prescriptive language requiring the Forest Service to analyze the effects of any proposed federal action on the exercise and continued protection of tribes’ reserved treaty rights.16
In addition to the Tribal Nations , Conference Call tribes commented through the NEPA scoping process. These included a noteworthy scoping letter on the Nez Perce Tribe’s comments on the Rule. The comments on ystem National Forest s land management planning are outlined as follows:
a. Describing the importance of Tribal Consultation r ove decisions that might have an impact on reserved rights, “The perpetual existence of these rights [Reserved Rights] was an absolute e prerequisit to the treaty agreement between the Nez Perce Tribe and the United States, and that guarantee was memorialized in the treaty, and is in force today. It is imperative that the Forest Service, as a federal agency and manager of these lands, must administer them in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations attendant to the treaty, which is the supreme law of the land.”17
11 See Forest Service Planning Rule National Tribal Summary Conference Call. of Participant . Input Page 5-‐11, (2010). Accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/collaboration/?cid=STELPRDB5156397 12 Id. 13 Id. at 6 14 Id. at 8 15 Id. 16 Id. at 10. 17 See Nez Perce Tribe’s scoping comments regarding est the For Service’s Land Management Planning Rule. Feb 16, (2010).
-‐ Page 80 -‐
b. “It is vital, therefore, that this planning rule expressly acknowledge the treaty, enforceable rights that the treaty creates on National Forest Service lands within the Tribe’s territory, and how any direction under the planning rule will not unduly interfere with the exercise of those rights.”18
Tribal Consultation Practices Among Early sts Adopter Fore
The objectives of this memorandum were to: first, explore how the early adopter forests have implemented and engaged in tribal consultation under the requirements in the 2012 Planning Rule; and second, reflect on the lessons learned to offer recommendations on best practices. This memorandum utilized an informal approach, where the early adopter Forest Service IDT leaders and/or forest level tribal liaisons were contacted with tribal consultation questions over the phone and by email.
Although most of the early forests adopter are still in the initial phases of revision, there were several insights that were informative. randum This memo examines how the Nez Perce-‐Clearwater, the Flathead, the Francis Marion, the the Tonto, the Carson, Sierra, the Sequoia, and the Santa e F National Forests have approached the tribal consultation requirements under the 2012 planning rule.
Across these national forests, it is clear that there have been very different approaches to engaging tribes in consultation under the new planning requirements. It is important to note that the early adopter Forests are in different phases of the revision process. Although many of the early adopters seem eager nformal to enter into i and formal consultation, several were uncertain how to best proceed with the formal consultation requirements and later stages in the . process
In addition, here t were some negative sentiments expressed that the process had, thus far, been a “struggle.” Part of the struggle for the IDT leaders evolved seems to have r around trying to educate and communicate the stages and importance of participating in the revision process (phases -‐ assessment, scoping, writing of plan components) to tribes. This challenge seemed especially the case when essary it was nec to engage numerous tribes.
Some of the perceived struggle around rest communicating fo planning may stem from a larger tension, i.e. overall uncertainty t about how ribes should be involved during each phase of the process. This was evidenced through a perceived lack of guidance in the planning rule about how tribal to take input into account. This sentiment is ironic, however, because if consultation is done well ul, and is meaningf it should serve as the primary means of resolving just that uncertainty. If clearly informed and formally engaged, tribes should not only clarify the ways in which they would like to be involved, but likely provide substantive feedback into the plan assessment and plan components. Without formal
18 Id.
-‐ Page 81 -‐
acknowledgement and intent to include tribal input into he t land management plan, what are the incentives for tribes to participate?
One lesson is clear. Prior to starting the revision process, the forest needs to go directly the tribe(s) and ask how they want to be involved. At the foundation of ion consultat is a simple premise; two governments sitting across from one another and discussing how best to communicate.
On the Carson National Forest, the forest is purposely refraining from involving tribes during the writing of the assessment phase. Although the intent was to avoid wasting the tribes’ time, holding off on communication seems to run counter to involving tribes early and throughout the process. Additionally, the tribes could potentially mportant provide i information to be considered in the ermore, assessment. Furth not engaging tribes prior to writing the assessment potentially creates a setting where the Tribe is institutionally behind and facing an uphill battle.
Another challenge expressed by multiple early adopter forests was the lack of time and personnel to accomplish meaningful consultation. For example, ribal the T liaison on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests communicated that even working full time, still he is limited in his ability to engage in the level of consultation needed.
Despite the challenges and struggles e, expressed abov there are some patterns that exhibit a commitment to make tribal consultation more meaningful than it has been in the past. Several forests illustrated the willingness t to engage ribes through -‐ face to-‐face meetings and in person communication. All of the early adopters had begun some form of tribal consultation – i.e., sending notice letters and convening a preliminary meeting. he T early adopter forests also seem to understand the importance of engaging tribes in a process separate from the general public participation sses. proce This should not be confused to mean that tribes shouldn’t be allowed or encouraged to participate in the public participation requirements. In fact, having tribal representation present at public meetings proved to be key in one instance.
Two Case Studies
Both the Flathead and Nez Perce-‐Clearwater National Forests exhibited more advanced levels of consultation early and progress. In both contexts, F orest S ervice staff and the tribes have built working relationships and have a history of informal consultation. Having a preexisting relationship between Forest Service planner and tribal staff seems key to their progress. However, there are also a few components of their consultation approaches that have made a substantial difference. Both Forests have committed to working with tribes in-‐person on their terms. In addition, there has been an investment in informal consultation, where tribal staff and Forest Service staff communicate.
On the Flathead, the consultation process has been a mix of informal and formal communication that has almost all occurred in face-‐to-‐face settings. The Flathead NF
-‐ Page 82 -‐
reflected that the initial “briefing” process was critical. During est this process, the For Service staff met with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council to describe the plan revision process, new planning regulations, management implications, and communicated that the Forest Service would keep them as engaged as they would like to be. Then the Forest Service followed up through continued communication with tribal staff, asking for feedback in terms of the plan assessment and potential plan components.
The Flathead specifically consulted with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes during the assessment phase and incorporated the tribes’ input directly in the writing of the assessment. Once the draft assessment was written, e th Forest once again informally consulted with t ribal staff. Thus in far the planning process, the rest Fo Service planners have sought to be explicit about what s communication i intended to be informal vs. formal.
Despite the early achievement of the ocess consultation pr on the Flathead National Forest, the process can still be a challenge. One critical theme surrounds timing. The Flathead mentioned the challenging context of changing staff and keeping the decision-‐makers up to speed. This challenge can face either side of the consultation, as Forest Service planners frequently changeover, and Tribal Council leadership changes over through elections. The timing challenge, however, also pointed tance out the impor of having good informal relationships between Forest Service planners t and ribal staff, as they often can update leadership on the process. Communicating across multiple staff personnel can also have drawbacks however. This context is ripe cation for miscommuni amongst staff and between leadership, which underscor es the value of designating a point person to coordinate consultation and communication between the parties.
The Nez Perce Clearwater National W) Forest (NPC has full a time Forest Service Tribal Government Liaison staff person who’s oordinating in charge of c the consultation between the two governments. This has absolutely been key in contributing to an effective consultation process between the Nez Perce Tribe and the National Forest.
In addition to the full time liaison, vice the Forest Ser partnered with the Nez Perce Tribe to create a part time Forest Plan Revision liaison position within the tribe so that a tribal representative could attend all of the cipation public parti meetings on the revision process. On the W NPC National Forest, the Forest Service t and the ribe are also negotiating a Cooperative Agency Agreement which should clarify the consultation process even more moving forward through the more formal plan component and EIS phases of revision.
Another component of the consultation process implemented by the NPCW National Forest is its attempts integrate to Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Tribal Elders. The NPCW held two community meetings on the reservation to meet the planning rule requirements and invited tribal elders for incorporating traditional and cultural knowledge. Although, there was low attendance, there were instances where elders offered insightful traditional and cultural stories. Having tribal a liaison to interpret and organize this component of the process seemed critical.
-‐ Page 83 -‐
Lessons Learned & Best Practices
The following lessons and prescriptions are designed to guide representatives from the US Forest Services and tribes as they engage in government-‐to-‐government consultation consistent with the 2012 planning rule.
v The first step in the consultation process is critical. The Forest Supervisor line officer should initiate government-‐to-‐government consultation as early as possible through 19 formal consultation with tribal leadership.20. This initial consultation should:
a. Clearly describe the purpose and importance of the plan revision process and the phases involved;
b. Ask tribal leadership (and tribal staff) what their preferred methods of communication are and options for proceeding mal with for consultation. (For example, Memorandum of Understanding, Partnership ments, Agree and Cooperative Agency Status). s A illustrated by the NPCW case study, miscommunication would have been avoided ative if the Cooper Agency Agreement had been negotiated at the outset of the revision process rather then between the assessment and scoping phases.
c. Explain how t ribal nput i will be taken into account.
v The planners should set a meaningful precedent for learning how the Tribe would like to be involved by approaching the early stages of consultation with respect and an understanding that there may be a lack of trust.
v Be Flexible – Forest Service officials should Tribe allow the time to deliberate and be open to negotiating specifics. If particular nes deadli must be set, they should be clearly explained.21 Furthermore, in-‐person communication and meetings should be followed up. Questions may not be answered immediately. sary It may be neces to allow Tribal leaders or staff to think about the scuss question and di it with tribal committees, members, or tribal councils.22
v Formal consultation procedures should be ed distinguish from informal types of communication. he T Forest Service should be clear on whether it is notifying the Tribe of an action or consulting with them eement. and seeking agr 23
19 United States Forest -‐ Service Office of Tribal Relations, National Resource Guide to American Indian and Alaska Native Relations. Accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/pubs_reports/NationalResourceGuide.shtml. (Hereafter referenced as OTR Guidelines) Page 37. 20 Id. 21 Supra note 8. 22 Id. 23 Id.
-‐ Page 84 -‐
v Forest Service officials should identify a single point of contact for each tribe during th e planning process. Having one person engaged and able to communicate with Forest Service staff and tribal staff is ssful critical to succe communication. Further, the tribal contact or liaison should also ensure epartments that tribal d and tribal natural esource r staff are updated and informed. v The demands of informally and formally consulting tribes through the entire revision process stress the need for designating a full time position to the Tribes task. do not often have the capacity to dedicate cessary the ne time or resources for either informal or formal consultation. On the Nez Perce-‐Clearwater, the full time Tribal Government Liaison and part time consultation liaison proved to be essential in meeting the requirements of consultation and making aningful. the process me Additionally, the obligation to reduce unfunded mandates o on Tribes als underscores this need. v On the NPCW, the Tribal Government Liaison described ing that enter into a “participating agreement” under Public 148 Law 94-‐ facilitated the Tribe to hire a part time Forest Plan Revision liaison using the Tribe’s hiring process and tribal preference. v Where budgetary restrictions make hiring aison a tribal li for consultation purposes infeasible, the Forest Service should explore opportunities to integrate tribal interests by including Tribal representatives on interdisciplinary teams. On the Freemont-‐ Winema National Forest, the forest included a Klamath Tribal Member on the interdisciplinary team.24 In that case, a 2005 Memorandum of Agreement mandated that consultation be, not only carried out with quarterly meetings between tribal program managers and forest supervisors, but also called for tribal involvement on the forest’s interdisciplinary team.25 v Communicating on a face-‐to-‐face level acilitate to f consultation through the entire revision process with multiple tribes is going to be a challenging undertaking for planners. However, this challenge highlights the need for Forest Service personnel to be well prepared, familiar with the consultation ements requir and tribal expectations, and to plan ahead for designing effective ways of building relationships with tribes.
v It may be beneficial for Forest Service planners to also collaborate with larger intertribal groups and organizations (e.g. Montana-‐Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council) in seeking additional tribal input. However, contact or consultation with these types of groups is not a substitute for conducting government-‐to-‐government consultation with elected t ribal leaders.26
v Some of the early adopter forests communicated that it has been a challenge for Tribes to describe sacred sites, traditional ecological knowledge, and other sensitive cultural
24 See Martin Nie. The Use -‐ of Co Management and Protected -‐ Land Use Designations to protect Tribal Cultural Resources and Reserved Treaty hts Rig on Federal . Lands Natural Resources Journal. 611 (2008). 25 Id. 26 Id. at 38.
-‐ Page 85 -‐
information, at least in part due to a fear of that information becoming public, leading to potential degradation and/or abuse.
v This concern can be partially alleviated e through th 2008 farm bill provision that gives USDA power to legally protect sensitive ormation, cultural inf i.e. exempt it from being subject to FOYA requirements (public law 110-‐234).27 Thus;
v It is critical that the Forest Service at communicate th Tribal input about sacred sites and cultural information can be protected m by law fro being public information.
v Tribes have the ability to not only participate in planning through government-‐to-‐ government consultation, but also the through public comment process, collaboration, and other forms of agreement-‐like cooperating agency status. Engaging in an all of the above approach with these different forms of federal/tribal cooperation will ot n only facilitate better planning, but will also reduce duplication of effort, areas of uncertainty, and most importantly lessen the chances for conflict.
Ultimately, the Forest Service must not only consult with Tribes during planning revision to meet the planning rule regulations, but also to meet its broad trust responsibilities.28 The Forest Service has a duty to consult and coordinate land management plans to: v Honor rights that apply to National Forest System Lands, consistent with other Federal Laws.29 v Incorporate the information from such consultations nto i planning documents and the decision making process.30 v Show Tribes how their information 31 was used. v Facilitate access, consistent with Federal Law, so that Tribal members may exercise rights reserved by treaty.32 v Consult between tribes, the forest service, and other parties as necessary to resolve conflicts that may arise.33
Conclusions
27 See appendix A 28 Id. at 52. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id.
-‐ Page 86 -‐
Although the early adopter forests illustrate several lessons and key insights into tribal consultation under the 2012 planning rule revision requirements, there are two critical components to this question that have ed not been cover in this memorandum. The next step in analyzing tribal consultation for these early adopter forests is surveying how the tribes feel about the process. Ultimately, tribal perspectives on the process will likely depend on how their input is reflected ng in the writi of plan components. Thus, the final step in this analysis should explore how these early adopter tribal forests are incorporating feedback and concerns into the assessments and plan components.
-‐ Page 87 -‐
Appendix A
The Source and Nature of Tribal Consultation
The sovereign status of American Indian d Tribes existe prior to the formation of the United States and has en be recognized throughout Federal Indian Law.34 The distinct35 political and legal status of Tribes has been affirmed through the United States Constitution36, Treaties, Statutes37, and Supreme Court Case Precedent.
Commonly recognized attributes of vereignty tribal so include the following:
a. Treaties are contractual agreements made in perpetuity, between nations, and are at the foundation of US – Tribal relations and Federal Indian law.
b. Tribal rights and powers not ceded in treaties or limited through congressional abrogation remain with Tribal governments or reservation communities.38
c. Treaty rights are retained rights, meaning they were rights that tribes reserved and exercised as sovereign nations prior 39 to contact. Therefore they were not “granted” or “given” in treaties but retained 40 and held.
d. The United States has a fiduciary Trust relationship ( doctrine) with Tribes, and Tribal lands and resources. The trust responsibility is a legally enforceable obligation, a duty, on the part of the U.S. Government to protect the rights of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes.41
The legal and fiduciary relationship between the United States and Tribes is the basis for all government-‐to-‐government consultation requirements for partment executive de agencies and activities. There are numerous Federal laws ders and Executive Or that require and interpret how to achieve government-‐to-‐government “consultation” with 42 tribes. The
34 Charles F. Wilkinson, American Indians, Time, and the Law 102-‐04 (1987). 35 “Indian Tribes are not foreign s, nation but distinct political entities, governing themselves, and making treaties with the united -‐ states” Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). 36 See Treaty Making Power, U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3. 37 Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, NHPA, AIRFA, NEPA, NAGPRA. 38 F. Cohen. Handbook of Federal Indian Law 232-‐35 (1982), U.S. v. Winans (1905), Washington v. Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel . Assn (1979) 39 Coggins, George C. and Modrcin, Native William. American Indians Federal and Wildlife Law. Stanford Law Review. 375-‐423. (1979). 40 Id. 41 See OTR Guidelines, “The Trust Responsibility is the U.S. Government’s permanent legal obligation to exercise statutory and other legal authorities ribal to protect t lands, assets, ces, resour and treaty rights, as well as a duty to carry out the law mandates of federal with respect to American Indian e and Alaskan Nativ Tribes.” 42 See OTR Guidelines page 38, e.g. National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976, The National Forest Management Act of 1976, National Historic Preservation Act of
-‐ Page 88 -‐
USDA offers the following as a definition of tribal consultation, “Tribal Consultation is the timely, meaningful, and substantive dialogue between USDA officials who have delegated authority to consult, and the official leadership of Federally recognized Indian Tribes, or their designated representatives, pertaining A to USD policies that may l have triba implications.”43
The importance of consultation has been ugh affirmed thro Presidential memoranda in 1994, 2000, 2004, and additionally President in 2009 by Obama. Although nonbinding and mostly aspirational, the Sacred Sites r Executive Orde in 1996 directs also executive agencies to accommodate and protect sacred sites.44
In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13175 on “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” ates It mand that agencies have “accountable processes to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”45
The executive order directs that agencies “shall respect -‐government Indian tribal self and sovereignty, honor tribal treaty her and ot rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments.”46 Furthermore it states that agencies “shall not issue regulations impacting tribes without first consulting tribal governments early in the development of the regulations.”47 It also broadly directs agencies to:
a. Establish regular and meaningful consultation ses proces 48
b. Strengthen the United States’ government to government relationship49
c. Reduce the imposition of unfunded 50 mandates
In 2009, President Obama issued Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments
1966, The 1996 Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007, The 2000 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175. 43 See United States Department of Agriculture, Departmental Regulation for Tribal Consultation, rdination, Coo and Collaboration. 1350 -‐002. Jan 18, 2013. Accessed at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/departmental-‐ regulation-‐1350-‐002 44 See OTR Guidelines Appendix A. Page 19, Section (1)(a): “In managing Federal lands, ve each executi branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions: (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity ites. of such sacred s Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.” 45 Exec. Order No. 13,175, 65 Fed. Reg. (Nov. 67,249, 67,250 6, 2000). 46 Id. at 67,250. 47 Id. at 67,249. 48 Supra note 11 49 Id. 50 Id.
-‐ Page 89 -‐
and Agencies reemphasizing E.O. 51 13175. Obama also noted that “failure to include the voices of tribal officials in formulating ecting policy aff their communities has all too often led to undesirable, and, at times, devastating and tragic results.”52
In January 2013, the Department of Agriculture promulgated a Departmental Regulation to direct agencies’ interpretation of the requirements of e EO 13175. Th departmental regulation interprets the “tribal implications” trigger language as meaning, “it is essential that all agencies of the USDA engage with Tribes in timely and meaningful consultation on policies that have substantial direct effects on one or more tribes.”53 The regulations mandate that USDA agencies “shall respect Indian tribal self-‐government and sovereignty, honor tribal treaty and other rights, esponsibilities and meet the r that arise from the unique legal relationship between Federal the Government and Tribal governments.”54
The document defines consultation, minimum accountable process requirements,55 and clarifies what actions might trigger consultation. he T regulation asserts that while notification, technical communication, and other forms of outreach with Tribal staff are integral to strengthening relationships they are not formal consultation.56 Further, the regulation sets a consultation threshold that is precautionary.57 Finally, the USDA Departmental Regulation articulates the basic steps for consultation.58
51 See Tribal Consultation, 74 Fed. Reg. 57,881 (Nov. 5, 2009). 52 Id. 53 Supra note 16. 54 Id. at . 2 55 Id. at 5. 56 Id. at 8. 57 Supra note 16, at 9. “If the agency does nce not know the significa of the effect, or even whether there will be an effect, the agency should inquire of potentially effected Tribes whether the Tribes thinks there would be an effect, how significant such an effect may be, and whether they would like to consult.” 58 Id at 15.
-‐ Page 90 -‐
Best Practices Coordinating for with Local Governments59
Abstract
This memorandum examines how federal agencies rnments and local gove are collaborating in land use planning. It begins by ative offering a compar review of the multiple planning systems across the four major federal land management agencies. Although each agency posses unique mandates and responsibilities, e they ar connected at their foundation by a single unifying theme: it is in the best interest of the nation for public lands and their resources to be managed according to long-‐term, ensive compreh plans that are carefully crafted through public involvement and cooperative governmental efforts.60 The focus of this review and the intended outcome of its findings is to provide the National Forest Service with useful information to aid n its success i implementing the 2012 Planning Rule. Of greatest relevance to this project is the Forest Service’s mandate to encourage participation by counties and vernments. local go 61
The research which forms the foundation for this d memorandum is base on interviews with federal and local officials who were recently involved in a federal planning process. These interviews were conducted by students at the University of Montana School of Law as a part of a different similar, but project, with a focus on identifying best practices. By analyzing the responses of both federal and local planners regarding their most recent experiences with the process, it is possible to isolate trends and identify those strategies and practices that promote strong collaboration that and those engender frustration or discontent. Thus, the findings included ject in this pro are organized around these common themes and ultimately, lend themselves to recommendations, both for federal agencies and for local governments, to make the planning re process mo meaningful, efficient, and durable.
Comparison of Federal Planning Processes
Bureau of Land Management
At the core of the BLM’s planning rgovernmental directives is inte coordination and public participation. Whether in the “development, al, approv maintenance, amendment, or revision” of an RMP, the BLM must consider the impact of their decisions on local economies and other proximate lands ld not he in federal ownership. Moreover, the agency’s RMPs must utilize an interdisciplinary oach appr to “insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts” in addition to providing the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in and comment on all aspects of planning activities. In spite of these edified ideals, agency planners are largely left with
59 This memorandum was prepared by Graham Coppes. 60 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(2) (2012), 36 C.F.R. § 219.12(d)(1) (2014). 61 36 C.F.R. § 219.4(a)(1)(iv).
-‐ Page 91 -‐
sweeping deference in their administration. Since at least in certain circumstances these plans will have the force law of , this type of uninhibited discretion seems antediluvian, if not directly contrary to purpose.
In addition to requiring the encouragement of public participation, BLM rules implementing FLPMA’s mandates require coordination in planning efforts between “other Federal agencies, state and local governments, ederally and f recognized Indian tribes.” The scope of these coordinated planning efforts includes recognition of these authorities as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process as well as providing for “review, advice, and suggestion on issues and topics which may affect or influence other agency or other government programs.” In preparing RMPs, agency regulations also demand that the BLM planners comprehensively review the “policies, plans and programs” of state, local and Tribal governments in an attempt to insure multilevel consistency. Interestingly enough, the same internal guidelines expressly recognize that local governments carry the burden of identifying conflicts and interjecting themselves into the process. Furthermore, the agency’s regulations provide an all-‐encompassing federal-‐local conflict preemption hierarchy that is to be “normally” followed. Thus, even amongst and through the BLM’s strong obligations towards rgovernmental inte coordination, it appears that their significance and consequence is mutually n dependent o the proactive involvement of other branches of government and the independent policy agenda of individual agency officials.
United States Forest Service
Under the new 2012 National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule, much like BLM planning, Forest Service planning must “engage the public—including Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, individuals, and public and private organizations — or entities early and throughout the planning process.”62
These modern agency planning guidelines showcase the Forest Service’s belief in the value of multi-‐level and diverse interactions in its . planning process To that end, the agency’s expressed desire to achieve an interdisciplinary collaborative approach appears inextricably linked to the active participation of all interested individuals and entities. Most notably, the presence of a cooperative participation platform in the National Environmental Policy Act gives local governments ounties and c a national and potentially judicial forum in which to meaningfully address their concerns over management actions in their immediate community. Nevertheless, the on determinati of the individual mechanisms and mediums for public participation are rved largely rese to the discretion of the acting Forest Supervisor.
The appeal of the Forest Service’s natural resource management planning system is easy to understand as it infers a logical, forward looking and scientifically -‐making based decision process. Further, it seems likely tive to result in posi outcomes for both ecological and societal communities. However, as with any planning procedure, National Forest re plans a
62 Id. at § 219.4(a)(1) (emphasis added).
-‐ Page 92 -‐
intrinsically limited by the quality and f diversity o information available. As a result, it may be that the actual and realized effectiveness of forest planning efforts is contingent upon the cooperative principles at the heart of the agency’s own rule book being embraced and encouraged at every step.
United States Fish and Wildlife 63 Service
In contrast with the multiple-‐use objectives that define BLM and Forest Service land use, the National Wildlife Refuge System has a more singular mission to protect wildlife and habitat in specific regions across 64 the country. In working towards this goal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participates in multiple levels of refuge planning,65 including long range, comprehensive planning to restore and maintain the ecological integrity of each refuge.66 The agency’s Manual on Land Use & Management guides the development of “comprehensive conservation plans”67 and subsequent “step-‐down management 68 plans.” Comprehensive conservation plans provide a broad framework and big picture outline of objectives and goals for each refuge, and step-‐down management plans then lay out specific details for implementing goals identified in the comprehensive plans.69 The Manual describes how the plans work together and highlights the ortance imp of considering other, non-‐agency plans that affect the landscape in which the refuge is located.70
Interviews with refuge planners revealed mixed levels of success in involving local governments in refuge planning. One planner reported that the agency’s predominant focus is at the state level “first and logists foremost,” with bio in particular. She noted that “[a]s far as local governments and counties, they are typically not at the table for [comprehensive conservation plans].” In contrast, the agency’s vision is that refuge systems will work in partnership with area cooperatives during the drafting and implementation of refuge plans, resulting in a more holistic and efficient conservation strategy that considers the entire ecosystem and landscape where the refuge 71 exists.
United States National Park Service72
63 This section is an excerpt from a forthcoming law review article by professor Michelle Bryan, of which myself, Katelyn Hepburn and Ross -‐ Keogh are co authors. 64 Fish and Wildlife Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 742a-‐742j (2012). 65 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. (USFWS), USFWS SERVICE M ANUAL: LAND U SE AND M ANAGEMENT S ERIES (Parts 601-‐ 660) at 602 FW 1, Refuge Planning available Overview (2000), at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/part.cfm?series=600&seriestitle=LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT SERIES [hereinafter USFWS SERVICE M ANUAL]. 66 Id. at 602 FW , 3.1 Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process. 67 USFWS SERVICE M ANUAL, supra note 151, at 602 FW 3. 68 Id. at 602 FW 1.7(E). 69 Id. at 602 FW 1.8. 70 USFWS SERVICE M ANUAL, supra note 151, at 602 8. FW 1, 1. 71 USFWS, F INAL R EPORT: A LANDSCAPE-‐SCALE A PPROACH TO R EFUGE S YSTEM P LANNING (2013), http://www.fws.gov/refuges/vision/pdfs/PlanningGuideRev10.pdf. 72 This section is an excerpt from a forthcoming law review article by professor Michelle Bryan, of which myself, Katelyn Hepburn and Ross -‐ Keogh are co authors.
-‐ Page 93 -‐
The National Park Service’s mission is to manage and conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife within the national park system for the enjoyment of future generations.73 The agency participates in many different types of planning efforts,74 and is required by statute to develop and implement “general management plans” for 75 each park. To supplement its broad statutory planning mandates, the National Park Service has Management Planning Policies that further detail all park planning processes.76 In addition to the Management Planning Policies, the Director’s Order 12 and accompanying Handbook 12 also provide guidance for collaboration during 77 planning processes and encourage a level of engagement and cooperative regional planning that exceeds NEPA requirements whenever possible.78 Further, all park plans under review are accessible online to the public for comment.79
As with the other agencies surveyed, park planners gave mixed responses to the question of local government involvement in agency planning. One park planner indicated that “we have no formal planning documents; the NPS does not give us that kind of guidance on inclusion of state and local governments in comprehensive planning for the park. . .” While this same planner has a strong practice of informally reaching out to local governments, she noted that she and her colleagues ” were “unclear on whether NEPA “speaks to having local governments as cooperating agencies,” believing that it does not. Within the same state, a planner at another state park noted that “we coordinate [with local governments] all the time” and that “cooperative om planning stems fr NEPA.”
Recommendations for Federal Agencies
After reviewing interview conversations with participants in a federal land use planning processes, several dominant themes emerged. mes These the are being translated here into recommendations for Forest Service to review ider and cons in implementing the 2012 Planning Rule. Although these recommendations are xperiences derived from e in planning processes across the different agencies, the review above showcases the similarities between them. Thus, simple logic demands that these lessons are universal for federal agency planning and should be applicable across the board.
1. Standardize Planning Processes Among Agencies
To local government officials, it often seems that all federal employees work for the
73 16 U.S.C. § 1 (2012). 74 National Park Service M (NPS), ANAGEMENT P OLICIES 2.2 (2006), available at http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf [hereinafter M NPS ANAGEMENT P OLICIES]. 75 16 U.S.C. -‐ § 1a 7(b) (2012). 76 NPS M ANAGEMENT P OLICIES, supra note 180, at 2. 77 NPS M ANAGEMENT P OLICIES, supra note 180, at 2.3.1.5 (2006); NPS, Directors Order-‐12 Handbook, http://planning.nps.gov/document/do12handbook1.pdf (last visited Apr. 25, 2014). 78 Id. at 2.3.1.8. 79 NPS, Park Planning, Environment and Public Comment, http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ (last visited Apr. 25, 2014).
-‐ Page 94 -‐
“federal government.” Although this is implification, a clear overs it remains true in the eyes of many. It is understandable fficials then why local o find themselves perplexed when one agency planning process differs vastly from another. However, this idea is not just noted by local governments. One xplained federal planner e that “prior processes create expectations about how future processes will work.” County commissioners in Montana, who previously had a positive experience working with the BLM as a cooperating agency, were surprised to be told by a Fish & Wildlife Service refuge manager that they “weren’t eligible” for cooperating agency status ensive on a compreh conservation plan and that he “could deny them if [he] wanted. It is understandable how this type of inconsistency between federal agencies could create frustration.
In another Montana county that is working with both the Forest Service and BLM on sage grouse planning, a commissioner observed with frustration that “there is a significant difference between BLM and USFS.” And even within one agency, there can be disconcerting variations in the way different planning processes are run. One Colorado county commissioner compared his negative f experience o working with BLM on oil shale planning to his positive experience of working with a different BLM staff on resource management plan.
It is understandable that the various federal planning processes will never be identical. How could they be? Or for that ouldn't matter, maybe they sh be. Each agency’s unique mission, alongside the nuances of the graphy physical geo of their planning areas, does not lend itself to such uniformity. However, ews our intervi and research suggests that even the most marginal standardization between agencies could significantly improve the collaborative process. simplest The solutions appear to lie in language. By using uniform language amongst the different agency processes, and even internally, the Forest Service will be creating a much more user friendly environment for local officials, and as a result, encouraging the collaborative spirit which rests at the heart of the 2012 Planning Rule.
2. Build Bridges Between Federal and Local Planning Processes
Both federal agencies and local planners use the phrase “land use planning”. However, this phrase has drastically different meaning to each. Similarly, to local governments the term “population trends” naturally relates the humans. Yet, to the Fish & Wildlife Service, the word “population” refers to wildlife species. Our interviews with local officials exposed the confusion that agency jargon often creates. In worst-‐case scenarios, the confusion can be so great that it alienates efforts to coordinate all together. The use of the word “nonsignificant” by federal agencies exemplifies s thi reality. To those trained in federal law, this word has specific legal meaning as it is used to describe issues that need not be addressed during NEPA environmental review.80 However, to local officials,
80 See, e.g., Memorandum from A. Alan Hill, Chairman, onmental Council on Envir Quality, to Heads of Federal Agencies, Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations (1983) (“The scoping process should identify the public and agency concerns; clearly define the environmental alternatives issues and to be examined including in the EIS the elimination of nonsignificant .”) issues (emphasis added), available at http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/NEPA_HANDBOOK2.pdf.
-‐ Page 95 -‐
“nonsignificant” comes across as simply meaning rtant”. “unimpo Thus, when a federal agency recently classified several county concerns as “nonsignificant” in a recent planning process,81 the local response was to be expected:
One of the regional planners who worked on the project made a comment at our last meeting that the counties’ t comments did no include anything substantive and that the planning team couldn’t use them. Basically, she said our comments were worthless. What was ating even more frustr about that was that we put hours and hours into our comments. We reviewed the entire CCP book, which was hefty, and we were very active in the elements and issues within the plan, and in the end they told us that they couldn’t use basically all of our comments.
Although differences do exist, federal esses planning proc share significant overlap with their local counterparts, including: use es, of inventori goals and objectives; mandatory elements; fixed planning windows; public processes; and periodic review and updating. However, local governments often lack resources, expertise, and time to rating seek coope agency status.82 Thus, if for nothing else but to increase efficiency, federal agencies should devise mechanisms to coordinate their planning schedules with local governments. The Yellowstone National Park lake development plan showcased the positive effect of this best practice. There, the chief park planner explained, “Comprehensive plans include design standards, zoning and other elements that haven’t always been a part of environmental reviews of developed areas in Yellowstone.”
3. Provide early, genuine involvement and include olders. all stakeh
Interview responses from local officials highlight a notable difference between meaningful and superficial participation in federal planning. As the text of the 2012 Planning Rule suggests, successful ederal f collaborators emphasize that local involvement should be as early as possible and extend beyond local government to other local stakeholders with a vested interest in planning issues.
In the words of one seasoned refuge planner, ning] “The goal [of plan should be to involve as many people as possible who are willing to spend the time and share their expertise, and to work on a team toward a common e goal. This is how th best planning is done and how teams make really strong, relevant long hensive term compre plans.” The BLM’s Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan should del serve as a mo for implementing the new Forest Planning Rule. This process was characterized by early community assessment, stakeholder training, and informal involvement of players beyond cooperating local governments, including other local governments n-‐governmental and no interest groups.
81 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Charles M. Russell ife National Wildl Refuge, Montana -‐ at 17 19 (July 2012) (listing issues not addressed as “not available significant”), at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-‐ prairie/planning/ccp/mt/cmr_ulb/cmr_ulb.html. 82 Many local governments report having hired , scientists consultants, or additional staff to s attend meeting and report back.
-‐ Page 96 -‐
As such, it is not surprising that this particular process was cited by both the BLM and local officials as a success. Local ack participant feedb explained, “The BLM was very inclusive throughout the entire process in developing alternatives and getting feedback from each jurisdiction . . . They did a really good job keeping everyone engaged and they were open to comments and suggestions.” A county official er from anoth county involved in the process noted that:
Most of the time it is just crap with these plans, but this one, the regional plan, I really respect the [BLM] office omplished. and what they acc What was the difference? We were g workin with staff at the local level. On the greater sage grouse EIS, it was just authoritarian our “shove down y throat.” And the Oil Shale EIS came out of Washington, [D.C.], just a slam dunk, no listening to local concerns. But here [on the Roan rce Plateau Resou Management Plan] they included us, they were the most y responsive, the took the local concerns into consideration wherever they could.
This commentary highlights the importance and value of widespread inclusion and thoughtful listening to stakeholder concerns. Even highly complex and contentious planning processes can be disarmed and , depoliticized ultimately leading to greater satisfaction and more durable outcomes. One Fish & Wildlife Service project leader insightfully shared:
“[A]s far as ng arrivi at the very best solutions, nothing beats the collaborative process that involves sitting at a table with all concerned stakeholders and really listening to what concerns them (which fferent is sometimes di than what they are saying) so that everyone can feel like they have a say. It is not something you can do by posting a notice or holding public er hearings [und NEPA]—this is NOT enough. The compromise came from thousands of conversations between all sorts of different people about an array and of concerns topics.”
However, changes in leadership values, even under the same regulatory mandates, can lead to very different results. One such example can be seen through a previous Fish & Wildlife Service project leader who engendered stakeholder alienation by only allowing two county commissioners to attend working meetings, even though six counties sat immediately adjacent to the planning area. A s local victim of thi estrangement explained, “The meetings that we all were invited to were ational. pretty much inform They told us what they were going to do and did not take our t, input.” In contras the current refuge manager “has been willing to work with us and to , be a better neighbor but the prior administration during the comprehensive conservation plan development was not.”
Like other cooperative processes, the ubstantive benefits of s and thoughtful engagement of local stakeholders flows both directions. Not only do strong federal-‐local relationships benefit local concerns, but also these bridges create opportunities for local citizens and groups to better understand the rigorous demands and difficult directives which typify federal planning across the board. nefits The merit and be of this type of mutual
-‐ Page 97 -‐
understanding can be seen throughout aspects the different of planning processes. However, its most valuable contribution e may come in th form of empathy. As a result of the friendships that developed between ederal locals and f employees, a Madison County commissioner expressed sympathy for his federal counterparts, stating:
It has to be incredibly hard to do the [federal planning] work with their budgets being cut. . . . The planning process is so complicated, trying to meet all the objectives of NEPA. . . . There are a lot of people in the S BLM and USF that are really good and really good at what they do, but they have lost their energy because every time they do [their work] someone appeals.
Standing in stark contrast to these successes, some local participants felt intentionally neglected by the rest Fo Service in the planning processes on North Carolina National Forests. One interviewee explained, “The supervisor has been very reluctant to give us any credence . . . or acknowledgement. ce The Forest Servi is really not excited about us, nor do they want to take advantage of us.” There, the Wilderness Society started its own roundtable to “run in parallel to the forest plan to create dialogue around issues of historical conflict.” Although the two processes clearly overlapped in their intentions and design83, the roundtable, unlike the Forest Planning process, provided an inclusive arena for diverse and conflicting interests to work out their differences. In a perceptive comment that highlights these feelings of Forest Service failure, the roundtable’s Outreach Coordinator explained, “We realized that erybody to save ev [from] the litigation process . we needed a table to invite interested stakeholders to. . . We are trying to get something so big that the [Forest Service] can’t ignore it.”
4. Create planning areas that mirror resource areas.
It would seem too obvious to note esigning that arbitrarily d federal planning areas, without consideration of ecological or government , boundaries results in plans that do not meet their aspirational goals. Unfortunately, this recommendation must be e, detailed her as far too often, this is the reality of federal planning. As a prime example, both the BLM and Forest Service are undertaking Sage Grouse planning. Yet, each agency is using a separate and divergent planning process. The BLM’s process suffers further from division amongst multiple planning areas, each without correlation to state/local boundaries, or the grouse’s habitat range.84 The result is local “frustrat[ion] about the fragmentation of planning”. Worse yet, local participants in Montana have had to go so far as to hire outside consultants to attend planning sessions in other plan areas that share the same habitat range.
Nevertheless, for each example of poor niques, planning tech a shining star emerges for guidance. The Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan involved multiple county
83 See above for description of guiding principles of anning. National Forest Pl 84 See BLM, GRSG Planning Strategy Subregion/EIS Boundaries, available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/documents_and_resources/blm_usfs_grsg_planning. html (last visited June Cf. 4, 2014). USFWS, Greater -‐ Sage Grouse Priority Areas for Conservation (PACS), available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-‐prairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/03252013_COT_Map.jpg (last visited June 4, 2014).
-‐ Page 98 -‐
stakeholders, each with differing interests. xample, For e in one county, oil and gas development is a primary economic driver, ther while in ano county tourism is significant. In light of the difficulty created cally by these diametri opposed resource concerns, the BLM shifted its use designations to mirror county boundaries. Both stakeholders and ecological communities benefited from this shift to ource more local res boundaries. Ultimately, the lesson can be seen in the results: opening up oil and gas leasing in some areas, while closing leasing in critical watershed areas.
5. Have a Succession Plan for Turnover During the Planning Process
There are both ve positi and negative effects of the enormous timespan over which federal planning procedures take place.
One positive outcome of this reality ides is that it prov enough time for local participants to become acquainted with the complex setting. As y an ancillar benefit, this -‐ super elongated timeline can allow local governments to adopt and engage specific plans of their own, which in turn, may be able to impact federal planning outcomes. Again, the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan serves as an re, example. The the -‐term long nature of the federal process allowed individual counties to adopt protection plans for their drinking water before the production of the esponse, final EIS. In r the BLM was able to modify its planning documents to include new drinking water intake protections. Additionally, the complexity inherent in both land use planning and stakeholder-‐inclusive alternative dispute resolution processes, lends a itself to longer timeframe as a result of the common need for extensive research ation. and negoti
However, prolonged planning periods are not without their pitfalls. One of the most obvious implications of these timescales is turnover. Our interviews suggest that there is a point at which participants can become r disengaged, o worse, may even remove themselves due to turnover among planning s, contributor at both the federal and local level.85 High rates of replacement of planning officials not only results in a loss of valuable institutional knowledge, but also leads mity to unconfor in application of critical planning principles. Thus, both local stakeholders and federal planners are well served by training “understudies”, or designating multiple individuals with the same role to accommodate for the well-‐documented reality of leadership and participant drop out.
Feedback from local officials in Madison County, Montana gives credence to this conclusion. There, the observed “regular transition of supervisors out of the USFS Dillon Office” acted as a “drawback” to collaborating with the agency. Similarly, a National Forest Service planner identified turnover and “collaboration gue” fati as major obstacles to successful and efficient planning, stating: “There is c so much publi meeting, and then nothing comes from it. You mutually agree on something, we spend a year on meetings, then someone sues and nothing comes to fruition.”
85 One interviewee noted turnover of both f planning staf and government officials on the Clear Creek Management Area Resource nagement Ma Plan.
-‐ Page 99 -‐
The Idaho Panhandle/Kootenai National Forest serves as another example. In that plan, the effort extended over twelve years and five different forest planning rules. The experience of this protracted processes led a senior planner involved there to conclude, “Our process has gone on so long e that we are off th path.” Similarly, a local representative of an interest group involved in National Forest planning in North Carolina experienced a “a revolving door” of departing planners and new forest supervisors. To this end, she explained, “The process is very slow. . . It is very hard to keep people engaged. Really, in the first place, to show them that their .” efforts matter
The experience of participants in recent planning efforts on the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge also serve to highlight the disconnect that can result from changes in leadership. There, the initial project leader was viewed as “uncollaborative”. However, even after subsequent changes p in leadershi improved relationships, local officials remained pessimistic. Their noted difficulty in bridging this gap exemplifies the problem:
When [the new refuge manager] came in near the end of the planning process, things did get better. He was wonderful and really cares about cooperation and collaboration. He is a good manager with tons of experience and I have had great experiences working ter with him af the fact. But in some respects, he came on board too late ul to make a meaningf difference with the plan. And now he is leaving, so who knows what type of working relationship adjacent counties will have with the next manager.
Even if acknowledged, the problems which plague the extremely long process ing of plann on federal lands do not seem likely hus, to disappear. T both the experience of participants and the outcomes which result will benefit from developing plan processes which account for turnover among key players and establish ms mechanis to ensure retention of institutional memory and continuity of commitment to established planning ideals from beginning to end.
6. Maintain Relationships Over the Long Term
It is well documented that long-‐term relationships between local and federal officials make the largest difference in planning outcomes. This idea is one of the most reoccurring and consistent themes in research related federal to local-‐ relations, one, and which emerged consistently throughout the research for ct. this proje Commentary received deral from fe planning participants who viewed their process experience as a success repeatedly paid homage to this idea. One county official explained, “It has been productive build to a relationship between our local [BLM] office and our county. . that has been beneficial and productive.” However, it is worth noting that in those places where existing positive relationships were already in place, the planning process reaped even greater rewards. In successful plans, “[m]any of those relationships are established already prior to the planning process.”
A BLM planner involved in the Cedar City Resource Management Plan explained how this
-‐ Page 100 -‐
best practice guided their office’s involvement with its local community, stating, “Nice people live around here. ave . We h really developed relationships. We live in a community and no one is trying to ruffle feathers. . . . We have a good office, and we will do our best to work with [the local milarly, politicians].” Si local officials involved in the Roan Plateau RMP ressed exp how their satisfaction with the process was greatly enhanced by the existence of strong relationships between the citizens and federal planners in their local community. The Forest Service rved would be well se by heeding distinctions drawn between their process and BLM planning processes. Insightfully, local officials in Montana favored the BLM’s approach toward managing “at a lower level.” On this point, a county commissioner remarked, “We know who the rector state [BLM] di is. I always he know who t area manager is. We have always had ussion. a good open disc . . . We have become not only working partners but friends. It is cate easier to communi with difficult issues.”
Furthermore, under the 2012 Forest Planning al Rule loc involvement in federal planning processes should not be relegated merely to cooperating agency status. Rather, local involvement should be “early and throughout”. As a best practice, many federal offices are extending local officials broad participatory rights, not even if they are able to fulfill, or attain official cooperating agency status. Both the Flathead National Forest and the Kootenai National Forest serve as strong examples. In the Flathead, federal planners arranged quarterly meetings with counties to aid in the dissemination of information and in an effort to mitigate the effects of turnover. On the Kootenai National Forest, weekly meetings include both local and federal government employees in addition to working group members. A Fish & Wildlife Service d planner echoe the merits of regular and inclusive meetings, explaining, “This way we maintain relationships rather than calling on local governments when we need something from them or when we have a problem.”
Regardless of the aspirational ideals which ore lie at the c of statutory and regulatory schemes which legally control federal dures, planning proce our research indicates that the examples of successful and meaningful coordination owe their existence largely to the individual staff members who facilitate ndividual their i processes. If the perspective of local stakeholders is used as a benchmark from which federal agencies can gauge success, the following statement from a County Commissioner in Montana serves to vindicate this conclusion:
It really depends on where the refuge manager and planning team are at the time the planning process is commenced. . The original refuge manager . was not easy to work with and seemed as if he really didn’t want us involved at all. The current refuge manager was great to work with and continues to be great. . . . But that was the tone that started this planning process. Needless to say we didn’t get off on the right foot. In the end, I was not really sure if anything we put on the table was actually ion taken into considerat in the final plan. We felt like an inconvenience, like something they had to do but didn’t really want to. -‐mile It was a 90 drive for me to participate in these meetings on issues that I really cared about and after most meetings I left thinking to myself, “Why am I doing this?’
-‐ Page 101 -‐
Lessons Learned from the National Advisory Committee, Forest Planning Rule Implementation86
In 2012 the United States Forest Service updated the “planning rules” governing the implementation of the National Forest Management NFMA). Act ( Shortly after the release of the new rule, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed a committee of 21 individuals (known hereafter as the FACA Committee) to formulate national level recommendations to guide the forests in satisfying nts the requireme of the planning rule.
The 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to engage the public “early and throughout” the planning process, as well as to consult with local, state, and tribal governments (36 CFR, pt. 219, p. 1). The rule also requires the use of adaptive management and best available scientific 36 information ( CFR, pt. 219, p. 1) in the development of plan components. This memo presents a brief overview of the major accomplishments of the FACA Committee to date, and their expectations for the next two years with regard to these requirements. Given that our primary interest is outreach, public participation, and collaboration, this cuses memo fo primarily on the FACA Committee’s work and recommendations on those topics.
BACKGROUND
Consistent with the principles of the Multiple-‐Use Sustained-‐Yield Act (MUSYA), the overarching objective of the Rule is to create cience-‐based a collaborative and s planning process that will guide management of Forest Service lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability (Planning Rule Advisory Committee, 2012; p. 3).
The Secretary of Agriculture originally charged the FACA Committee with providing advice on, “...how to move from random ation acts of conserv to landscape-‐scale conservation while improving relationships with our neighbors (Planning Rule Advisory Committee, 2012; p.3).” The FACA committee organized into working groups around four broad areas:
1) Outreach, public engagement, stakeholder ation, collabor and communications 2) Socio-‐ecological assessments and ecological sustainability 3) Adaptive framework and broad scale, multiparty monitoring 4) Potential best management practices arned and lessons le from early adopters
To guide the forests through their plan revisions, the Forest Service’s Washington Office released a series of proposed directives in February of 2013 (Planning Rule Advisory Committee, 2013). The directives formally orest update the F Service’s Land Management Planning Manual (FSM 1900, Chapter 1920) Land and the Management Planning Handbook
86 This memorandum was prepared by Benjamin Donatelle.
-‐ Page 102 -‐
(FSH 1909). The FACA Committee worked for most of 2013 to develop consensus recommendations and produced a single-‐text ising document rev the Directives by clarifying language, and ng improvi the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning process. The complete recommendations are available to the public and can be downloaded through the FACA website: CLICK HERE (see: Meeting 6, November 21, 2013 – Appendix I: Detailed Recommendations – all quotes below are taken from this document).
Recommendations Regarding Public Participation and Collaboration
The FACA recommendations for revising es the directiv with regard to public participation and collaboration fall mostly into three broad categories: clarifying the intent, providing guidance, and integrating the plan revision A and NEP processes. The committee also made substantial changes to Chapter ch 70 whi covers Wilderness recommendations that, most importantly, allows for the agency to ditional provide “...ad opportunities specifically on this topic as necessary (p. 78).” The full suite of recommendations is currently under revision at the Washington Office and the Final Directives are scheduled to be released in January of 2015. A summary of the FACA Committee recommendations follows:
Clarifying the intent of public participation
The FACA committee made several recommendations ectives to the dir that larify c the intent of public participation in the plan revision process. In particular, the committee:
v Added an overarching objective to the planning rule that states: “Broaden and deepen engagement of the American people orest in national f planning ).” (p. 2
v Added a line in chapter 40 to clarify that the intent is “to identify significant issues regarding the proposed action, identify potential alternatives for NEPA analysis (p. 71)...”
v Re-‐wrote section 43.16a which details requirements for public participation during phases of planning and included a statement about involvement by both the public and local, state and tribal governments. Their involvement “is both required by law and essential to the successful development mentation and imple of forest lans p (p. 69).”
v Recommended ways to improve outreach to and participation by urban, minority, and youth populations by looking for partnership opportunities with relevant spokespeople, NGO’s, educators, and youth organizations (p. 68).
v Encourage the orest F Service to enlist the help of local, state and tribal governments in designing the collaborative n process i a way that builds upon existing cooperative relationships, and assistance in defining opportunities for public participation in the ive collaborat processes (p. 69).
-‐ Page 103 -‐
Providing guidance on notifying and engaging the public, gathering information from the public, and reporting information to the public unication) (two-‐way comm
In several places throughout the directives ations recommend clarify en wh and how to notify the public.
v At the beginning of the assessment phase, the notice of intent for plan revision and NEPA, the beginning of the objections process, throughout the monitoring phase.
v ..."Publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct scoping to identify significant issues as soon as a proposed action can be identified...facilitate an early and open process for determining the scope of issues...The public e must hav meaningful input into the development of a proposed action and alternatives to it. The notice of intent to prepare an EIS can be combined with the notice to initiate development of a new plan revision or where appropriate a 36 plan amendment ( CFR 219.5(a)(2) (p. 67)."
The Committee’s recommendations spend significant larifying time c the relationship between the agency and the public during development, revision, or amendment of plan components (p. 71).
v During the Assessment phase, the committee at, emphasized th “To complete the assessment, the Forest Service staff should collect existing information from a variety of communities including low-‐income rved and underse communities and other communities with a social, economic or cultural connection to the plan area (pg. 14)."
v In assessing the social, cultural and economic influences on the plan area the committee provided that the Forest Service nd should "fi ways to gain information from non-‐traditional sources (p. 25)..." cial including so media, user-‐generated web content, and cited public, online resources maintained by local, regional or national recreation organizations as potential sources levant of re information (p. 30).
v The committee added a requirement to engage the public in identifying and selecting Species of Conservation Concern (SCCs) (p. 20).
v During suitability determination the committee clarified, “The responsible official should make available to the public r the rationale fo suitability determinations and the information sources, tools, standards, technical guidance documents and data bases used in suitability determinations. The identification of the suitability of lands in a plan area should stress integration of social, economic, cultural and ecological considerations (p. 40)."
v During monitori ng, the FACA committee changed the language ements of the requir to, “The regional forester must document the broader-‐scale monitoring strategy for the region and make it publicly . available (p. 62)...” and further added, “Documented
-‐ Page 104 -‐
results from the broader-‐scale monitoring strategy must be made publicly available on at least a 5 year cycle. (p. 63).”
Better integrating the Planning and NEPA processes
The Committee made several recommendations to improve integration of the Forest Planning Process and the NEPA process, thereby creating greater efficiency and more time to implement the plan components.
v The FACA Committee recommended clarifying the planning and NEPA linkage as follows: Public “ participation activities described in this handbook ublic fulfill p engagement requirements of both the planning rule (36 CFR part 129) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 0 (16 U.S.C. 160 et seq.) and are consistent with public participation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) and implementing regulations 1508, (40 CFR 1500-‐ 36 CFR part 220) FACA ( addition, p. 65)."
v The FACA Committee further recommended combining the post-‐assessment Forest Planning phase with the NEPA scoping ng, phase by stati “NEPA process be must well integrated into the opportunities for public participation...scoping can begin as soon as the assessment is complete... uld NEPA scoping sho encourage comments on the completed assessment as it relates d to the propose action and other possible alternatives (p. 71).”
Collectively, this is a very brief summary r of the majo themes of the FACA Committee recommendations to the Directives. It is recommended that the full FACA Committee recommendations (about 90 pages), provided in the link above, be reviewed for more thorough details.
CURRENT WORK
The FACA Committee is embarking on “a more functional phase of its charter” by synthesizing key lessons and best management s practice as they emerge from the early adopter forests (Planning Rule Advisory 4a). Committee, 201 Committee members are participating in several working groups focused on:
1) Public engagement and collaboration 2) The assessment phase 3) The objections process 4) Balancing competing interests 5) Broad-‐scale monitoring and adaptive management
The main objectives for the next two years are for the committee to provide guidance in balancing existing collaborative groups quirement with the re for broader public engagement, and resolving ambiguity in e the rules. Th committee also hopes to identify
-‐ Page 105 -‐
any negative or unintended consequences ng of implementi the rule and corresponding directives, as well as discrepancies between operations of the rule and the realities on ground in terms of the time, finances, and resources needed to complete n the pla revisions.
As our interest is on public engagement er and stakehold collaboration, this discussion focuses on that particular working group. The Public Engagement and Collaboration working group is developing three products to help guide public engagement, coordination and communications: (1) Citizen’s Participation ; Guide (2) Government Participation Guide; and (3) a broad outreach and communications strategy.
The Citizen’s Guide
The Citizen’s Guide work group, made epresentatives up of diverse r from the FACA Committee, is currently developing the Citizen Participation Guide. The guide is intended to assist a broad selection of stakeholders to understand when, where, how and why to participate in the planning process. Inspiration ame for the guide c from the Council for Environmental Quality’s Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard and uses it as a model (to see CEQ guide: CLICK HERE). Once the work group completes their draft of the guide, it will be submitted to the larger FACA committee for review and final approval before being distributed to the public.
v The Committee wants to produce a guide c-‐heavy, that is graphi modular, able to be easily updated, is “rich in links to more detailed information,” s include place holders for case studies as they emerge from rests, early adopter fo and will be published both in print and on the web (Planning Rule Advisory Committee, 2014a).
v The guide is divided into two parts. The first part provides a general overview of the planning process while the second part consists of sixteen subject papers covering a range of planning topics such as wildlife, water, recreation, and wilderness. At the May 2014 meeting, the working group decided to include three additional issue papers on climate change, fire and fuels, and travel management (Planning Rule Advisory Committee, 2014b).
v Each subject paper addresses key issues and potential concerns to pay attention in the development of plan components. In addition, the papers each address why the plan component is important to describes the public, how it is integrated into the overall planning process, identifies opportunities for public engagement within each process component, and provides links to additional resources.
v The issue papers also address key focus areas of the 2012 Planning Rule as they pertain to the plan components including public engagement and collaboration, the use of Best Available Scientific Information osystem (BASI), ec services, and adaptive management.
-‐ Page 106 -‐
The committee is currently finishing the de Citizens Gui and expects to send a draft to the full committee for approval by the end he of November. T Final Citizen Participation Guide is scheduled to be released in concurrence with the Final ves Plan Directi sometime in January of 2015. An initial request to obtain a copy of the draft guide was denied until it is approved by the full FACA Committee (Planning ory Rule Advis Committee, 2014b).
The Government Participation Guide
The workgroup is also developing a guide directed at local, state and tribal governments and is meant to cover intergovernmental engagement in forest planning beyond formal consultation and other legal or regulatory obligations. goal The of the guide is to provide guidance and recommendations to both the ce Forest Servi and local, state, and tribal governments for engaging in early outreach and involvement throughout the planning process. The government guide is also scheduled to be eleased r with the Final Plan Directives in January 2015 (Planning Rule ommittee, Advisory C 2014b).
Outreach and Communication Strategy
Finally, the working group is developing a broader communication strategy focused on engaging the public in the planning process. The outreach strategy will facilitate dissemination of the Citizen Participation Guide and include introductory information about the planning process, a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) page, a tri-‐fold brochure, and videos posted on the web targeted at specific populations of potential stakeholders in the planning process. The overarching goal of the outreach and communications strategy is to answer the question: “Why does this matter to me?” The strategy is working to relate the value of the forest system to the public and especially focuses on underserved populations and engaging youth, -‐income, low and minority populations in the planning process (Planning Rule Advisory Committee, 2014b).
SUMMARY
The first two years, the FACA Committee spent their time developing consensus recommendations to the DRAFT Plan Directives. ectives The dir constitute updates to Forest Service’s Land Use Planning (FSM Manual 1920) and the Land Use Planning Handbook (FSH 1909) respectively. The majority mmittee’s of the FACA Co recommendations with regard to public participation and collaboration consisted of 1) clarifying the intent of public participation, 2) providing guidance on engaging and communicating with the public, and 3) better integrating the ing plann process and the NEPA process. Many of these recommendations as well as the subsequent Citizen’s Participation Guide, Government Guide and Outreach Strategy will greatly assist the forests in developing their comprehensive public engagement and collaboration strategies. The Citizen’s Participation Guide is scheduled to be released with the Final Plan Directives in January 2015; however, ongoing communication with the FACA Committee may produce an advance copy of the Citizen’s Guide once the full FACA Committee approves it.
-‐ Page 107 -‐
As the FACA Committee continues through m, their second ter which officially began in October of 2014, an overarching goal is to identify best practices and key lessons that can help to guide subsequent forests in their plan revisions. Similarly, the work contained within this report includes: 1) summaries of the public participation strategies of all 13 early-‐adopter forests; 2) a survey of best practices in tribal consultation from all 13 early-‐ adopter forests; and 3) a comprehensive report on intergovernmental coordination undertaken by other federal agencies within the natural resource management context. These reports may help to provide a line snapshot or base of information from which the FACA committee can begin their ons. observati The case studies could also help to provide content for the Citizen’s Participation Guide while the summary of best practices in tribal consultation and intergovernmental coordination elp may h the FACA Committee provide guidance to forests as they begin their plan revision processes.
The next meeting of the FACA Committee is scheduled for the last weekend in January 2015.
Sources
USDA Forest Service. National Forest Service Land Management Planning. 36 CFR Part 219. Published in the Federal ister, Reg Vol. 77, No. 68: April 9, 1/14/14 2012. Accessed on 1 from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5359471
USDA Forest Service. 2012 Planning Rule Proposed Directives for National tem Forest Sys Land Management Planning. Dated 2/14/13. Accessed on 10/2/14 from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/ detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5403924
Planning Rule Advisory Committee (2012). Final Meeting Summary. Dated: Sept. -‐ 11 13, 2012. Accessed on 10/2/14 from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/committee/?cid= stelprdb5394840
Planning Rule Advisory Committee (2013). ectives Markup of Dir with Committee Recommendations – FINAL. Dated: November 15, ed 2013. Access on 10/2/14 from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/committee/?cid=stelprdb5394840
Planning Rule Advisory Committee (2014a). Final Meeting Summary. Dated March -‐ 5 7, 2014. Accessed on 10/2/14 from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/committee/?cid= stelprdb5394840
Planning Rule Advisory Committee (2014b). Final Meeting Summary. Dated May -‐ 28 30, 2014. Accessed on 10/2/14 from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/committee/?cid= stelprdb5394840
-‐ Page 108 -‐