Department of Final Environmental Forest Service Pacific Northwest Impact Statement Region Deschutes National Forest APPENDIX J Response to Public Comment Land and Resource Management Plan Deschutes National Forest Appendix J Appendix J Public Participation in Forest Plan Development Public Participation Philosophy communication effort. Issues have occurred at least twice a year Since inception It is intended The Deschutes National Forest was one of a handful that once the Plan is finished a new communtcation of National Forests selected as lead Forests after vehicle will be put in place similar to the Report passage of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) The Forest was just completing a Land When the Forest conducted major public review Use Plan (Plan) underthe old unit planning concept efforts for 1982-1983 and 1986 Draft Environmental Considerable public involvement work had already Impact Statements (DEIS), they planned for longer occurred. than minimum review periods. This was done because of public interest, document and issues With the lead Forest designation efforts geared complexity, season of the year and concern for up to meet the intent of NFMA regarding public adequate review participation, Forest leaders recognized it was important to keep the public informed and solicit Throughout the over 10 year process Forest public input. The Forest worked to culture an personnel met informally with individuals and atmosphere of open, candid, and continuous organizations. People have been invitedto continue communication The Forest kicked off the NFMA dialogue even though there were not any participa- effort with a newsletter entitled 'Forest Plan Report " tion activities planned. That newsletter has been a key part of the Appendix J - 1 Appendix J Public Participation in Forest Plan Development Public Participation Activities (from concern The new issue statement was, "Should start of planning through DEIS) the Forest continue to use land for recreation residences (summer homes)?' The questions under Looking at the lssue were similarly revised. Issue Identification (November 1978) The issue of summer home residences in general will be discussed later in this report Activities Several comments reflected a need to insure that In November, 1978, the Forest mailed a list of 28 highly productive commercial timber land is issues/concerns prepared by the Forest Interdisci- seriously considered for uses other than timber plinary Team (ID Team) to approximately 850 production. In issue seven, the question is now organizations and individuals. Copies were also asked, 'Should all highly productive commercial provided to state and federal agencies as well as timber land be allocated to timber production?n other Forest Service offices. A request for written response to these issues resulted in the return of Concern was also expressed that the needs of 59 response forms and letters. special interest recreational groups (is , horse groups, off road vehicle (ORV) clubs, snowmobile Additionally, workshops were held in seven groups) would be adequately addressed in the locations (La Pine, Crescent, Bend, Sisters, Plan In response, the question 'Is there a need Eugene, Portland, and Redmond) to determine to provide facilities for Forest recreation groups, the concerns and issues most important to the I e., horse groups, backpackers, trailers, ORV, attendees. One hundred and nine persons attend- etc.9. was added to issue number 9 Similar ed these workshops A summary of the public questions were added to issue numbers 14 and involvement is included with this report. 18. During January and Februaly of 1979, the public Issue number 23 concerning fire management input was analyzed and used by the ID Team to was reworded from simply asking the question, evaluate and revise the original list of 28 issues. 'How acceptable is the role of fire in management of the Forest?' to a much more specific statement Public comment concerning the initial list of issues asking how to integrate the role of fire management prepared by the Forest resulted in changes to 11 into the Forest Plan. The new statement reads, of the 28 issues A large percentage of the written "What are the fire management goals that are responses confirmed the importance of each of responsive to and supportive of the expected the issues considered, so none were deleted outcomes from land and resource management?' Although several changes were made in consider- Comments from the Pacific Northwest Regional ing different aspects of the listed issues, public Office of the Forest Service prompted this change comments did not seem to require any addltional issue statements. From 1979 until release of the first DEIS in 1982 numerous issues of 'Forest Plan Report" were Some of the major changes in the issues were as produced. These provided people with updated follows information on the planning process Issue 12, 'How long should the Forest continue to Publlc Involvement Summary (January 1979) allocate land for recreation residence (summer home) use?' drew perhaps the strongest criticism There were 7 public workshops held, with a total Public comments indicated the wording of the attendance (excluding Forest Service personnel) statement tended to preludice the consideration of 109 At these workshops, 17 issues llsts weie of the issue. The issue as written seemed to say produced by workshop groups, and 84 issue the Forest will eventually foreclose all recreational cards were collected from individual attendees residence use, the question being only when. The The 'Forest Plan Report' announcing the work- issue statement was reworded to reflect that shops, and requesting input on the issues, was Appendix J - 2 Appendix J Public Participation in Forest Plan Development mailed to approximately 850 individuals and From this input, a total of 560 individual comments organizations on the Forest mailing lists. The were identified and coded for analysis and Forest received 46 returned response forms, 8 evaluation. personal letters, and 5 letters from government agencies. The following charts show the geographical, and interest spread of the workshop attendees, and responses. Public Workshop Attendance Interest Category* I Location I Date 1 Gov. 1 Ind. 1 Rec. I Env. I Private I News I Total Crescent 1 211 2/78 1 5 6 Sisters 12/13/78 1 3 19 23 Bend 12/14/78 2 1 6 10 1 20 Eugene 12/18/78 1 I 8 0 16 I 35 I Redmond I12/20/78 I I I I I Totals 2 6 15 15 66 3 109 *Abbreviations Key: Gov. = Government representative ind. = Industry representative Rec. = Recreationist group representative Env. = Environmentalist group (other than USFS) Private = Private individual News = Press and broadcast media representatives In the public comment analysis, approximately Some examples of these approaches are as follows 560 separate comments were isolated pertinent to identification of issues and concerns. Approxi- "Investment in timber should be at better growing sites.' mately 120 of the 560 comments could be considered approaches (they seemed to express "Don't experiment with Mt Hemlock clearcuts " an opinion of how the Forest or resource should be managed rather than simply posing a question 'More developed recreational facilities should or concern). be developed.' Appendix J - 3 Appendix J Public Participation in Forest Plan Development 'Allocate new areas for all year recreation.' The meeting schedule was. 'Maintain summer home leases at reasonable January 5 Sisters lease charges.' January 6 Redmond January 10 LaPine 'Roadless areas should be preserved for January 12 Eugene wilderness values.' January 13 Bend January 18 Portland DElS Release (December 1982) January 24 Crescent January 27 Madras Actlvltles About 350 people attended Attendance varied The first DElS was released in late December considerably between communities, with Portland 1982. Information meetings were held during (Western Forestry Center) having the least, while January, 1983, on the DElS and Draft Forest Plan Bend had the most (over 70) People were pleased for the Deschutes National Forest. They were scheduled in Bend, Crescent, Eugene, LaPine, that we made the effort to come and provide Portland, Madras, Redmond and Sisters. Although them information no formal presentations were made, Forest Specialists were available to answer questions. In The comment period closed February 15, 1983 addition, displays described the Alternatives and Forest Supervisor Dave Mohla encouraged people the differences between them as well as the to provide written comments along with supporting planning process. No oral testimony was taken at reasons. The combination of the two could help the meetings. in understanding the public's point of view and concerns In the development of the Plan and DES, Forest personnel wanted public participation. Because Public Involvement Summary - DElS (1982/1983) the Forest had recently completed a Forest Plan (three and one-half years prior), we were very Comment Analysis Process and Results concerned that interested people might be burned out with planning and public participation We Once a comment was received a systematic also did not want debates between people. process was used in the analysis of responses received on the various issues, alternatives, Therefore, the public participation and review planning process, the Forest Plan, and DElS meetings for the Draft Forest Plan and DElS were documents The process included portions of two designed to. systems--aContentSummary Analysis" and "Code- involve.' The former captures a comment