Public Participation
We have developed a strategy
for how we work with various groups (both government and private)
during the land management plan revision process. However, situations
will come up where we want to make changes, so our strategy is intended
to be dynamic and will be adapted as the planning progresses.
Everyone who is interested
in the land management plan or who will be affected by it is encouraged
to participate.
Join
us at any of our Collaborative
Events
Click
here for information about past and future Community Collaborative
Workshops and Field Trips
Public involvement is
a very important part of national forest management decision-making
process throughout the planning cycle—from developing, amending,
or revising land management plans, to proposing and developing projects.
The value of public participation in decision-making is recognized
in both the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (for more information about NEPA
and NFMA, visit www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/).
Public participation
in land management plan revisions adds value to the entire process
and helps promote better decisions and greater understanding of
those decisions. For more information about participating in national
forest management planning see (see Partners
in Planning website).
What is your role?
Public participation
is critical to all stages of the land management planning process.
We believe that land management plans generated with the support
of the public are more likely to endure the test of time.
During the revision process,
we are depending on the public to learn additional information about
the four national forests being affected, to understand your values
and ideas on how the area should be managed, and to provide feedback
on proposals from us and other individuals and organizations.
Your ideas and views
are particularly important in the initial stages as your comments
may generate or convey new information that leads to creating better
products. Having this information early, allows us to keep moving
forward rather than having to review and change previous work. New
information can come in many forms—including community priorities,
focused on the conservation of sensitive plant and animal species,
recreation opportunities, grazing, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems,
or other interests.
How can you participate
in Land Management Plan revision?
Land management plan
revision involves a series of incremental decisions that can take
several years to complete. These incremental decisions include what
the scope of the proposal will be, what issues are important, what
management options need to be weighed against each other, how the
effects of proposals can be best analyzed, and what data needs to
be collected to inform that analysis. All of these decisions contribute
to the overall decision to approve the revised Land Management Plan.
Public participation is vital to public land management planning
throughout all of these steps.
Two Phases of Public
Participation for the Blue Mountains Land Management Plan Revision
Working with the public
during plan revision can be seen as occurring in two phases:
Phase I:
Public Participation / Pre-NEPA - the phase leading
up to the proposed plan, and;
Phase II:
Public Involvement / the “NEPA Process”
- the phase after the proposed plan is issued that leads to a
decision establishing the new plans.
While you are welcome
and encouraged to participate throughout plan revision, there are
procedural differences between how you can participate before and
after the proposed plan is issued (in other words, before and after
the “NEPA process” begins).
Blue
Mountains Land Management Plan Revision Public Participation
Public
Participation Pre-NEPA – January 2004 to Fall 2007
Collaboration
is emphasized
No
decisions are made that affect how public lands are managed
|
Public
Involvement NEPA – Fall 2007 to Fall 2008
Proposed
Plans are issued
The
NEPA process begins
Leads
to a decision on the revised plans
|
Phase I: Public
Participation / Pre-NEPA
Land management planning
is largely structured around the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and its requirements, but before the “NEPA process”
formally begins, there is ample opportunity for you to engage the
planning team in identifying the existing and desired conditions
and identifying the things that need to be changed in the current
Plans. The procedural requirements of NEPA do not apply in this
phase of planning because no final decisions are being made that
will affect how the public lands are being managed.
What is collaboration
and when will it occur?
“Collaboration” was emphasized during
the first three years of plan revision. We think of collaboration
as co-laboring and co-creating by working with members of the
public to design processes and develop products, letting go
of controlling the result |
|
Collaboration (January 2004 to Winter 2006)
- to co-labor and co-create by working with members of the public
to design processes and develop products, letting go of controlling
the result. |
.
We developed a strategy
for how we will work together, and with the help of a neutral third-party
facilitator, this strategy was refined collaboratively. Working
together through a series of workshops (click
here for workshop information) in various communities around
the Blue Mountains, we have been developing a vision for the future
management of national forest lands, creating the building blocks
that will be used in the new Plans, identifying the things in the
current Plans that are not working, and crafting proposed revised
Plans.
How we are collaborating?
We want to work with everyone
who is interested in the revision of the Land Management Plans in
the Blue Mountains and who will be affected by it. As the collaboration
phase began, county governments, American Indian tribes, and resource
advisory groups were given the opportunity to be co-conveners of
the process. These groups have broad networks of contacts, represent
a variety of interests, and have demonstrated that they can build
partnerships, resolve conflicts, and solve problems.
All 18 counties within
the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision planning area were invited
to serve as co-conveners. Eight counties have confirmed their interest
in acting as co-conveners. Tribes and Resource Advisory Committees
and Councils have also been contacted.
Commissioners and representatives
from seven counties meet with the Forest Service to discuss
collaboration
(January 29, 2004 – La Grande, Oregon) |
|
What is a Co-convener?
- Co-conveners lead the effort to bring diverse interest
groups in their areas together.
- Co-conveners help develop a strategy for how we work
with various interest groups to revise the Plans.
- Co-conveners convene meetings, helping determine who
to invite, and when and where to hold meetings and workshops.
- Co-conveners help assimilate the information collected
at public workshops.
- Co-conveners are co-meeting managers and co-process facilitators.
|
|
|
|
Why collaborate? |
|
Collaboration
Priorities |
Collaboration with our
stakeholders is extremely important to us and to the
overall success of the plan revision effort. Working
collaboratively helps promote better decisions and greater
support and public understanding of those decisions.
Collaboration allows various views to be expressed in
an open forum and discussed by all interested parties.
Differences can be shared, values understood, and agreements
made as a group rather than one party doing a lot of
work and then having others finding fault. Collaboration
builds on the idea that none of us is as smart as all
of us. Working together we can build a better product. |
|
- Participation is open to anyone who is interested
- Participants feel their involvement is meaningful
- The new Plans are useful in guiding management and
are legally defensible
- Support is built for the eventual proposal along
with a broad willingness to help implement it
- Relationships are built that are carried forward
to implementation
- Revision is completed within budget and timeline
|
|
|
|
National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA)
This law governs process only.
NEPA does not guide what the goals, objectives, and
guidelines, etc. are for a land management plan revision.
It directs all federal agencies to consider and disclose
the potential environmental effects of proposed major
federal actions having a significant effect on the human
environment, and established the Council on Environmental
Quality. |
|
Phase
II: Public Involvement / the “NEPA Process”
While we want to work closely
with the public and our partners throughout the entire
plan revision process, once the formal NEPA process
has begun, the agency is bound by the procedural requirements
of NEPA. |
|
The process can be as
open during the NEPA phase as it was in the pre-NEPA steps, as long
as it remains open and does not exclude any groups from participating;
however, there are specific steps to be included. The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) also affects how we deal with public groups.
For more information about FACA, visit Partners
in Planning.
Our strategy for working
together during the formal NEPA phase of plan revision has not yet
been determined. We anticipate, however, that the relationships
resulting from the collaboration phase (pre-NEPA) will provide the
basis for determining how people want to continue to be engaged
in the more procedural requirements associated with the NEPA process.
A goal of the overall plan revision effort in the Blue Mountains
is to build a strong foundation in the collaboration phase that
provides the context for working together through the procedural
requirements of the analysis process and ultimately to implementing
the final plans.
How are decisions made?
Many decisions along
the way will be made by the three Forest Supervisors (Steve Ellis,
Kevin Martin, and Stan Benes) as well as the ultimate decision on
the Revised Land Management Plans.
You are encouraged to contribute information
and ideas to the Revision Team as they study different management
approaches and help identify impacts and implications of possible
decisions so these decision-makers have a clear presentation of
the anticipated results of their decisions.
|