| A unit of Lasting Forests
evolving since March 30, 1999 |
|
A Total Forest Management Plan
|
|
|
For the private land holder, citizen participation is rarely necessary or appropriate. In some situations, citizen involvement can be useful in identifying conflict points, sensitive areas, and opportunities for development and secondary services and sales. Of course many claim that the benefits to an owner can be great. Gaining participation but appearing to ignore or reject it can have negative consequences. Balancing the local situation usually exceeds the capacity of the computer.
The Trevey has many levels of citizen participation.
These are:
1. It was developed by a person with years of experience on a local citizen planning commission. The general attitudes and interests were clear. That person also served as an officer and long-term member of a citizen taskforce commenting on planning for a national forest. He was also the designer for a major TVA forest landuse decision aid.
2. It was developed using existing USFS plans that already reflect citizen involvement and contain letters from citizens. These where generally related, then addressed within the system.
3. Select citizens have been given an opportunity to read and comment on the text and the policy and strategies used.
4. Citizen meetings may be used to explain the system itself.
5. Citizen objectives in their full complexity, perhaps the most important component of the system, will be obtained locally from each area. See the section on the Objectives Subsystem.
6. A provision for citizens revising these objective components (item 5 above) are planned to be provided at 5-year intervals.
7. Corrections, revisions, and editorial change are sought continually, welcomed, and can be readily made, typically in less than a week.
8. The Email is a personal part of the system but The Mail Room provides a special way and encourages inputs to the staff to allow improvements, change data, add species to lists, and benefit from research and studies on the area and in the vicinity.
9. Annual exploratory meetings are held, typically to inform citizens of the status of the development on the land, show the R score, the progress on the plan and gains toward R* and to gain advice and to provide information about the land.
10. People who participate in the Lasting Forests process (or who can show good reason why they were (or are) unable to participate) and who have an interest which is (or may be) adversely affected by a tentative decision announced may request a review of that decision. The review may be requested only of the tentative decision, not during the planning process or prior to its announcement. If the party requesting a review participated in the process, administrative review is limited to those issues which that party raised during participation. Such participation refers only to direct and documented involvement with the responsible official(s) of the landowner or corporation involved in the plan.
11. Access by any and all types of correspondence from the public are welcomed at RHGiles@LastingForests.com.
12. In the section on Innovation Areas, specific public inputs may allow ideas to be tried, situations explored, and tests run.
13. Employees of the The Trevey staff reflect public opinion, values, and concepts. Many official and informed relations have been formed between the landowner and others Cooperative agreements have been developed with some. These people and agencies typcially comment on plans and planning activities and they are encouraged to help staff improve the text and content of The Trevey . The representative agencies, not a complete list, are those dealing with forests, soils, environmental protection, conservation, cultural resources, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and wildlife law enforcement.
Citizen Education
The citizen education subsystem for the area needs to develop objectives such as:
These are objectives rooted in behavior. They state desired behavior and strive to avoid use of words such as "educate" or "teach." They may involve attitude change but that must result in some observable and significantly different change in behavior or acts. The differences between using these works and expressing objectives in this way with past efforts are often difficult to communicate. Not critical of the past, and well aware of past successes, the alternative effort may be suggested in the difference between education that
The education by a variety of media and pathways leads to realistic age- and responsibility-relevant actions on, with, or for the environment.
The above is considered general environmental education. It may range widely based on local resources and the knowledge and interest of the teacher(s).
There are options suggested by the unique conditions of the area. The options are numerous and part of the plan is to consider a novel strategy of environmental education, perhaps selected from such options as:
These are not main-line educational system action, but, given the characteristics of the area and the sociopolitical and socioeconomic environment, they may be appropriate. These are suggestive only that non-traditional low-impact, mission-compatible work may be an appropriate role for the people and environment of the area.
We encourage clear articulation of behavioral objectives; intensive, repetitive work; use of computers; abundant incentives and rewards; and use of well-designed measurement devices to assure that desired behaviors are resulting from the efforts and costs.
Public participation is rarely viewed as a two-way street. While staff have objectives of informing the general public of opportunities provided on the land and throughout surrounding areas, they also hold that rules and regulations should be obeyed. That requires knowledge of them. The staff is aware of studies suggesting such knowledge is lacking over many areas. Efforts to educate users and visitors, at least minimally, is needed and users need to adopt a willingness to learn about the area and its rules. Many rules are to assure safety, health, a pleasant experience, and high probability of later use.
Opportunities for using the area and its resources may be presented. Interpretive displays and projects will be directed specifically at achieving stated objectives, then at promoting behavioral change.
Trevey staff canb provide literature, maps, and other media, typically at user costs.
The area will be provided with abundant, attractive, tasteful, information signs in context with local conditions and the desires for enhancing the area image. If use increases, users will be required to gain permits, contingent upon knowledge of the area and conditions for its use.
Conflict Resolution
Every forest or wildland situation is unique. There are similarities, but because they are different, management guidance may differ for them. Different agencies and people have different goals and objectives and that too can result in suggestions being given herein that are different from those of agencies or elsewhere. Consistently, we have found that computer solutions are at least slightly different than we would have expected without the computer aid. The computer usually examines hundreds of thousands of options and selects the best ones (given the objectives and other data). It is very unlikely for a human to make the same equally precise selection, even given enough time.
Herein there is no intent to present an option that is actually or appearing to be in conflict with any consultant, agent, or agency. We are prepared to discuss differences, improve data, incorporate research findings, and re-run the analyses where it seems appropriate and useful.
Often a re-run will produce results that are not significantly different from the questioned information, thereby allowing conflicts to be avoided.
The Trevey process is unique and reflects a potential turning point in natural resource management nationwide. The change has been prompted, necessitated by the failures seen in past planning efforts. In The Trevey, emphasis is placed on the landowner defining the objectives.This is often very difficult to be specific about such objectives. The objectives, their weights, the units needed, and the risks that different people are willing to take,all within an array of constraints, cause different people to state that they would make different decisions. Whether they actually would or not remains another important topic.People tend to select the best possible ways to achieve these objectives, cost effectively. Landowners, perhaps with citizen inputs to their decisions, as their managers to try to achieve them. The full power of the expert, within the transdisciplinary team, and their technology can be brought to the problems presented by the area. The challenges for citizens and owners are to state their objectives precisely, especially within the context of the private landowners needs and abilities; the challenges for managers are to achieve them, on and around the area, timely and cost effectively. Mixing objectives and actions among the groups in the past has resulted in conflicts, managers being stymied, citizens being unable to specify exact techniques, managers mistaking their personal objectives for citizens' objectives, citizens trying to over-ride owners objectives,and other problems. Many of these are solved by The Trevey procedures.
Not utopian, there is within the system an assumption that values can be gained; that a consensus, while desired, is not essential; that institutional arrangements can vary; that there will be conflict, but that it can be minimized; and that change will occur. In fact, the utopian view, which provides no account of how we get from here to "there" (some general view of the distant desired future conditions), is replaced with a clear view of at least one way, the best one known, given the conditions and forces as we know them, to achieve that vision.
Literature Cited
Gericke, K. L., J. Sullivan, and J. Douglas Wellman. 1992. Public participation in National Forest planning. J. Forestry 90:35-38.
| Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com |
|---|
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Last revision May 15, 2004.