Inyo National ForestStakeholder Analysis Findings

Preparation for Forest Plan Revision

Prepared by Laura KaplanCenter for Collaborative Policy

California State University, Sacramento

A word about webinars

• Webinars enable large numbers of people to participate remotely in an organized and efficient way.

• Phones are muted by default. I will pause and unmute phones for those who have questions and comments.

• Let’s practice the tools: – Finding your control panel– Verify your audio mode– Raising your hand– Sending written questions

Presentation Roadmap

1.Forest Plan Revision Basics2.Overview of Stakeholder Analysis3.Analysis Findings4.Next Steps5.List of Interviewees’ Affiliations

A wonderful place with a very old plan:

1. Forest Plan Revision Basics

• Existing Plan dates to 1988

• Attempts to revise the Forest Plan over the years; blocked by litigation of previous Planning Rules (2005, 2008)

• New Forest Service Planning Rule final in April 2012

• Inyo is one of eight “Early Adopter” Forests (3 in CA)

• Plan Revision has three main phases: Assessment, Plan Revision, and Monitoring

Let’s learn from folks who know the Forest:

Who: 50+ diverse individuals with experience working with the Forest Service

What: Participated in group or individual interviews or provided written responses to neutral 3rd party facilitator. Over 100 pages of notes. No attribution of remarks.

When: October, 2012

Why: Share insights to help the Inyo design a Collaboration and Communication Plan for meaningful, effective stakeholder involvement in Forest Plan Revision.

High quality stakeholder involvement will improve the quality of Plan Revision - leading to improved Forest management - as well as improve relationships among community members and with the Forest Service.

2. Overview of Stakeholder Analysis

Sample interview questions

2. Overview of Stakeholder Analysis

•Based on your organization’s history of working with the Forest Service (this forest, or other forests, or nationally), in your opinion what has the FS done well when trying to communicate and involve you? What methods or factors really contributed to successful exchange? What missteps or mistakes were made?

•What will be the most important issues to you during Plan Revision? Are there special considerations regarding how to work with the public on these issues?

•Given the diversity of perspectives that the FS will encounter, what advice do you have for how the Forest Service should address differences of interests and opinions?

What did everyone say?

3. Analysis Findings

BRAINSTORM!

Generated a wealth of ideas

Ideas were not evaluated or tested for popularity

Ideas will be used in building an implementable, prioritized, effective

Collaboration and Communication Plan to support Forest Plan Revision

Analysis Findings

#1 strength

Analysis Findings

#1 strength =

Forest staff

Experience, skills, effort, and relationships built by Forest staff members

Analysis Findings

Key challenges

Analysis FindingsKey challenges

•Not enough staff (monitoring / law enforcement, processing permits and research requests, moving projects forward, etc.)

•Staff turnover – loss of knowledge and relationships

•Agency structure slows down work, and makes it hard to be nimble (partnering, innovation)

•FS mission is inherently to balance multiple uses (one interviewee called it “healthy forest balanced with healthy economy”); but by definition, advocates want to advance their preferred use.

•Defining the “decision space” and scope

•Forest planning is a broad, programmatic process, yet people’s interest is sparked by site-specific issues

Analysis FindingsKey challenges

•Stakeholder burn-out (“It takes thick skin, tenacity, and time.”)

•Creating safe atmosphere for people with opposing viewpoints

•Use of science, including protocols for accepting science vs. need to include diverse sources of information

•Need to protect confidential information about cultural resources / archeological sites vs. stakeholder perception of shutting down problem-solving

•Tension between local stakeholders and non-local stakeholders

•Setting priorities / saying “no”

Analysis Findings

Overarching advice

Analysis FindingsOverarching advice

•Clarity, consistency, transparency (expectations, sideboards, timeline / process, set a meeting schedule and stick to it, avoid jargon and translate to layperson language)•Define Regional Office role and support•Proactive, timely notification and involvement•Tailor outreach to audience; diversity of strategies and messages•Offer ways to plug in where someone is interested - without requiring huge time commitment•Respect the social capital stakeholders expend for the FS. (It damages everyone when FS stops, stalls out, or reverses course unexpectedly.) •Honor partnerships and volunteers: acknowledgment, recognition, provide solid guidance and support, meet volunteers more than halfway•Meet deadlines, follow through, connect input to outcomes and decisions – explain why or why not

Analysis Findings

Outreach suggestions from interviewees

This is a condensed listing of suggestions received from interviewees.

The facilitator and Inyo staff will take these into consideration when selecting priority methods in the draft Collaboration and Communication Plan.

Analysis FindingsOutreach suggestions

•Find people where they already go• Information at trailheads, campgrounds, visitor centers, ranger

contact•Partner with local businesses to provide sites for flyers / info gathering / website links (hotels, restaurants, outdoor stores, etc.)•Reference material (brochures, FAQs, maps, GIS data) online and in print•Feed small-town word of mouth with proactive / timely information•Clean up / verify / organize distribution lists and contact databases.•Get new contacts from applications for camping, permits, licenses, etc. •Get commitments from partner groups to pass on information to their distribution lists.

Analysis Findings

Outreach suggestions

•Regular updates to website, then advertise with listserve, Facebook, Twitter, blog, etc. •Website 30 second rule (don’t bury the info)•Videos on website•“Our Forest Place” wiki, data library•Billboards in LA•Build relationship with media for better coverage•Build relationships with community leaders•Have a forest plan mascot

Analysis Findings

Involvement suggestions from interviewees

This is a condensed listing of suggestions received from interviewees.

The facilitator and Inyo staff will take these into consideration when selecting priority methods in the draft Collaboration and Communication Plan.

Analysis FindingsInvolvement suggestions

•Collaborative problem-solving group to give substantive recommendations (mindful of Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements)

•Collaborative design team to advise FS efforts and be advocates for the planning process

•3-Forest regional meetings on shared issues / develop shared guidance• Meetings in LA for all 3 forests?

Analysis Findings

•Partner agency meetings• Informal “land managers’ coffee”• Discussions between agency subject matter experts• Formal comments / cooperating agency agreements• Work on consistent messaging and policies across agencies and boundaries

on the landscape. Agency-to-agency, not in public meetings.

•County Boards of Supervisors and Town Councils • Presentations / workshops at individual meetings of elected bodies.• Formal comments / cooperating agency agreements. • Local government shared forum (include Congressional staffers). • Coordinate with adopted local plans.

•Tribal forums and presentations / workshops / visits at Tribal meetings. • In addition to formal consultation and Tribal member participation in public

workshops.

Involvement suggestions

Analysis Findings

•Traditional public meetings / open house workshops•Topical workshops – focused involvement, get all voices in the same room•Use multiple venues and times; no one place or time or day of the week works for most•Webinars / video conferencing options for any type of meeting•Field trips•Build trust with small successes•Use 3rd party neutral facilitators for meetings

Involvement suggestions

Analysis Findings

•Utilize existing relationships with staff, esp. with visitors and permittees• All staff will need to be informed and involved• Create mechanism for staff to provide input –

maybe a designated point of contact per program

•Meet people where they are• Surveys or focus questions•Open house outdoors or at visitor center

Involvement suggestions

Analysis Findings

•2nd home owners•Artists•Environmental advocates•Gatherers•Hispanic community•LA residents (water supply)•Local business owners •Local government•Non-organized users •Partner agencies•Permitees (grazing, mining, packing, guiding, etc.)

•Recreation user groups (hugely varied – hiking, biking, camping,

ATV/OHV/4x4, hunting, fishing, skiing, rock hunting, equestrian, etc.)•Researchers•Retirees•Tribes•Visitors from outside area (e.g. international, LA, SF Bay area, Reno – infrequent vs. regular visitors)•Youth

AudiencesNote: Everyone crosses categories

Analysis Findings

•Government-to-government status•Existing formal agreements • Bishop Paiute (consultation)• Big Pine Paiute (sharing information and museum

collections)•Existing formal consultation: notification and review documents detailing proposed actions and impacts•Existing land managers’ meetings with individual Tribes•Maps, site visits

Tribal involvement

Analysis Findings

•All staff should understand how Tribes work•FS staff visit Indian Country, including when there is no particular “issue” / build relationships •More early conversation between FS staff and Tribes, before review drafts •Tribal community input as well as government-to-government•Tribal participation welcomed in public meetings•Potential Inyo Tribal Forum• Existing quarterly Sierra and Sequoia Tribal Forums,

rotating locations

Tribal involvement

Analysis Findings

Not the Usual Suspects:

Harder-to-reach groups

Analysis Findings

•Town hall type meetings with Spanish-language interpreters•Word of mouth •Articles in El Sol in Spanish•Spanish language radio show on KSRW Sundays 2-6 PM•Form partnerships with community leaders (connected to El Sol and the KSRW radio show)•Organizations that promote public health to underserved•LA CAUSA (volunteer organization for outreach and connection)•Club Latino (high school student club)

Hispanic involvement

Analysis Findings

•Go where they already are• Programs that take youth into forest•Tag team on existing non-forest-related programs and clubs including Hispanic and Tribal youth clubs•University & high school classes, projects, service learning•Youth summit (Potential connection with Bishop Paiute youth summit). •Use technology they use

Youth involvement

Analysis Findings

•Go where they already are• RV campgrounds •Campground hosts / evening programs / volunteer ambassadors•AARP chapters•Senior volunteer / learning programs•Magazines – AARP and Costco•Use technology they use

Retiree involvement

Analysis FindingsNote on Issues of Interest

•Interviewees listed issues that they are interested in discussing, which they think could or should be addressed in Plan Revision. It is not a comprehensive list of all issues of importance to the Forest.

•This was not a statistically representative sample. No conclusions can be drawn about relative importance of issues mentioned.

•Some of these issues are at a planning level, and some are more site-specific.

•This list of issues will be taken into consideration as the Forest moves forward with next steps for Plan Revision. The Collaboration and Communication Plan will describe multiple methods for public input and involvement throughout the planning process.

Analysis Findings

•Adaptive management & ability to modify Plan itself easily•Biomass utilization•Cell towers on federal land•Climate change (vulnerability, resilience, adaptation, mitigation; impacts on water supply, migration patterns, habitat, fire, etc.)•Damage from concentrated use•Digital 395 •Dispersed camping opportunities•Education of FS staff, public, and Indians about Indian rights •Education of public about forest services (providing clean air and water), user ethics, forest hazards

•Emergency management (e.g. if

people flee to forest from cities during disaster)•Fire management•Fish habitat•Forest contribution to local economy•Grazing •Guidance for partnerships•Habitat connectivity•Impacts to surrounding communities from influx of users (waste disposal, medical services, law enforcement, etc.) – payment in lieu of taxes•Interpretation / signage of Indian history, significance, place names•Invasive species•Land tenure (e.g. June Mountain)

Issues of Interest

Analysis Findings

•Management of Inventoried Roadless Areas•Marijuana cultivation (chemicals, violence)•Mountain biking / lack of single-track trails•Old growth forest•Permits for Indian traditional practices and uses•Pine bark beetle•Plan for growing use / more visitors •Potential listing of sage grouse or other species in future•Protection of sacred sites •Public access•Recreation enhancement•Renewable energy development, esp.

wind•Restoration efforts•Scenic byway designation•Special designations, e.g. wilderness or wild and scenic•Sustainable management•Timber•Trail designations, including Travel Management Subpart A•Upgrading facilities •Visitor education / interpretation / signage•Volunteer coordination / monitoring•Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

Issues of Interest

Analysis Findings

Specific groups to outreach to or partner with

Recent local collaborative efforts with materials or methods to use as models

Specific suggestions for meeting structure / facilitation techniques

Specific suggestions for data collection, monitoring, adaptive management

Ideas about drivers of change on the Inyo

Additional input not detailed in this presentationbut which will appear in C&C Plan

And now?

4. Next Steps•Facilitator and Inyo staff work together to draft Collaboration and Communication Plan based on findings and real Forest capacity

•Stakeholder workshops to present draft C&C Plan and receive feedback November 16 and 17, 9 AM to noon, Forest Supervisor’s office in Bishop

•Public workshops in winter 2013 for kick-off of Assessment phase of Plan Revision.

•Assessment scheduled for completion by September 2013.

Who were the brains?

5. List of interviewees’ affiliations•Bishop Paiute Tribe•BLM•Cal 4x4 •Cal Trout •California Native Plant Society•California Cattlemen’s Association •Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation•Defenders of Wildlife •Devils Postpile National Monument•Eastern Sierra Interpretive Association•Esmeralda County•Friends of the Inyo•Friends of the River•High Desert Multiple Use Coalition •Hispanic community (unaffiliated)•Inyo County •Inyo National Forest•LA CAUSA•LADWP•Lone Pine Paiute Tribe•Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access

•Mammoth Nordic•Manzanar National Historic Site•Mining•Mono County •Mono Lake Committee•Mono Lake Indian Community•Mountain bikers (unaffiliated)•Mt. Whitney Store•Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility•Researchers (unaffiliated)•Sierra Club•Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Lab•Snowmobilers (unaffiliated)•The Wilderness Society •Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership•Timbisha Shoshone Tribe•Trout Unlimited

Special thanks!

Ed Armenta, Forest Supervisor

Sarah Johnston, Forest Archaeologist & Tribal Relations

Susan Joyce, Forest Planner

Nancy Upham, Public Affairs Officer

Additional comments or questions?

Laura Kaplanlkaplan@ccp.csus.edu

916-529-4971 (direct line)916-529-1531 (cell)