Subscribe to Newsletter

To subscribe to our newsletter simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!

Activist raises questions about method of Forest Plan “collaboration”

 


Editor’s Note:  This article is in response to an emailed newsletter sent by US Representative Derek Kilmer, (D – 6th Congressional District).  See the letter here.Olympic Peninsula Collaborative -Derek Kilmer announcement, 12.6.2013.

 

To Kilmer on Forest Plan

The Bottom line
How will your Olympic Peninsula Collaborative plan work?
Are you confident that the “US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution” has achieved a National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule that will satisfy the conflict “We the people” have with the NGO Environmental Groups?

The formation of your new partnership is called the Olympic Peninsula Collaborative.

Can you give the specific “Collaboration Process” that will be used in the context of this partnership?

Page 21254
Public Participation: Requirements for public participation (including collaboration) have not changed between the proposed and final rules?

Please define exactly what collaboration is required in and for public participation?

Page 21189
Comments: Collaboration costs.Many respondents supported public participation opportunities in the decision making process. Some respondents felt collaboration will not be cost effective. Some felt that coordination, as mandated by law, is effective and will save time and expense in planning, implementation, and management. They said increased costs for collaboration are foreseeable.

How was this resolved?

This is page 21270 definition?
Collaboration or collaborative process.A structured manner in which a collection of people with diverse interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources while working together in an inclusive
and cooperative manner toward a common purpose.

Please explain? Collaboration, in the context of this part, falls within the full spectrum of public engagement described in the Council on Environmental Quality’s publication of October, 2007: Collaboration in NEPA
—————————————————————————————-

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362536.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 219 RIN 0596–AD02
National Forest System Land Management Planning
AGENCY Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule and record of decision

The 2012 planning rule was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012 and became effective on May 9, 2012, 30 days following publication.

Page 21162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Thru Page 21276 Federal Register/ Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

115 pages of National Forest System Land Management Planning

This planning rule sets forth process and content requirements to guide the development,
amendment, and revision of land management plans to maintain and restore
NFS land and water ecosystems while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses.
The planning rule is designed to ensure that plans provide for the 
sustainability
of ecosystems and resources; meet the need for forest restoration and
conservation, watershed protection, and species diversity and conservation;

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST

TO ASSIST THE AGENCY IN PROVIDING A SUSTAINABLE FLOW OF BENEFITS, SERVICES, AND USES OF NFS LANDS THAT PROVIDEJOBS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITIES.
—————————————————————————————

PART 219—PLANNING
Subpart A—National Forest System Land
Management Planning
Sec.
219.1 Purpose and applicability.
219.2 Levels of planning and responsible officials.
219.3 Role of science in planning.
———————————————————-
This concerns me?
219.4 Requirements for public participation.
———————————————————–
219.5 Planning framework.
219.6 Assessment.
219.7 New plan development or plan revision.
219.8 Sustainability.
219.9 Diversity of plant and animal communities.
219.10 Multiple use.
219.11 Timber requirements based on the NFMA?
219.12 Monitoring.
219.13 Plan amendment and administrative changes.
219.14 Decision document and planning records.
219.15 Project and activity consistency with the plan.
219.16 Public notifications.
219.17 Effective dates and transition.
219.18 Severability.
219.19 Definitions.

——————————————————————–
219.10 Multiple use.
The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the NFS so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people…
without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to
the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output, consistent? with the Multiple-
Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531).
————————————————————————————-
ECOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY?
The capacity of NFS lands and their ecological systems to provide the various renewable resources in certain amounts in perpetuity. For the purposes of this subpart, productivity is an ECOLOGICAL term, PRODUCTIVITY, not an ECONOMIC term.

————————————————————————————————–

Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy
The Forest Service partnered with the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to gather input from various stakeholders on how to build the best possible collaboration and public involvement strategy for the planning rule. (The Institute is a program of the Udall Foundation, an independent federal program based in Tucson, Arizona.) Using what we heard from those interviews, we worked with the Institute to design a comprehensive collaborative strategy for the rulemaking process.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/collaboration

COLLABORATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Forest Service began the planning rule revision process with a commitment to developing a new planning rule that would endure over time. We utilized a transparent and participatory method to accomplish this effort. The 2012 planning rule requires collaboration throughout the planning process.
This new rule was developed using an open collaborative process, and was refined by nearly 300,000 public comments that were received in response to the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement. These comments were in addition to the 26,000 comments to the Notice of Intent, which also refined the development of the proposed rule.
In addition to public comments, the rulemaking process was enhanced by a science forum, regional and national roundtables, national and regional tribal roundtables, Tribal consultation meetings, national and regional public forums, Forest Service employee feedback, and comments posted to the Planning Rule blog. The agency considered all feedback received through these efforts, and used public input, science, and agency expertise to develop the 2012 planning rule.
Detailed information on the collaboration and public involvement process can be found on the Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy webpage.
——————————————————————————————
Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy

The Forest Service partnered with the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to gather input from various stakeholders on how to build the best possible collaboration and public involvement strategy for the planning rule.

(The Institute is a program of the Udall Foundation, an independent federal program based in Tucson, Arizona.) Using what we heard from those interviews, we worked with the Institute to design a comprehensive collaborative strategy for the rulemaking process. We have used this strategy to identify the following inter-related collaborative activities:
—————————————————————————————————
Next Steps and How to Stay Involved
The 2012 planning rule was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012 and became effective on May 9, 2012, 30 days following publication. There are ways for the public to stay engaged in the planning process throughout implementation of the planning rule:
• Federal Advisory Committee: In January 2012 the Secretary announced a new Federal Advisory Committee to advise the Chief and Secretary on implementation of the planning rule. A total of 21 members were selected. The committee began meeting in September 2012; all committee meetings are open to the public.
• Directives: The Forest Service is currently developing a set of planning directives to provide further guidance on implementation of the planning rule; the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on those directives.

• Plan Revisions: A number of national forests and grasslands have begun plan revisions. As individual units begin to implement the planning rule of 2012 and revise their forest plans, we encourage the public to become involved and provide input throughout the planning process on individual forest units.

Features
Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy?

The Bottom line
How will your Olympic Peninsula Collaborative plan work?
Are you confident that the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution has achieved a Rule that will satisfy the conflict “We the people” have with the NGO Environmental Groups?
.
The collaboration strategy for the development of a new planning rule has consisted of national and regional roundtables, a science forum, national and regional public forums, and tribal consultation. Click the above link for further information on this effort.

Tribal Relations
In addition to government to government consultation, the Forest Service invited Tribes to participate in the collaborative process for the development of a new National Forest Planning Rule. Visit the Overall Collaboration and Public Involvement Strategy webpage for further information.

Thank You,
Pearl Rains Hewett
A concerned American Grandmother

————-

Pearl Rains Hewett is a grandmother who is concerned about the future of her children and grandchildner.  She’s  spent over two years on the Clallam County SMP Update Committee, and has been researching many of the issues affecting the North Olympic Peninsula in Washington State.

Her website is “behindmyback.org” It is mostly documented investigative reporting

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Search Citizen Review ARCHIVES for keywords, stories

 

Search Citizen Review
(Current News - from Jan. 2012 to present)

Note about Searching this Website

If you wish to use this website to research by topic or keyword, there are TWO search engines - one for the current stories as posted in our Wordpress format, and the ARCHIVE search engines, which goes back in time to 1999.  Be sure to use both to access stories relative to your search that covers both time periods. - Ed.