7846

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7846
• Author: American River Management Society
• Title: Editor
• USFW Year: Series
• USFW - Doc Type: 1994
• Copyright Material: NO

40

agency obviously had its mind made up on which alternative it wanted before it started! Couple these
perceptions with the fact that within anyone river basin or forest there may be three, four, or even ten such EIS
processes underway, all in various stages of completion, and it is little wonder the public becomes disenchanted.
To complicate matters, when the agencies do attempt to make a good-faith effort to convene a group of
concerned citizens with diverse viewpoints to work together, they are inhibited by conservative interpretations of
the Federal Advisory Committees Act (F ACA ) which makes it impractical and extremely difficult to assemble
public task forces.

Ideas / Solutions

We need to recognize that we can't expect to get the public involved if they can't understand what we are talking
about. We need to avoid using jargon and acronyms. They may mean a lot to us, but 90% of the public are only
familiar with the most common terms. We should be speaking in plain English, that everyone can understand.
Doing this will communicate that we do care about them and want to hear what they have to say.

To work within FACA restrictions we can do a couple of things. First, we can separate citizen work groups
from the technical or formal decision making process. We can also use workshops (totally open meetings with
open participation) instead of Task Forces or Workgroups (with closed membership).

We should begin to view public involvement as a dynamic tool which can aid us in determining our
management agenda. For instance, we can use public involvement to get a better pulse on whether or not a
particular action is likely to raise substantive issues that will need to enter the NEPA process.

Work Group Results

Work Group Issues:
1. Agency interpretations of regulations.
2. Upper level management jurisdiction battles (fIsh, water).
3. Regulations that change with the political administration.
4. Technical advisory groups can become political through appointments.
5. Inflexible time frames of regulations and policies.
6. Public's misunderstanding of regulations.
7. Publics who withhold infonnation for later appeals.
8. How do you select stakeholders to be on advisory groups and get the right people to come?
9. Cultural differences.
10. Different agendas and priorities of agencies.

Work Group Ideas / Solutions:

. Create an interagency strategy team which meets bi-monthly. It would need to be jointly funded and
must cover the per diem and travel of its members. In general, try to combine or share meetings.

· Need to involve tribal representatives early. Need to understand tribal dynamics -- Who can speak?
A void intertribal councils which send one spokesperson. Actively recruit / develop a liaison
person. Report back to the tribes on decisions, even if they don't attend meetings. Be culturally
sensitive and know tribal mores about how to approach problems.

· Be realistic but flexible in the time frame. Don't cut off or shorten the process too soon. Setting
objectives, shared visions etc. takes as many meetings as it takes.

· "Partners afloat/astride" type programs are extremely valuable. They give agencies the chance to get
out in the fIeld with each other and with key members of the public. These give the opportunity to
role play, in which participants can reverse the roles they normally play. The trips should last 2 or
3 days and should involve decision makers that may be involved in jurisdictional battles.

· Ecosystem management may mean that no one agency has the lead role. It would be best to have a
community-based organization or independent group facilitate the process.

American River Management Society