FLOOD05967

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Rivers Without Boundaries: Proceedings of the Second Biannual ARMS Symposium on River Planning and Management
• Date: 4/18/1994
• Prepared By: American River Management Society
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

40

agency obviously bad its miud made up on wbicb alternative it wanted before it started! Couple these
perceptions witil the fact tilat witilin anyone river basin or forest tilere may be tI1ree, four, or even ten sucb EIS
processes underway, all in various stages of completion, and it is litlle wonder tile public becomes disenchanted.
To complicate matters, wben tlIe agencies do attempt to make a good-faitil effort to convene a group of
concerned citizens witll diverse viewpoints to work togetiler, tiley are inbibited by conservative interpretations of
the Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA) whicb makes it impractical and extremely difficult to assemble
public task forces.

Ideas I Solutions

We need to recognize tilat we can't expect to get tile public involved if tiley can't understand wbat we are talking
about. We need to avoid using jargon and acronyms. Tbey may mean a lot to us, but 90% of tile public are only
familiar witil tile most common terms. We should be speaking in plain Englisb, tilat everyone can understand.
Doing tlIis will communicate tlIat we do care about tilem and want to bear wbat tlIey have to say.

To work witllin FACA restrictions we can do a couple of tlIings. First, we can separate citizen work groups
from tile tecbnical or formal decision making process. We can also use workshops (totally open meetings witil
open participation) instead of Task Forces or Workgroups (witil closed membership).

We sbould begin to view public involvement as a dynamic tool wbicb can aid us in determining our
management agenda. For instance, we can use public involvement to get a better pulse on wbetber or not a
particular action is likely to raise substantive issues tlIat will need to enter tlIe NEP A process.

Work Group Results

Work Group Issues:
1. Agency interpretations of regulations.
2. Upper level management jurisdiction batlles (fisb, water).
3. Regulations tlIat cbange witll tile political administration.
4. Tecbnical advisory groups can become political tJirougb appoinunents.
5. Inflexible time frames of regulations and policies.
6. Public's misunderstanding of regulations.
7. Publics wbo witlibold information for later appeals.
8. How do you select stakebolders to be on advisory groups and get tile rigbt people to come?
9. Cultural differences.
10. Different ageodas and priorities of agencies.

Work Group Ideas I Solutions:

. Create an interagency strategy team wbicb meets bi-montbly. It would need to be joinlly funded and
must cover tile per diem and travel of its members. In general, try to combine or sbare meetings.

. Need to involve tribal representatives early. Need to understand tribal dynamics -- Who can speak?
A void intertribal cooncils wbicb send one spokesperson. Actively recruit I develop a liaison
person. Report back to tile tribes on decisions, even if tiley don't attend meetings. Be culturally
sensitive and know tribal mores about bow to approacb problems.

. Be realistic but flexible in tlIe time frame. Dou't cut off or sborten tlIe process too soon. Setting
objectives, sbared visious etc. takes as many meetings as it takes.

. "Partners afloat/astride" type progratns are extremely valuable. They give agencies the chance to get
out in tile field witll each otl1er and witil key members of tlIe public. These give tile opportunity to
role play, in wbicb participants can reverse tile roles tiley normally play. Tbe trips sllould last 2 or
3 days and sllould iuvolve decision makers tI1at may be involved in jurisdictioual battles.

. Ecosystem management may mean tI1atllO one agency has tile lead role. It would be best to bave a
community-based organization or independent group facilitate tlIe process.

American River Management Society