Development of a Methodology for Community Input: Recommendations to the Los Padres National Forest Management Plan

1. Development of a Methodology for Community Input: Recommendations to the Los Padres National Forest Management Plan The Team: Nicholle Fratus, Jill Komoto, Kelly Lamb, Carolina Morgan, Tom Whitaker, Sarah Worth Advisor: Frank Davis Clients: Los Padres National Forest Community Forestry International

2. Meeting Agenda • Project Proposal Presentation • Objectives • Background • Project Approach • Deliverables • Project Timeline • Discussion • Review of issues and remaining questions of project team • General discussion of project proposal

3. Problem Facing Los Padres • Steady decline of FS recreational planning manpower and budget • Public perception of illusory level of public involvement in forest management planning • Decline in public participation in planning process • Limited and non-representative public input

4. Project Objectives • Develop recommendations for Los Padres to increase and improve the quality of the public’s involvement in the development of the recreational element of the forest management plan. • Increase interest and involvement of community stakeholders in forest stewardship.

5. Project Focus Area • Los Padres National Forest • Santa Barbara Ranger District

6. National Forest Management Planning • National Forest Management Act (1976) • Requires NFs to update management plans every 10-15 years • FS currently in process of updating plans for 4 southern Cal Forests (LP, Angeles, Cleveland, San Bernardino) • Draft EIS: September 2002 • Final EIS: September 2003 • Publish Forest Plan: February 2004

7. Public Participation Spectrum Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

8. Characteristics of Collaboration-based and Participatory Planning • Participatory Planning • Multidisciplinary approach: compartmentalization of disciplines. • Education is believed only to be necessary for the public. • Over reliance on public hearings and other formal input methods. • Participation of stakeholders only requested at certain points in the planning process. • Stakeholder participation generally encouraged only to create support for a plan. • Science used to buttress positions and refute other parties’ data. • Collaboration-based Planning • Interdisciplinary approach: cross-disciplinary integration. • Stakeholders educate each other. • Informal face to face dialogue among stakeholders. • Continuous stakeholder participation throughout the planning process. • Stakeholder participation encouraged to create a holistic plan. • Joint information search used to determine facts. • Adapted from Gray (1989)

9. Collaborative Planning Conceptual Model

10. Approach

11. Background Research • Collaborative Processes • Review collaborative planning literature to identify different applied methods and theories • Forest Service • Characterize the current planning process through planning document reviews, literature reviews, and FS interviews • Forest Service Organization • Identify FS constraints involved in collaborative planning

12. Stakeholder Assessment • Compile existing stakeholder information • Semi-structured interviews with 20-25 different stakeholder group representatives to determine, • Willingness for involvement • Available resources • Forest management goals • Knowledge on Forest Service and planning process • Forest use patterns • View of FS public input process

13. Map Forest Recreation Use • GIS mapping of recreation use patterns within the Santa Barbara Ranger District • Compile information from existing visitor use data and stakeholder group interviews • Use map information and stakeholder interviews to assess where recreational use conflicts may exist or arise in the future

14. Comparative Case Study Review • Select collaborative planning case studies for review based on: • Case issues involve natural resource management • Provide us with a broad spectrum of methods/approaches and the corresponding level of success • Full political spectrum… federal to local • Conduct case study analysis and informal interviews with participants and facilitators • Some potential cases: • Applegate Partnership • Quincy Library Group • San Juan National Forest Initiative • Canyon Country Partnership

15. Collaborative Planning Matrix • Develop collaborative planning matrix from case study analysis • Motivation for collaboration • Management objectives • Methods used • Stakeholders involved • Regulatory and other constraints • Keys to success/failure

16. Methodology for Los Padres • Using information from collaborative matrix, develop methodology for collaborative process that fits best for Santa Barbara RD recreational planning • Methodology will take into account: • FS constraints • Stakeholders involved • Conflicts between users

17. Test Selected Process • Implement small scale test of selected collaborative process • Conduct post-session interviews with participants to assess success and/or problems with selected process • Select participants from original stakeholder assessment group for a comparative analysis of feelings regarding FS collaboration before and after • Modify methodology based on results of tested process

18. Deliverables • Stakeholder Assessment: 10/11/02 • Map of Recreation Use in Los Padres National Forest: 11/29/02 • Matrix of Case Study Characteristics: 2/7/03 • Methodology for Community Input: 2/7/03

19. Timeline • Research collaborative processes: 4/13/02 - 7/15/02 • Forest Service background: 4/13/02 – 7/15/02 • Stakeholder assessment: 7/1/02 – 10/18/02 • Assess existing data: 7/1/02 – 7/15/02 • Criteria for selecting stakeholders: 7/8/02 – 7/15/02 • Develop questions: 7/15/02 – 8/26/02 • Interview stakeholders: 9/9/02 – 10/11/02 • Mapping of recreation use in the forest: 7/1/02 – 11/29/02 • Comparative Case Study Review: 7/1/02 – 11/6/02 • Develop matrix of case study characteristics: 2/7/03 • Develop Draft Methodology: 11/6/02 – 2/7/03 • Evaluation of selected process 1/17/03 • Final methodology: 2/7/03

20. Questions/Remaining Issues • Criteria for selecting case studies? • Method for comparing case studies • What other information should we obtain from stakeholders? • Additional potential case studies Forest@bren.ucsb.edu

21. User Groups