Objectives for the Summit
We would like any additional thoughts you have on two of our Summit objectives that a few folks have expressed that need to be refined a bit more. Here are the two objectives.
1. Establish relationships between District personnel and stakeholders as a foundation for forest plan implementation.
Hopefully these relationships are already “established”. I like the word “planning participant” rather than stakeholder, because there is the possibility that many plan implementation “stakeholders” have not unfortunately had the time to be at the table for plan revision. Also, this objective speaks to an anticipated transition time in our planning effort, many of the relationships have been built with our forest planning team and forest supervisors. We hope to see the collaborative nature of our planning effort implemented at a District level during project development and plan implementation.
2. Provide opportunities for objective discussions on science topics (water, forest health/fuels, species protection, and social and economics).
There was concern expressed that all these topics are not necessarily “science” topics. We have talked about taking out the word “objective” because many of the discussions are in fact “subjective” and replacing “science” with “choices in the proposed plan”. Also, we probably need to add additional topics to the parentheses - what topics are you most interested in engaging on? Finally, some participants have expressed that “social and economics” play into all the discussions and therefore don’t need to be identified specifically, however, there are others who disagree with this point of view and feel like it is an imperative topics to discuss
We would appreciate any suggestions or thoughts you have to better describe these objectives. I will work on revising these objectives in the next week or so, but I would welcome your thoughts in the meantime.
Re: the first objective, how about:
“Expand relationships between District personnel and planning participants as a foundation for forest plan implementation.”
Re: the second, how about:
“Provide opportunities for open discussion about forest management choices to be made about resources that involve science, economics, and values, e.g., water, forest treatments, species protection and recreation.”
Comment by Mary O'Brien — April 25, 2006 @ 3:13 pmThanks Mary. Based on the third planning conference call, we will adopt your language in the next draft.
Comment by Kenton Call — May 1, 2006 @ 2:11 pmIt may be too idealistic, but I would hope that the Summit would not only have “process” objectives like “expanding relationships” and “providing opportunities”, but also “substantive” objectives like identifying practical solutions for pressing problems or negotiating compromises on contentious issues. Problems would include the spread of invasive weeds and the proliferation of unauthorized routes. Issues would include how much designated wilderness is appropriate and what extirpated species (like beavers) should be reintroduced and where. The Forest Service wants public involvement in crafting the new Forest Plans. Why not use the Summit to make as much progress as possible in finding workable decisions? Thanks for considering my input.
Comment by Richard Spotts — May 5, 2006 @ 9:28 pm