PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN FOREST SERVICE 7; .  . ’
~ , DEC'S'ON~'MAKING; CASE ST‘UDIES'AND MODELS 3»

- ~ . 7 ~ Dissertation for th‘egDegree'Of Ph; D. :
- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSHY ‘ g
4‘JAMES’OLIVERBLANKENSHIP f, '
' “ 5; lix1976f '

 

 

w v.-

 

thesis entitl ,

Public Involvement in the Forest Service;
Case Studies and Models

presented by
James Oliver Blankenship

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Forestry

degree in

rag/We

Date April 26, 1976

07639

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE FOREST SERVICE;
CASE STUDIES AND MODELS

by

James Oliver Blankenship

The U. 8. Forest Service, like all other government agencies,
is confronted with the need to develop a uniform, equitable
system for involving citizens in policy and program decision
making. Developing such a participatory system requires the
outlining of criteria, procedures and social interaction that
assures a process that is operational for the agency. This
research studies the problem in terms of present cases, ex—
amines the literature of public involvement and human inter—

action theory and creates three models of public involvement.

The public involvement process as practiced by the Forest
Service in four issues in Colorado were examined in detail.
Citizen and Forest Officer participants were interviewed and
data from questionnaires, attitude tests and interviews were
analyzed and compared with a check list of attributes of
successful public involvement. The analysis shows a progres—
sion from cases in which effective public involvement was

virtually non—existent to one which contained many of the

 

 

 

‘: -:'.".T ':'.'" .- - :_-.; l '
. I 1- .-_.-l . --- . -
b

 

attributes of successful public participation.

Three models of public involvement are developed. The first

is a characterization of the public involvement process prac-
ticed by the Forest Service in the first two cases. It
identifies the assumptions, action strategies and consequences
of an ineffective process. The second model characterizes the
current public involvement process of the agency as seen in

the second two case studies. The third model presents a process
which incorporates the lessons of the case studies and applies
current interaction theory to avoid the adverse consequences of
the previous models. This model assumes that natural resource
decisions have both technical and social aspects. The roles of
the participants are clarified: The role of the agency is to
provide technical data and identify probable consequences of
alternatives; the citizen's role is to determine the societal
values that are to be served by the decision. The action
strategies of this model result in an operational public involve-
ment process which recognizes that natural resources are means to
achieve social goals.

The essential dimensions of a process, which are procedure, con-
tent and human interaction, are discussed in terms of their

importance in implementing the third model.

 

 

 

WENENT IN FOREST SERVICE DECISION-MAKING:

CASE STUDIES AND MODELS

BY

JAMES OLIVER BLANKENSHIP

 

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Forestry

:r-unmyz-moraisgt .

 

"". 31-3. '2”: ('15-. E3.I'."JT-.' €231"

 

 

@ Copyright by
JAMES OLIVER BLANKENSHIP

1976

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to the U. S. Forest Service,
without whose cooperation this research would not have
occurred, and to citizens and Forest Officers whose candid
answers gave meaning to the case studies. I especially thank
Dr. Daniel Schler for his advice, ideas and enthusiastic

support during the course of this research.

 

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case 1 —

Case 2 —

Case 3 -

East Meadow Creek Timber Sale
The Setting . . . . . . . . . .
Public Involvement and Decision
The Aftermath . . . . . . . . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Juan Roadless Areas

The Setting . . . . . . . . . .
Public Involvement and Decision
The Aftermath . . . . . . . . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .

Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountains
Primitive Areas

The Setting . . . . . . . . . .
Public Involvement and Decision
The Aftermath . . . . . . . . .

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .

<

<
p.
p.

-v H

15
16
19
21

36
37
#1
43

61;
67
68
69

 

P—qpv":

 

 

..”
... u - . .
.—
I.. . . .
. . . .
u n . u
l I I . .
. . n u .
l I
.... a . _
. . .
. n o
r . . . .
. .
u n .
n . . . .
. . . n . . . .
. . . . . ..
ling-I I.|l n

 

   
 
   
 
   

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)

Case 4 - Beaver Creek Ski Area

 
 
 

The Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Public Involvement and Decision . . . . 86
The Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

IX. Analytical Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
x. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11“

XI. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

XII. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

 

 

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Socio-economic Comparison of Citizens in

East Meadow Creek Case , , , , . . . 23
Why Citizens Were Involved in East
Meadow Creek Case . . . , , , , . . 23

Responses to Questions About Timing of Public
Involvement in East Meadow Creek Case 25

Preeducation and Convenience of Public
Involvement in East Meadow Creek Case 26

Factors Influencing the Decision in
East Meadow Creek Case . . . . . . . 28

Citizen Impressions of the Forest Service
in East Meadow Creek Case . . . . . . 32

Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses

in East Meadow Creek Case . . . . . . 3h
Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses 34
Socio—economic Comparison of Citizens in

Roadless Area Case . , , , , , . . . A5

Why Citizens Were Involved in
Roadless Area Case . . , , , , . . . 46

Responses to Questions About Timing of Public
Involvement in Roadless Area Case , , 48

Preeducation and Convenience of Public
Involvement in Roadless Area Case . , 50

Factors Influencing the Decision in
Roadless Area Case . . . . . . . . , 52

Citizen Impressions of the Forest Service
in Roadless Area Case . . . . . , , , 58

Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses
in Roadless Area Case . . . . . . , , 60

 

 

 

 

  

 

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

 

l6.

17.

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)

Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses 60

Socio-economic Comparison of Citizens
in Primitive Area Case . . . . . . . . . 70

Responses to Questions About Timing of Public
Involvement in Primitive Area Case . . . 73

Preeducation and Convenience of Public
Involvement in Primitive Area Case . . . . 7a

Factors Influencing the Decision in
Primitive Area Case n o o o o a o o o I n 76

Citizen Impressions of the Forest Service
in Primitive Area Case . . . , , , , , , 80

Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses
in Primitive Area Case . . . . . , , , , 83

Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses 83

Socio-economic Comparison of Citizens in
Beaver Creek Case . . . . , , , , , , , 92

Reasons for Involvement in Beaver Creek
Case 0 O 1 O I I D I O I I I d I l O l l 92

Responses to Questions About Timing of
Public Involvement in Beaver Creek Case 94

Preeducation and Convenience of Public
Involvement in Beaver Creek Case , , , , 95

Factors Influencing the Decision in
Beaver Creek Case . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Citizen Impressions of the Forest Service
in Beaver Creek Case . . . . . . . . . . 99

Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses in

Beaver Creek Case n u n o o o o o 0 a o o 102
Comparison of Attitude Scale Responses 102
vi

 

 

III-I'll .

 

 

 

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure Al.
Figure A2.
Figure A3.
Figure A4.

Figure A5.

LIST OF FIGURES

Existing Method of Public Involvement
Improved Method of Public Involvement

Checklist of Attributes for Public
Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . .

Model I. Theory of Early Public
Involvement . . . . . . . . . .

Model II. Theory of Current Public
Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Model III. Theory of an Effective

Public Involvement Process . . . . .
Citizen Questionnaire . . . . . . . .
Citizen Attitude Scale . . . . . . .
Forest Officer Questionnaire . . . .

Forest Officer Attitude Scale . . . .

Decision Log . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 111
. 118
. 123
. 12h
. 127
. 128

 

 

 

_.
1
HI.
T
h.
. _
..
.1 u
1
.
I
I

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM

 

In recent years the public has begun to demand that the
U. S. Forest Service and other land management agencies
improve the balance among its programs and provide for

citizen involvement in the decision-making process. The

 

National Enviromental Policy Act calls for interdisci—

plinary planning and public involvement.

This gives rise to a problem that is currently being ex—
perienced by all public natural resource managers; a
problem of differentiating between value judgements and
factual judgements. The problem is well defined as follows:
"Two forces which may be in conflict are facing public land
managers today. One force suggests a separation of roles
so that the strong scientific competence can function effec—
tiVely in a value context established by others, perhaps non—
professional role players. The other force is the desire
for broader participation in resource management by both
citizen groups and internal personnel. The latter force
may require a synthesis of roles while the former requires

a separation." (Bentley, 1972.)

 

.p.-,-,.-. - r- .

'. I._.-I.-Cn...4' J

_ ._ _._..._.._... ..
a.
'i

_I u
_ .
_ I'
I

 

2
There has been a growing recognition of scientific elitism

and other violations of our ideals of equality. Coupled
with a rising concern that wrong decisions and erroneous
priorities prevail, this recognition has led to increased
cries for public participation, or what Leavitt (1962) and
Strauss (1964) call "power equalization" and what Arnstein
(1969) describes as the redistribution of power which en-
ables citizens currently excluded from the political and
economic processes to be included in the future. This prob—
lem in the public sector is analogous to the demands of
company stockholders for greater involvement in the decision-

making process in industrial organizations.

The Forest Service has responded to these demands for public
participation in land use decisions; however, the response
has not provided any degree of consistent success. Efforts
have been largely based on trial and error; only recently
has the Forest Service initiated scientific investigation of
the problem. Procedures that were adequate in one situation
were not successful in others. Some efforts served only to
further alienate those Opposing certain National Forest poli—
cies; few have been successful in satisfying the public and

the Agency.

The key to consistently successful public involvement may lie
in examining some basic elements and processes of public in—

volvement efforts. A detailed analysis of the ingredients of
public involvement sessions may provide a means of establish-

ing what goes wrong or right, and why it does so.

 

 

 

 

' I
. .,1..

   

bale}: n flsiw

,J i. '.".‘|'.i. 9 ' ..‘..".:H.‘.i'i'?

   

,—,‘ waifiw

STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objective of this research is to identify appropriate
procedures for effective public involvement in natural
resource management by: "
l. Examining how the Forest Service operates its
public involvement efforts.
2. Identifying the factors and the processes in-
volved in effective public participation efforts.
3. Determining why some efforts fail.
4. Determining what is needed to effectively involve
the public in planning and decision-making.
Effective public involvement is defined as a procedure that
tells an agency the relative number of people that are affect-

ed by a program or project and how they feel about it.

HYPOTHESIS
Some public involvement efforts fail because:
1. The true attitude of some natural resource managers
is that public involvement should only occur as a
means of legitimizing decisions already made. This
subconscious attitude is a significant factor in pre—
venting successful public involvement.
2. Public contacts are being inappropriately used. They
are means oriented rather than goal oriented; i.e.,
they are used as an instrument to give information,
opinions, and proposals rather than being used to so—

licit information and opinions about goals.

 

 

3. Ability to assess public opinion is a function of
the factors involved and the process of obtaining
information. Lack of understanding of these fac-

tors prevents effective public involvement.

This hypothesis suggests two models which are presented in

Figure l and Figure 2.

 

~vn; nFezj in zufibnijexoanu in nus; .nnijtuxnzni

. .Jnopw"lcv:. . .: 'TrJnu' . arriv_1' 230:
“v 'Vr 7" n i. r' - . . =L _. ' .n

 

 

FIGURE 1

EXISTING METHOD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Land manager examines
Land manager "‘\ alternative means of
determines goals achieving goals

Public involvement starts
with no real understanding kLand manager selects
of factors that are functioning an alternative

L—N

Public meetings, hearings,
news releases, etc.

H

Public rejects land
manager's decision

Public accepts land
manager's decision

Land manager refines efforts
or makes changes in management
direction

Program or Project is
implemented

easily

FIGURE 2

IMPROVED METHOD OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Land manager inventories
resources and their capa-
bilities

Public involvement:
Public determines
goals (ends)

Public involvement continues,
land manager gauges public
sentiment through information
gatherings and understanding
of factors functioning in
public opinion formation

Land manager determines
various alternative means
to achieve goals - may
recommend one over others

Land manager asks for public
input, decision or approval
of his recommendation

Public approves or decides
upon means

Public involvement continues as
land manager uses demand analysis
to rapidly detect changes in so—
ciety's values. Ends and means
are adjusted accordingly.

Program or project is
implemented

 

 

METHODOLOGY

Initiation of the Research

The initial step in the investigation was the development
of a checklist of attributes for public involvement. See
Figure 3. Ideas for the checklist were obtained from re-
view of pertinent literature, discussions and interviews
with academicians and public involvement researchers, U.S.
Forest Service line and staff officers, including public
involvement specialists, and citizens with varying amounts

of experience in public participation activities.

The checklist was then used to develop a questionnaire and
an attitude scale which could be used to determine whether
or not public involvement efforts met the criteria of the
attributes list. One questionnaire was developed for citi-
zen response and another for Forest Officer response. The
questionnaires contained both multiple choice questions and
open—ended questions. The attitude scale used was a seven
interval semantic differential scale, bounded by opposite
meaning adjectives. Fourteen such adjective pairs were used.
The technique is summarized by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum
(1957) and further investigated by Darnell (1966) and numer-
ous others. Personal consultation with Dr. Darnell provided
valuable insight in developing the scale and in subsequent
analysis of the data. The questionnaires and scales were
pretested and were modified as needed. The questionnaires

and scales are reproduced in the Appendix.

 

 

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

FIGURE 3
CHECKLIST OF ATTRIBUTES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Involvement process starts prior to decision.

Involvement process starts prior to finalizing of
alternatives.

Process starts early in planning stage.

Affected people participate.

"Preeducation" of people occurs; i.e., information is
disseminated to those affected prior to asking for
their opinions.

Involvement is goal oriented rather than means oriented.
Involvement process is visible.

Involvement process is traceable.

Process utilizes more than one technique; must include
use of an existing natural communication system; e.g.,
natural leader (opinion leader).

Decisions and rationale are publicized.

Decision—maker shows how public input was used in his
decision.

Attitude of decision—maker is that public involvement
is a legitimate and necessary part of decision-making.

Location of involvement activities does not unduly
restrict participation by affected people.

Agency credibility is good at close of the involvement
effort.

Public participants feel that they had some influence
on the decision.

Agency participants feel that citizen participants in—
fluenced the decision.

 

 

Timing of public involvement appears to be a central issue
in many cases where conflict over a decision has occurred.
In an administrative study, (Forest Service, 1973) the team
conducting the study concluded that the decision making
process must consider public involvement at five stages:
issue definition, collection, analysis, evaluation, and de—
cision implementation. The first items on the checklist re-

late to timing of involvement.

The question of "who participates" in public involvement
situations is a continuing source of concern. Hahn (1970)
states that decisions are made by "competetive elites" rep-
resenting most interests, but few average or lower-status
citizens actually participate in community decision-making.
They do, however, retain the right to complain if the de-
cision seriously dissatisfies them. The Forest Service admini—
strative study reported that only a small segment of the popu-
lation, made up primarily of those who will be most directly

affected, will provide input.

Examination of past efforts at citizen involvement shows a
recurring tendency to bombard citizens with technical data,
alternatives, objectives and other information, then, before
any "digestive" process can occur, asks them to make a choice.
Schler (1973) says an educational process is a prerequisite
to effective public involvement. Understanding by people

must precede rational decision making by people. The problems

_ m ..-;_ _ . ‘ ..'..- .. . ‘3‘.
ant-flail neat-“hob can an: assurance w:- ‘3 mm

 

:aepnia svii 35 :nemsvlovni oilduq zebienao stun alsooxq
~9b bns_.noisbulsvs .aiavlsnn .noijuolloo .noisinileb sue-1
-s:t sailfiosn'o 911;] no z-:-:-_r:ti :1":- ": c-rl‘J' .fl0i3233i.0m'31igmi noieia

..'m: -..:\.-'.!‘.oan. 3.. :‘nuinis 2:7 -..-;2.'.i

n
.__. . . , . .
. ". ' w. L‘ 2 L _. - '2 .. c. ’..L. [Lu C. -0 0--..1'1- ta
. ‘ ,. ' a;-
‘ I. H . 2-: ‘. . -. -.-.' J. ' .2- u- u..-
l
’1'" - r .41 I J ~‘ L': .1 '. ..L.- ' -.L;1-.'.:_'...I u.’ ... 1.. .1
.
!- l
.-.
I: . . ‘
‘i '3: -- .. .a' I - I -
. ; .
' I < O I J n
.
. l
- -.| l _ I
'I
.
' L C I _
‘ -h . ....2 - I
.J' l
.
l.
.
I _
., .
J r
‘ ‘5. l .l,‘ ' .. ..
.
5 ‘ "
4
-' J' .. I .;Z I

 

10

of over-whelming people with data and technical jargon are
further pointed out by Hahn (ibid) and Synergy (1972).
Synergy emphasizes that an informed citizenry is necessary

for meaningful public involvement.

Utilization of more than a single involvement technique is
stressed by most authors. Karpino (1973) emphasized the

importance of involving people through an existing natural
communication system such as an opinion leader or a "care—
taker." This is particularly important when attempting to

involve those groups without previous involvement experience.

The value of timely feedback on what recommendations or de-
cisions were made and who made them are discussed in the
Forest Service report. Feedback appears to have significant
effect on credibility and trust, which, in turn, affect at-
titude change and response to persuasive messages (Johnson
and Scleppi, 1969; Campbell and Helper, 1965; Horland, Janis
and Kelly, 1970). The rationale for several questions re—
lating to credibility, trust, feedback and utilization of
citizen input are based on the importance stressed by these

and other authors.

The development of the first element of the hypothesis was
based on personal observation and discussions about the public
involvement process in public agencies. The conflicts between
participatory democracy and professional expertise are discussed
by Burke (1968) and Behan (1972). The Forest Service study

revealed that Forest Officer attitude and professionalism

 

     
   
  

'r. _
_n _-___

. 9w16va1 stung MW- III

   

a1 supimioea irrsmsvlovni slpflit‘ s and: 310.! To nob-3111:“!
an: bosiasfiqne ((vtl) ouiqirt .szonsts :nom yd boaasrae

Travis: g:i:atre nr :psnn:9 :Itrbc nsjvinvni io sonearoqmi

‘ ' = -. - . - ' '. . . . :..... '.-_...‘. -.,.
'I 'I'iyi‘ E .LC 33.435291 “UL-u; (- .:;.. . ' DUI. . ". .. _I :13. --A.'-..'..!1JA'.-. -J—a‘
.
5 . .-'.I ,- .-... .'. .. '.. . . ..-_ — . 4
i "_ '1...""-‘- . .'-:.J . ' '. ..'-f :4.- l's-lll _ - .. n'-’ .(LI- I- - -. -- a 1.549;;—
- - - l a J - -
-_.-" ... ‘ J ' 1. -' 3‘4 .a—IJ‘I'
Z .- . _ .J ‘
.'
. _, - l ' I- l ’ L'..-
_ . . h .- . I .'
I
I
-..
, . I ‘ .-o J.
-|
I
I - I
II
':
. -
i . . \ _
'I
. I
u - J
i
i
, -... .
l
I
I
1 I ,
\. l ' J ‘ l— » ~ 0

11
crept into most cases included in the study. Hahn (ibid.)
offers some theories about why citizen participation often
degenerates into efforts by professionals to "sell" their

plan.

A number of issues in which some degree of public involve-
ment in National Forest management decisions occurred were
considered for case study; four such issues were selected

to serve as subcases. Each unit of study and analysis was
limited to a geographic area. The study was descriptive and
comparative, with each subcase examined separately, then
compared with the other subcases and with current interaction

theory.

Collection of Data

 

A list of participants in each issue was compiled from Forest
Service files, news clippings, reports. and citizen contacts.
Through personal interviews, telephone interviews and mail
contacts the questionnaires and scales were completed. The
standardization required for this method, as discussed by
Blalock (1970) was accomplished by utilizing the same set of
questions for all respondents within a class (citizen or For-
est Officer) and by confronting all respondents with similar
interviewer relationships. Interviewing and questionnaire
problems discussed by Crano and Brewer (1973) were considered
and techniques suggested by them and others were used to refine
methodology in improving data. Interview notes were made and

numerous records and files were screened.

12
Background information was also obtained from citizens and
Forest Officers who were not in the population sampled.
An emerging methodology was originally envisioned; there—
fore, detailed records describing the decisions relating
to methods, modifications, and rationale for them were

kept. A decision log appears in the Appendix.

Analysis of Data

The tools of analysis are concepts developed and defined as
the study progressed. Portions of the data are quantified;
much of the analysis is qualitative. All of the quantita—
tive data and much of the qualitative data lends itself to
comparison against the checklist of attributes to arrive at
some measure of the "success" of the public involvement
effort. This comparison appears in the Analytical Commentary.
Many conclusions are based in inferences. Some are strongly

supported, others are not.

"Indicants," as discussed by Ackoff (1962) are used not
to quantify, but to define concepts. The purpose is to
compare differences in perceptions of participants from
case to case and to compare perceptual differences between

citizens and Forest Officers within these cases.

The analysis was conducted sequentially rather than waiting
until all data was collected. This allowed opportunity to
improve data collection as the need was recognized. Few

changes in data collection were made, and are discussed

 

MW

mini-2: mm a: "with M . '
oxen mod: to! sisnoias: has .anOISIoiiibol .Ibuflflnn as

 

.xibneqqn an: ni arseqqs poi noiaioob A .3qei

szG in aievisnA

 

.'..I'_-.'-:.".Ts.’.= bur: nor-'21:.1'sb raj-turn: ..zu riagimu. 10 21009 911'?

" - .. —.-- . . .- 1. ...‘.'— ' ..--..- .' .. ’
.2; .. .- .. . I..- .c 19-0. ..._L-&.-..-.[.-.-.[(. -._'i)l...--:. ..'-.3
- '- : ' . - ' I. . I.
- J-.-f..‘ L.‘LL- '. --.'.-‘ _. - 1.5 111-- .‘.. | :-
. l .. _- r l 1 IL: . '1'
i
E _I l _
.J- \
I
E v
!
. , _ i

 

13

in the analysis of individual cases. A final analysis,
the comparison between cases and comparison with current

interaction theory, is presented as Analytical Commentary.

The attitude scales are readily quantified. Letters from
A to G are assigned to the intervals from left to right.
The percent of responses for each interval is then cal-
culated. There was some concern as to whether the intro-
duction of irrelevant words, those which may be ineffective
in evaluating attitude, might suppress relevant data. This

possibility is discussed by Darnell (ibid.)

It was decided to exclude those adjective pairs from the
analysis if 50 percent or more of the total responses for
the pair were checked at midpoint. This precaution
proved unnecessary since the highest percent of midpoint
responses for any case, in total, was 34. This indicates
there were no irrelevant pairs in the 14 pairs originally

selected.

Quantification of the questionnaire responses was done for
those questions whose response was reasonably finite.

For other questions, a descriptive content-analysis of
responses was made and responses were categorized. There
was no attempt to generalize beyond "what" was said,
therefore, the necessity for validation that would be

required of inferential content analysis is precluded.

 

     

. '.'.L--. .. . \ . ' -..' ”I: .. : ." . ISM-..'”; . :I'J'nL-JJJLIAJ;
' I I -.. L . . ' . I .. ' 1'. ':-: :2”- .‘J...-. ' _ ,._,___ _- :_.
. - .. - .. ' ...' .. . -. .1 - . ..
\ _ . .
-- . . . . . . . .
'- . - . n.
I . -. . _ .'_.
_ I
I
I. l n ' I.
.
.

14
Holsti (1969) notes, "the content data serves as a direct
answer to the research question, rather than as indicators
from which characteristics of the sources or audiences are

to be inferred.“

The categories were then quantified for further analysis.
Interview notes and explanatory or supplemental remarks on
questionnaires were similarly analyzed and classified.

The classification system developed by Bereleson (1954)
for content analysis combines findings from a mass of

research of this technique.

Information regarding the socio—economic status of citizens
who participated in issues was obtained. This information
was compared against that of the average citizen in the
area of influence of the National Forests involved in the
issues. Direct comparison, using the Bureau of the Census

data and methods, was made.

 

.elaglsns radish: 103 betiijasup soda sion IIIIGEDSIO'OdE

no asthma: Isinsmsquua no vxossnsque bun asson walvzeSnI
.beiiiaaalo bun uGEYiLuL g'uulihia 519w aszisnnoiiaeup

(LE9!) unasiulen tn Hng‘_uv9b relays noituailieatl: an?

‘ I
h I L r L ’ a a . ‘ u. 1‘— \. —I L. . I all U l ALE-n
. .. - J . ' ' {"1

4. a - .-.| -1 -

 

 

 

   

CASE 1

EAST MEADOW CREEK TIMBER SALE

   

 

..m
.
.
.
I I
..
.
..
a
..
.II- :. i.. .a I
.u. 1 . l .. .. 1 .
n n I

 

_TH_E SETTING

In 1932 and 1933 the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area
was established about sixty miles west of Denver, Colorado
on what are today the Arapaho and White River National
Forests. The East Meadow Creek drainage lies near the west
boundary of the Primitive Area and north of the resort town

of Vail.

In 1961, after determining that East Meadow Creek was more
suitable for timber harvesting than for Wilderness use, the
Forest Service planned a seven million board foot timber sale
in the area. Later, after local citizens requested the plan
be dr0pped, the Forest Service reduced the planned sale to
about five million board feet; however, the Forest Service
refused to abandon the sale plan, contending that the pres-
ence of an access road, the areas relation to nearby private
lands, the existence of mining claims, and the Denver Water
Board's plans for water diversion disqualified it from

wilderness classification.

In 1967, a group calling themselves the Colorado Open Space
Council (COSC) formed to function as coordinators for the
various enviromental groups in Colorado. This group, at
the urging of the Colorado Mountain Club, Sierra Club and
the Wilderness Society, submitted to the Forest Service

a list of “defacto” wilderness areas in Colorado. They
requested that multiple use management be discontinued in

these areas until they could be studied for inclusion in

15

16

adjacent classified Wilderness and Primitive Areas. East
Meadow Creek was within one of these "de facto"

wilderness areas.

During 1968 several "warning signals" appeared. In
February, a staff officer in the Regional headquarters
questioned the wisdom of harvesting timber adjacent to

a Primitive Area before the demands of the 1964 Wilderness
Act were satisfied (the Act required the Forest Service to
study all such areas for suitability for wilderness, hold
hearings, and report its recommendations to the President
and Congress). In March, the Assistant Regional Forester
in charge of timber management raised the same question.

In August a congressional inquiry into the proposed sale
was triggered by letters from Colorado citizens. Also during
1968, several citizens questioned the District Ranger about

the advisability of the proposed sale.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT w DECISION

As can be seen from the information presented, public
involvement, though unsolicited and generally unwelcome
as far as the Forest Service was concerned, had started.
In 1968, COSC submitted a proposal to the Forest Service
that would expand the Gore Range—Eagles Nest area by
some 50,000 acres; 1200 of these expansion acres were in
the East Meadow Creek drainage. At this time the Forest
Service study was essentially completed; only the public

hearings, required by the Wilderness Act, remained.

 

azsszsnpbsofl Isnoipefi eds n1 1.91110 1333. I .qsliiali
03 inecotbn

:sdmij pnijaovzsfi i0 mobeiw ads banalieOUP

asen'nbiiw Lari 933 In '”*

Juflrifih and 510392 ass; svlsimixfi s

__. -. 1;“ -u * L.- c; W‘F o - -:: I'.1sr L""W! Jofi
J--'.‘)' ,E'.‘ ..'" L" I .-_r..-.. ' .. I . J.-". .."
a I": J ..‘ I 3 ' 7 _ ,_

.

1

17

Several citizens of Vail believed that a credibility gap
existed between the Forest Service and citizens. These
concerned citizens formed the ad hoc Eagles Nest Wilderness
Committee. Constructive dialogue between the committee and
the Forest Service was virtually non-existant during a 10
month period in which letters were exchanged, editorials
written, and citizen meetings and consultations were held.
"We got this 'don't worry' type response from them right

up until the sale", said one committee member.

More letters from citizens expressing concern about the pro—
posed timber sale began arriving at Forest Service offices

in early 1969. The substance of these letters expressed the
need for more public input, analysis and consideration of

the desires of citizens. One such letter, from a Denver cit—
izen, asked that logging operations in East Meadow Creek be
delayed "until the full importance of that area is determined
and made evident to the community of Colorado sportsmen and
outdoorsmen. Although it may not be quite so evident to those
living in the mountains, it is quite apparent to us city dwel—
lers that the need for recreation wilderness land is much
greater than the need for timber growing on that land." Forest
Service answers to the letters spoke of the need to harvest
timber, protect against insects, reduce fire hazard, and noted

that the sale would not encroach on the existing Primitive Area.

It appears that the decision to harvest the timber was made.

In testimony at the subsequent trial, the Regional Forester

  

  

       

aupolnib aviiouzasnao .oouiillpfl

B 5 sessions» in: aeewasd

l' L! a pnlzub snsseixsnnan vilnusxiv 35w soivuea 38.30! an:
:: “Enos-1.19 .._-r..::r:m'.:>'.r.. -'-.:;--1 rxajjei heinw ni bot-ism: diam
.; unis-1:: 1.29:4 . :‘.-"..-:.J.L.u..--.-a:s ..;..-. : '-_'..’.-3: :JI' 1.51:;Li5 has “$933in
.. . ‘ '- '- . _. ' ’rv ..". '13 :JuJ 10;. .-.--..'"
:51' . -. .. _ .-_> .. '- I" ' .. .. -...J J'...'._‘I-.L' III.
N

. 'i - .1, . -

. . .- 2.. . v. ,.

 

   
    

18

said that no public report of the decision to exclude East
Meadow Creek from wilderness classification (and thereby make
it available for timber harvesting) was made. He said it was
discussed with people in the Vail area, but "we use our best
collective judgement....this must become a matter of pro-
fessional judgement. There are no criteria for the public

interest."

On March 6, 1969, the Forest Service advertised for bids on
the timber sale and issued a news release about the sale.

It was through this news story that most citizens first
learned the sale was proceeding. On March 3lst and April 3rd,
Forest Service personnel met with members of the Eagles Nest
Wilderness Committee; on April 4th the Committee filed for an

injunction to halt the sale.

While litigation to settle the timber sale question was under
way, the Forest Service proceeded with its planned public hear—
ings on the Gore Range-Eagles Nest wilderness prOposal. In
October of 1970 hearings were held in Frisco and Denver,
Colorado. Substantial interest was displayed because of the
proximity of the proposed Wilderness Area to metropolitan
Denver and because of the wide publicity given the lawsuit.

A total of 21,432 responses to Forest Service requests for
public input were received, 88 percent of which were mass mail—
ing type, requiring only a signature on a statement prepared

by someone else. Some 11,000 of the mass mailing responses

19
originated from Colorado Magazine, one of the plaintiffs in
the suit against the Forest Service. The Forest Service re-
viewed the record of the hearings and, in February 1972, made
a proposal to the President which excluded the East Meadow
Creek area. Meanwhile, court decisions and public outcry had
widened the credibility gap between the Forest Service and

the people.

fig AFTERMATH

On March 23, 1970, the U.S. District Court at Denver issued a
permanent injunction prohibiting the harvest of timber in East
Meadow Creek until after Congress determined final disposition
of the wilderness question for the area. On October 1, 1971,
the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision and
in March of 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an
appeal of the previous decisions. Although the Forest Service
saw these actions as a challenge of their decision, many citi-
zens contended that the action only challenged the Forest
Service's decision—making process. They said the process by

which the decision was made was illegal.

During the period from 1969 to 1972, the Forest Service was
subjected to considerable criticism, some of which accused
the agency of collusion with timber interests, deceit and

deviousness. One of the plaintiffs in the trial said the

Service ignored Colorado citizens and violated good forest
management practices. He called the Forest Service report
to the President "censorship by ommission" and "dishonest."

The citizens' concerns were summed up by one plaintiff who

  

:. ‘._ .1 .-
, yum-1:": _J" 51:.-

.._ 1,. r 'I III?" ”1.. I II"! '.. . '_ ..'. :I ‘ ‘_ -l_“. m" ._ .- ._:' I" | _ : : _ .I., In
H influaflfiiflflfihthfiiflhnisxo dalli'fliillliii OI. . “‘
m 2:33:10 smug- m. would»: an.» mum. .m.m
:. has solvaet :aozn1 an: accused asp tailidlbola Id: boa-Div

.alqoeq-afls

fiuflw ..-

'.rl' .1J1;;:.r'-':.'r| 1.. ..'"

“-”.--.-_..

.,., _
r- 'f - . a- \ I \ '

:.

I.

..1 '30

.

     

20

said, "I would agree that the Forest Service in general is
acting in what it feels to be the public interest and that
it is trying to follow sound forest management practices.
However, I am certain that in this case it has not care-
fully considered all factors, nor is it attuned to the true

public interest."

The effect of this was to cause the Forest Service to take a
critical look at its public involvement process. In 1972,
Craig Rupp, an official in the Forest Service Washington office,
made a presentation to the Civil Service Commission concerning
the National Enviromental Policy Act (NEPA). In that presen-
tation, Rupp remarked that "NEPA has given a new dimension to
citizen participation and citizen rights." He agreed that in
prior decision-making processes formal public participation was
not involved, one reason being that in the 1950's and 1960's
few people were concerned about how the Forest Service reached
its decisions. "We found ourselves applying our energies where

the interest was greatest", Rupp said.

The new ethic, legalized by NEPA, but certainly emphasized for
the Forest Service by the East Meadow Creek situation, was ex-
pressed by Rupp: "The professional land manager currently has
the responsibility to make the final decision. But, in my esti—
mation, if he does not obtain, consider, and use input from
from professional disciplines other than his own and from the
public in the planning and decision-making process, as called

for in NEPA, he runs the risk of losing that responsibility."

21

ANALYSIS

The purpose of this analysis and subsequent analyses is to
examine in detail the public involvement portion of the case;
to determine who was involved; what forms their involvement
took; the perceived effect on subsequent decisions; and final-
ly, their attitude about the methods by which the Forest
Service involves people in decisions about the National Forests.
The analysis will also examine the perceptions of Forest
Officers who were involved and compare them with citizen per-

ceptions.

Who Was Involved

A total of 7 Forest Officers were substantially involved in
the East Meadow Creek case. They included 3 line officers:
Regional Forester, Forest Supervisor and District Ranger; a
Deputy Regional Forester; and 3 staff officers at Regional and
Forest levels. Six were interviewed; the Forest Supervisor in-
volved is deceased. The testimony of the Supervisor during the

Parker Casel trial has been reviewed for pertinent information.

The number of citizens actively participating in this issue is
uncertain. Through review of records and conversations with
those named therein, it is likely that no more than 25 citizens
were actively involved. Many others may have been involved to
the extent of completing "mass mailing coupons" or by being
members of the organizations which joined the plaintiffs in the

lawsuit. Eighteen of the actively involved citizens were

lParker, et.al. vs. United States. C-l368, Colorado District
Court. Robert Parker, a leader in the Eagles Nest Wilderness
Committee, was the first named plaintiff in the lawsuit.

.
I...
...
..
fl
J

-.‘:'.I.Eu'5£-

 

Tiny-1:3

22

 

located; 13 were interviewed and completed questionnaires
and attitude tests. The socio—ecomOmic data of those citi-
zens is compared with that of the general population of
Colorado in Table 1. These data show that these partici-
pants were substantially above the average citizen in terms

of education and income and all were caucasian.

Why They Were Involved

Organizational membership was most often named as the reason
for citizen involvement, followed closely by being indirectly
affected by the decision and being involved for job related
reasons. Table 2 illustrates the reasons for involvement.
Most Forest Officers felt that only some of those affected by
the decision were involved in the issue; 67 percent expressed
this opinion. The remainder were evenly divided between

"most participated" and "none participated" responses.

Citizen Impressions of the Public Involvement and Decision

 

It is difficult to isolate the citizens' feelings about the
public involvement process, or elements of it, and their feel—
ings about the effect of public input on the decisions made in
the issue. Responses to questions can be categorized and nu-
merically analyzed, but the "gut reactions" come from content
analysis of the open-ended questions and supplemental remarks
made by respondents. Citizen perceptions will be divided into
two segments for analysis: those pertaining to the involvement
portion of the issue and the subsequent use of the public input

and those pertaining to their image of the Forest Service.

 

2.10.; -.

.-‘I':

 

OH Hmnuo

 

mm mnemmmu pmumawu now no huumsccH
mm mwnmuonEmE chofiumNficmmuo
om omuomuum mapomuflch
o pmuowmwm hauomuflo
mucwvcommmm mo unwouwm ucmfim>ao>sH Mom acmmom

 

mmdu Kmmmo Boadmz Bmdm ZH QW>AO>ZH mmmz mZmNHBHU NmB

 

N mqmds
3, .tha .moumEEoo mo uaofiuummmo .m.D .msmsmo may mo
2 smousm .sowumuumwcwEté mOMumfluwum moflfiocoom cam Hafioom .xoom sumo mueo tam mussoo Eoum momma
.oom.m w o.vm m.vH m.me «.ma HcofluMHsmom
muwum Scum mama
.oom.m~m o.ooH 0.5m o.ooa m.mH msmNflpflo cm>ao>cH

Eoum mama

 

 

mooaaoo Hoosom cmuonEoo
wumow v swam mummy
mcfiuonEou ocfiuonEOU Hmuoa
unwoumm usmoumm wounm>¢
wEoocH >HHEmm cmflmmosmo cofiumosom

amused ommuo>< useouom
mwdo xmmmo Boodmz amsm zH mszHeHo mo zomHmdmzoo onozoomaoHoom

H mqmda

     

. fig Human 233.... ......n... 3 u. 2... . . . .

 

 

uaouuom
Shamanic P... . _ .....l ..--.-i. a--- ts--- -.. u z - . - 3-..}.-. . - -
anUAJs . v..m .2
onwwohc:.. ..m=.. . r - .
1.2.“... k . . . .
. ......n . . .

 

9.2.; ....m. . .. . ... .

... ”L...“ :0?” ..’...h... ...I. . .

..fl. . . . . - . . . - . .
. ..Ihnhivh muhumhucum sanéanns. .. .;.vqt . .. .-.. . .. . .2:

 

... . . . u. .. ... . . . .
u p. 4 I ._ n. .. o o P.
A .I .- I .-
.. ..I |
1...; nu. . . ... . ...I. . ... .I ..... . .... . . , ...
.hak..:~ .. ”......i. :..:L.. P n. u. . u _ .. ._ ..
l..lln..|.lln'l..l|ll'n III I .l ... ....Il-..:.--.¢-| -l .. pl .

 

 

'3’)
(“I
J

’u
('1
..
.
.
.
.

.'
I“)

.3
H

 

24

Both citizens and Forest Officers felt that public involve-
ment, as we know it today, was not operative in this issue.
Forest Officers said there was public information prior to
the decision to sell timber in East Meadow Creek, but no
effort was made to solicit input beyond that of persons who
were normally informed about timber sale programs. Re-
sponses to the questions about timing are shown in Table 3.
Table 4 illustrates the difference in perception between
citizens and Forest Officers regarding the preeducation and

convenience of contacts during the public involvement.

There is some difference between citizen perception and that
of Forest Officers in terms of the kinds of involvement tech-
niques used. This may be due in part to the fact that the
issue occurred 6 years before the questionnaires were com—
pleted. The techniques of involvement were used after the

decision became an issue.

Responses to questions about factors which affected the de-
cision show that most citizens felt Forest Service policy

and historical practice was dominant. These citizens be-

lieved that it was the agency's policy and practice to har—
vest timber in areas not designated as wilderness, and that
the agency saw no reason to change. A number of respondents
indicated that local opposition was the major factor influ-
encing the decision. Further questioning for clarification
revealed that these citizens were alluding to the court de-

cision rather than the agency decision.

 

25

.wamfifiu mwz swam coapom

“mom w>flm mnu cw ucmsw>ao>cfl on» daemon ma uwzwsm Hams» teameawsq mucmocommou muons I

mm 0

mm OOH
\Mm m O

NH mm

mm m

o o
\Mom 0

\m

.msmam cowuom HwnEHu umwm m>Hw smoomna I

omsflu Ham:
coma ooe
Sauce 009

come was sofimwomo nevus
oomoam>wo

ouw3 mm>flumsuwuam Houmm
mwmum mcficcdam m#wq
womuw msflccmam MHHMM

\.

muuowmw ucwEw>Ho>cw UHHQSQ
can no mcflEflu ecu mmB 30m

muumum mmmooum page
um>Ho>:H afiannm map can can:

 

MWUHth BmflmOh ZHNHBHU
mmmzommmm ho Bzmummm

Mmzommmm

ZOHmeDO

 

Wmdo MHMMU SOQ<WS Bmdm ZH BZMEH>AO>ZH OHAmDm mo UZHEHE

m mamfla

EDONG mZOHBmmDO OB mmmzommmm

 

 

.
I... l.....| II\ ... [will I. u l I. li .ul... I

l..— ..

u .u. ..
'.|.‘.. u u. I . .I . .- n. I u | Al . .
..
. .
I
I. 1 .

 

 

 

ha 0 Hm>mz NQOHuomHOAuHMQ can
5H mm Eooamm cosmosmppm Ummmssooso waacsocmm
hm mm SHHMSmD wasp mafia tam coeumooa m pm
0 o mmwsad A.oum .mmcflpmmfiv mpompdoo who:
,0
2 S E meow uoz
o o mom worms mm: mocoo A.o¢w .muflmoswn tam mpmoo
soawflomo so :OHGflmo c033 .mmEOOpso wanflmmom .mmeHHHQmmmo
pomusoo Ho msauowfi m pm puma .mm>Humch¢Hm usonm coflp
mm mm wEHp mo oofiumd m nw>o ImEHomsHv coflum05owmum mos song
MMUHmmo BmflMCh ZmNHBHU Mmzommmm ZOHmeDO

mflmzommmm ho Bzmommm

 

mm<o Mmmmo Sonflfiz Bm<m ZH BZWEH>HO>ZH UHQmDm mo MUZHHZM>ZOU 02¢ ZOHBdUDQmmmm

v mamdfi

 

27

Forest Officers named three major factors in the decision:

agency policy and practice, multiple use consideration and ‘
lack of public interest. Those who mentioned the last fac-

tor said there was little, if any, public interest in the -.
issue prior to the decision to sell the timber. A majority

of the citizens believed their input was not considered in

the decision. A few felt it definitely was a factor. Others

said they had no opportunity to make input. See Table 5 for

responses to questions about the decision.

Both citizens and Forest Officers agree that publicity of the
decision to sell the timber was largely restricted to adver—
tizing the sale in local papers. Some citizens, 23 percent,

said there was no publicity until the controversy was underway.

There seemed to be a concensus among citizens that the East
Meadow Creek issue was a focal point for public concerns. The
very fact that there was no meaningful public involvement gave
rise to the issue. The controversy began with a few local
people, received attention through the news media, and became

the focus for a movement.

Citizens who became involved for job related reasons felt that
the issue was settled in the minds of the timber industry and
the Forest Service when the Eagles Nest Primitive Area boundary
was drawn. As for the decision, most citizen participants

felt it was secondary to the real issue of whether or not the

 

 

.conHomo pusoo cmocwsamcH\m
.msflwmammflo

mo mmmw How cmufiuomoumo paw usoucoo How twnwamsm mumz coflumosq many on newcommmm

.ooH omooxo woe mamuou .wuowmumsu umpcmmfi0fluumm meow an once was mmsommmu mac gasp mac: I

 

\.
ma moms wanna oz
0 wow
w manflmmom

macamflomc m0H>Hom ummuom on»

em oz cfl Uwumoflwcoo usmcfl H50> mm:
Hm o ummumucfl Deanne mo Moog
8 o \MHm coHuHmOQQO Hmooq

2

mm o uo< wmmsuocaflz
mm m maofiumuwoflmcoo mm: madfloasz

\mecms 00H>Hmm ummuom

o No mofluomum HMOHuoumflc on» soflmwomp on» msflosmsamcfl

tam moflHOQ wofi>nwm umoHom muouomm momma ecu mums was;

uwoflwmo umwuom smufluflu mmzommmm ZOHBmMDO

mmzommmm mzom m>€w 033
mBZmQZOmmmm m0 Bzmommm

 

mm<0 Kmmmu BOQ¢WS Bmdm ZH ZOHwHUmD mmB GZHUZWDQhZH mmOBodm

m mqmdfi

 

29

Forest Service would be compelled to solicit and consider public
opinion in its management decisions. Several citizens believe,
in retrospect, that on the merits of the Forest Service decision,
the court case should have been decided differently; they believe
the decision to cut the timber may have been sound, but the pro—

cess for arriving at the decision was wrong.

Forest Officers Impressions of the Public Involvement and Decision
There is agreement among Forest Officers that there was no public
involvement as measured by today's standards. The decision to
sell the timber was made in 1950 when a timber management plan
for East Meadow Creek was approved. Wilderness designation was
included in the alternatives considered. The decision was recon—
sidered and reaffirmed when the plan was updated in 1959. There
was public involvement as practiced during the time; it consisted
of contacting local "key" persons, local government officials,
opinion leaders, etc. The general public was not aware, nor
appeared to care, of the timber management plans at the time the
decision was made. Forest Officers felt the proposed sale repre-

sented the orderly implementation of long—range plans.

Advertisement of the sale brought no reaction from anyone except
the timber industry and enviromentalists. Some Forest Officers
felt certain individuals, under the cloak of "enviromentalists"
entered the issue for selfish reasons which included the protection
of their personal hunting and fishing areas from improved access
and the retention of back country for a commercial outfitter who en—

tered the suit. One Officer said public opinion was not against

 

30

the sale; the real issue was one of citizen participation in

land use decisions.

As controversy grew, efforts at public involvement increased,
but Forest Officers did not know how to get meaningful in-
volvement. Polarization was already evident with neither side
willing to compromise. A Regional Officer said Parker and his
group came in to talk before the legal action was filed. The
discussion was in the form of demands that the Forest Service

reverse its decision.

After the legal battle had run its course, some Officers be-
lieved there was a descrepancy in the judge's interpretation
of public values and the interpretation of the Multiple Use

Act and the Wilderness Act. The final decision, in 1975, by
the Congress to exclude the area from Wilderness designation,
is seen by these Officers as corroboration of their original

decision.

After having several years to put the issue in perspective,

the concensus of Forest Officers is that this issue points

up the need for early public involvement in decisions about
public lands. They are quick to point out, however, the dangers
of relinquishing the responsibility the agency has for proper
management. They feel two circumstances caused this issue to

be a failure in terms of public involvement: 1) The agency

failed to realize that awareness of public land management and

31

anger at perceived wrong decisions had set the stage for con-
frontation, and 2) The preservationists desperately needed an
issue through which they could achieve a victory. The Officers
involved in this issue feel the confrontation was inevitable;
their decision, and the further decision to stick by it, pro—

vided a focal point for the wilderness advocates.

Citizen Impressions of the Forest Service

The response to six questions reflect citizens' feelings about
the Forest Service. These are presented in Table 6. Several
citizens mentioned Forest Officers‘ attitudes about profession-
alism. This, along with the concern about bureaucracy, account—
ed for most of the distrust felt by citizens. Their impressions
are most influenced by personal manner, training and experience,
and past performance. The agency is not a highly credible
source of information about natural resource management with

the citizens involved in this case. Factors most quoted as gen-
erating trust by citizens were personal contact with individuals

and the non—political structure of the agency.

Content analysis of citizens' response to a question about the
Forest Service public involvement process shows nearly all were
unfavorable based on their contacts during this issue. However,
several citizens said their opinion of the agency has changed
over the years. During early interviews there appeared to be a

pattern or correlation between the level of trust and general

 

32

TABLE 6

CITIZEN IMPRESSIONS OF THE FOREST SERVICE
IN EAST MEADOW CREEK CASEl

 

 

QUESTION RESPONSE PERCENT
What sources of information Forest Service 8
about natural resource man- Environmental Groups 8
agement are most credible Universities 17
to you? Own experience 25
Public Hearings 17
Independent Sources 25
What impression did you have Good impression 31
from your contacts with the Poor impression 69
Forest Service in this mat— Public involvement
ter? was non—existent 75
Which of the following in— Personal manner 43
fluenced your image of Forest Training and
Service people? experience 35
Performance over
the years 22
What makes you trust the Personal contacts 56
Forest Service? Non—political makeup 28
Professional conduct
of employees 16
What makes you distrust Bureaucracy 38
the Forest Service? Attitude about "pro-
fessionalism" 38
Ignoring public
opinion,nonrespon—
siveness 24
Did your contact with the Comments generally
Forest Service in this issue favorable (based on
alter any of your beliefs or content analysis) 8
concepts about their public Comments generally
involvement process? unfavorable (based
Explain. on content analysis) 92
1

to the question.

Reported in percentages of the respondents who did reply

 

 

 

 

. '. r _ -
- ' '. .' .I. ._l- .
' ' ' -' J’ 53‘ .. ‘
.
' . I

33

attitude about the agency, and the amount of contact between
citizens and the Forest Service. The indications were that
the citizens with more exposure and contact were less criti—

cal of the agency.

In order to test this hypothesis, data regarding length and
frequency of contact were collected. These data were com-
pared with the responses to trust questions, with attitude
scale responses and with the general content or responses to
open-ended questions. Analysis of these comparisons show
that all the citizen responses support the hypothesis. This

same analysis will be made in subsequent cases.

Comparisoniof Attitude Tests

 

Comparison of citizens and Forest Officers attitude responses
appear in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7 shows the percent of
responses in each interval. Table 8 is a grouping of responses
to the left or right of the mid-point. These data show no sig—
nificant difference in how citizens and Forest Officers feel a—
bout public involvement in natural resource decisions. There
is indication, derived from interviews with participants from
both groups, that the Forest Officers' attitudes have undergone

some change since 1969.

General Observations and Summary of Case

It is difficult to compare the public involvement in this case

_-.,n';‘..’:".’1-' remnant) f .' ' - .'-jcnr:'_':.'.

 

34

TABLE 7

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES IN EAST MEADOW CREEK CASE

 

Percent of Responses by Interval1
A B C D E F G

Citizen 5 22 24 15 23 6 5

Forest Officer 12 15 17 19 20 9 8

 

1Letters from A to G are assigned each blank from left to right
between adjectives; e.g., A is assigned the blank nearest the
word "Strong" and G is assigned the blank near "Weak."

TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES

 

Percent of Responses Left and Right of Midpoint
Left Midpoint Right
Citizens 51 15 39

Forest Officers 44 19 37

35

to those that follow. Contemporary public involvement in
Forest Service decisions was born through this case. Prior
to the issue, the Forest Service was aware of the growing
demands for citizen involvement, but there was little under-
standing of how to obtain and utilize it. Citizens were

equally unsophisticated about the process.

The East Meadow Creek issue was important to citizen groups
that were clamoring for participation. It was the focus for
a movement. It was equally important to the Forest Service
because it forced the agency into an awareness of the im—
portance of public participation. It was an in-house lab—
oratory which broadened people in the agency and enabled
them to improve their performance in subsequent management

decisions.

  

.f 1.:

'.. 5:: :-

   

 

 

CASE 2
SAN JUAN ROADLESS AREAS

 

 

- 7:

THE SETTING

After the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, the
Forest Service began an evaluation of designated
Primitive Areas and other reserved areas to determine
their suitability for Wilderness designation. Several
million additional acres were identified as roadless
and undeveloped areas which might be of Wilderness
character. Many were contiguous to designated

Wilderness or Primitive Areas.

On March 23, 1970, in the Parker Case decision, the
Forest Service was permanently enjoined from harvesting
timber adjacent to a designated Primitive Area until
the Wilderness suitability of the contiguous area was
determined. In February, 1971, the Chief of the

Forest Service directed Regional Foresters to begin

the job of identifying and reporting on New Wilderness
Study Areas. The reports were to address the questions
of suitability, availability, and need; they were to

be completed by June 30, 1972. The Chief required

"utilizing public involvement in the process."1

In the period from February to August, 1971, the

instructions and criteria for completing the work were
developed at the various Forest Service levels. Mean-
while, the Wilderness Workshop, an ad hoc committee of

the Colorado Open Space Council (COSC), was working

1Forest Service Files, 2100 designation, Forest Service,
USDA, Denver, Colorado.

36

37
independently on the same project. In August 1971,

the Workshop submitted its proposal for New Wilderness
Study Areas for the South San Juans, including most

of the San Juan "Roadless Areas."

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND DECISION

In August, 1971, the Washington Office of the Forest
Service directed the approach to Roadless Area Reviews:
"The selections must be made by subjective judgements
resulting from recommendations of a multidisciplinary
team which has considered available resource information
and potential alternative uses for the areas...The
tentative study areas, along with alternative uses,
will be presented for discussion in the public invol-
vement process. The selections will be considered
tentative with provision for additions or deletions

which may evolve from public involvement."2

The next step, significant to this research, took
place in October 1971. A letter to Forest Supervisors
indicate the concerns of the Regional Forester:

"Public involvement is an essential part of

the job. We must incorporate it in all phases;
the inventory, the tentative selection of study
areas, and finally, in the selection of areas
to be studied for inclusion in Wilderness."

"We should be sure that seeking public involvement
and advice does not become an after‘the-fact
endeavor. Each Forest should plan this involve-
ment...We also want to know if this inventory

is accurate, from the out-Service point of

M

2
F01?est Service Files, (ibid.)

 

 

.. '- ' -
I -.!‘l
.. . _ .. .. . .. . ..........- _..- ..‘-

38

view. It may be necesSary during Phase II

to contact a larger segment of the public

that is overlooked initially, through

more formal public meetings."
On October 22, 1971, the Forest Supervisor presented
a map and tentative recommendations for management
of the San Juan Roadless areas to his Rangers and
asked for their comments. The implication is that
the Forest Supervisor developed the initial recom'
mendations without input from the Rangers. The
extent of the involvement of other Forest Service
personnel is treated in more detail in the Analysis

section of this case study. There is no evidence of

public participation up to this time.

In January and February, 1972, three public meetings
were held to obtain public input to the recommendations.
The procedure at these meetings was for the Forest
Supervisor to outline Forest Service plans for the
management of Roadless Areas in the San Juan mountains.
At one meeting, the Supervisor's opening remark was,
"We are here to see if you agree with our management
plans for these sections of the Forest." A "public
opinion" sheet was handed out. The sheet listed
nineteen areas by number and asked citizens to
indicate agreement or disagreement with Forest Service

management plans for each area.

The first meeting, held at Cortez, Colorado, was

 

3Files, 2100 designation, (ibid.)

  

has means?! aid 03' ass-m am m .3:

dad? a}. cofci'sojiorz’r. ant- .alneamoo 119 :2- 10! ”it."
':‘."va:)'.' {ski—511‘: :'T.' 3"?” membrane-121$ 32610“! 3119

.. i' .":-"' . '. . . it”: " ..'a'-.-'i;:‘.:-.-.' "::';j:.'h-3br19m

“w .- ' '. '-..'.___'. 7'. .«.'- fusixe

. -- -' - .-. . .‘ '_- .-. , . .- ..‘ __
* . _ - - - - . ._. . Ute;-
| - . J

.

 

   

39

attended by about one hundred fifty people. Reports
by Forest Service officials and the news media
indicate general agreement with Forest Service proposals

for management.

At the second public meeting, held in Durango, Colorado,
citizen dissidence began to surface. A newspaper
report of the meeting indicated that "apparent members
of some conservation group attempted to inject wilder-
ness discussion into the meeting but, with little
success."4 The author didn't say why the attempt was
unsuccessful. Forest Service records of the meeting
provide further insight; the following is an exchange
of questions from the audience and answers by a

Forest Service officer:

"Is it reasonably true that the Forest Service
is trying to close this to Wilderness study?"

"No, we are not."
"Upon what are you basing your decisions?"

"We are basing it on public opinion. Written
comments will be accepted until April 1."

"How many people do you consider public opinion?"

“Whatever number is interested enough to attend
these meetings and submit an opinion."

"Concerning Wilderness Study and proposals, it
seems to me that you are seriously hampering
people in deciding. Why are you shutting out
alternatives?"

"I am not. I merely want you to listen to our

4Durango Herald, Volume XXI, Number 34, Durango,
Colorado, February 17, 1972.

 

....

..

 

D'-.
.
. ..

40

plans and then put your comments on the opinion
sheets."

At one point in the meeting, questions by a citizen brought
this response from a Forest Officer: "If you question our
management plans, you are questioning our expertise."6
Several people present at this meeting expressed their

belief that the Forest Service was rushing the process.

Several days after the Durango meeting, an editorial in the
Durango Herald was highly critical of the Forest Service
public involvement effort and suggested the meeting could
not have added much to the process of reaching intelligent

decisions.

In speaking of the time allowed for public comment, the
editorial asked,

"Why the eight-year delay (since passage of the
Wilderness Act) in getting the reviews underway?
Why the unprecedented rush in making major public
policy once the sleeping ball got rolling? To
many, the answer seems obvious. To make it
impossible for the public to react intelligently
to public policy on public lands."

"The meetings were called to get public reaction
to the proposals for nineteen roadless areas in
the San Juan National Forest. And yet mere
questions drew the reply from that
the integrity and knowledge of the Forest Service
staff was under fire. If the meetings were called
to bring forth agreement that the Forest Service
was always right then why bother?"

5 . . .
Forest Service Files, (ibid.)
Durango Herald, (ibid.)

X‘—

.tniann on: Al

 

C 12:202 5 “n1“ sanoqaex ' .

..':_. - '. . . ':=..-':. -_'.'::'. _; .' I.--_ .'.-..;..::.-msnsn'l

1‘\.

41

"Now the public wants to be heard...The first

thing the new voices met was resentment...The

public, as intruder, is rocking the boat."7
The third public meeting, held at Pagosa Springs, Colorado,
was much like the Cortez meeting - there was little, if
any, controversy over the proposed Forest Service plans.
On April 7, 1972, the Supervisor of the San Juan National
Forest notified the Regional Forester that none of the
undeveloped areas on the San Juan National Forest were
being nominated for Wilderness candidate areas. Three of
the nineteen roadless areas were established for special
management as "unroaded." The Wilderness Workshop, in
August 1971, had recommended several of the nineteen areas

for designation as candidate areas.

THE AFTERMATH

On June 16, 1972, the Sierra Club, COSC, and other conser-
vation groups filed for injunctive relief against any de-
velopment of de facto Wilderness Areas in the National

Forest System. The complaint charged that the Forest Service
study of roadless areas was grossly deficient and denied any

meaningful opportunity for public participation.

The complaint identified eight specific violations of Forest
SerVice regulations relating to public involvement.
(Note: The complaint addressed the study process as

a wh<Dle and did not single out the San Juan process

7 .
lggthxbrial by Ian M. Thompson, Durango Herald, February 21,
2-

 

. ' .1:.. r- -- . :-:-'.. - 2.:[111 darn: am:

' - - " "..'..‘f' 1.12139 :‘_'!'I.

#2
individually; however, it did single out the Rocky
Mountain Region, of which the San Juan National Forest
is a part, in exemplifying shortcomings in the public
involvement process.) The eight violations were:

"1. Failing to provide adequate procedures
for public involvement.

2. Often failing to provide for public meetings.

3. Failing, as to those public meetings which
were held, to give notice far enough in
advance so that interested persons had ample
time to prepare.

h. Failing to provide adequate maps and
descriptive materials of the areas being
considered.

5. Choosing locations for the meetings which
seriously interfered with public participation.

6. Scheduling several meetings at the same time
so that members of the public could not
attend more than one.

7. Conducting the meetings unfairly such as
by preventing comments by members of the
public.

8. Failing to release the tentative selections
of New Study Areas to the public to allow
comment either at the meetings or in writing."

On June 30, 1972, the Forest Service was temporarily
enjoined from allowing "...any activities in any de
facto Wilderness which would in any way affect their
character as wilderness prior to a determination as
to their suitability for wilderness preservation..."8

On December 1, 1972, the Forest Service announced they

 

8 1 Butz, et. al. (Civil No.

Sierra Club et. a . vs.
72-3555 SC, U.S.D.C., ND California).

 

43
would file NEPA statements on inventoried roadless

areas before taking actions which would prevent their
consideration for designation as Wilderness. As a
consequence of this announcement, the court dismissed

the case.

The effects of the San Juan Roadless Area situation
continue to be felt, according to Forest Service
officials. In addition to the administrative burden
created by the court action (which is not in itself
attributable to the San Juan situation) there have
been program delays and loss of public confidence

in the Forest Service in the San Juan area.

ANALYSIS

The purpose of this analysis is the same as that of
the previous case: to examine the aspects of the
public involvement and the perceptions of the

participants.

WHO WAS INVOLVED

Approximately three hundred fifty persons participated
in the public involvement process; most through
attendance at one of the three public meetings.
Several persons attended more than one meeting or

were involved in ad hoc groups or advisory committees
or made other forms of input. After random selection

from Forest Service lists of participants, forty one

 

44
of these citizens were contacted. An additional five

were selected from a list of twelve names provided

by other participants.

A total of eight Forest Officers were involved in

the San Juan issue. All were interviewed personally
or by telephone; all eight completed questionnaires
and attitude scales. SociO'economic data collected
from the sampled participants is compared with similar
data for the general population of the San Juan
National Forest area, and with data for the general
population of the State of Colorado. These comparisons
are illustrated in Table 9. For the most part, those
citizens participating in the San Juan Roadless Area
issue were well educated, affluent caucasians; a
profile substantially different from that of the

average citizen of the area or the state.

Why Thgy Were Involved

The predominant reason for involvement was organiza-
tional membership, recreational use of the area, or
otherwise being indirectly affected by the decision.
Those giving such reasons comprised 55 percent of the
sample. During interviews with citizens and Forest
officers, several comments were made about the
preponderance of "conservationists" and "backpackers"
at the public meetings. Table 10 displays the reasons

for involvement.

 

:83 5mm

.mhma ~wouwfifiou wo .umwo .m.D .mzmcmo map mo
Smwuam ..cHEcd moaumfluwum moHEosoom can HMfloom .xoom mumn wuflo can mucsoo Eoum mumo .m

.MESqusoz .mumam an .mmHoHoo .muwascoud

“wwflucsoo mcfi3oHH0m mocsaocflv

.ocmuoaoo .omcmusn .muswficuo>ow mo afloczou .m coflmwm Scum mama .H

 

 

 

 

 

oom.m w em m.vH m.mm v.NH .N mama
coflumasmom mumuw
mmm.w w me o.m m.om e.HH .H mama
M” coflumadmom wmu<
oom.maw ma o.mn o.ooa o.wH mcwufluau cm>ao>cH
Eonm mama
mwmaaoo Hoonom
mummy w boa: cwumHmEou
mcfiumamfioo mcfluoameoo mummy
unmoumm usmonmm Hmuoa
mEoocH xaflemm unflmmosmu coflumoscm
Hmscsm mmmuo>4 unwouwm

 

mmdo €mm€ wwmfloéom ZH mZmNHBHU m0 ZOwHM4mEOU UHSOZOUWIOHUOm

m mum¢9

...:.. I . J . .

mth 51..” _. ... ...n. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

...:.-..'...
I n. .I . .-
n.. .n: . .
. . .
n....-.I...-. - .. ...- - . . . . . . - -- . ..-
C O i
u
.1 ..-. .- .-.:....- .- -. .. ..- .......
c . .. . . . . ..
«1|... .. ‘ . . . . .. .. .. .
...-p. . a. ... .- .. c . ... I
Emmi? ..:.. .. .. . .
. a u. o 1.

 

.couomuoc on canon noncommon on» ca moosmummuwc unmeawfls
Imam on «chmmmH uomuflc can nonmawu now How co>ao>cfl mmonu scum aunt nufi3 cwummeoo mm3
accumou vomufipsw now can mflnmumnEmE HucOAumNHcmmuo mo wmsmown c0>ao>sfl omen» Eoum wumom

.mucmmwowuumm nocuo can» mofl>umm ummuom can no HMUHufiHo mmma haamumsmm mums
mucmmwOfluumm ommca .moum mmcflumw mwommm ocu Eoum wmonu :H cmumuucmosoo was semmou macaw

.uomucoo Hm:0muwm
.ocmuoHou .omcmudn .ucoecnm>oo mo Hwocsoo .m scammm Eoum :oHuMEuomcfl mousom msoocH .GOflm
Ifiomc can an cwuowmum wauomuflc on Haas mchHuflo moan man no unwound 0H mo moonwao>wa mafia

 

,o m omcommmu o: no czocxcs condom
b. mm mcmuowmmm wauowuflccfl no .mmum
man no mm: Hmcofiummuomu .mflnmhmnfime HmsowumNficmmuo
OH ~00fl>uwm umouom an coHumuH>cH can pomucoo uomuflo
0H cmuommmm mauowuflo
on Hmcowmou poumauu new no huumsch
szszommmm m0 Bzmommm Bzm2m>AO>ZH mom zowflmm

 

mwflu 4NM€ mmmqn<om ZH DM>AO>ZH mmmk mZHNHBHU NW3

CH mqmde

 

mnflemu...1.fll

..:...

 

 

   

 

 

. . .. .
In. .
1| . .\ol...
I11. . . .. . .1. ..n. ..u .
.I I In - .u. c .
.|.. ..-I ..II ..:.II.. .I ....
..
..
.
.. .ulu . v. I .. . .
..... 0.13m . . . . .
...Hdhu..u ohm-.4...“ . . ._. . . . ....n
... . . ... .u. ‘ .3. . . ..: .
I. . . . . ..
. . u.. .. ...... . . .- .. .
... ... . .. . . .. .
. ... . ... ..r . . . . .
.u ... . . . In ...:.... . . i .. u
n .. .

4?
When asked if the people who will be affected by the

decision participated in any manner, all Forest
Officers, except one, responded that some partici'
pated. One officer said most of those affected
participated. In summary, some form of solicita-
tion, either from organized groups or the Forest

Service, motivated most of the participants.

Citizen Impressions of thg Public Involvgmgnt and De"
cision

The impressions retained by citizen participants relate
to (l) the effect of their input on the decision,

(2) the decision itself, and (3) their image of the
Forest Service as a result of the involvement process.
Impressions about the decision and the impact of public
involvement will be discussed separately from the image

of the agency.

The question of the timing of the public involvement

was an issue in this case. The meeting records and
other Forest Service files leave little doubt that
criteria were established and the alternatives developed
prior to any significant public participation. Table 11
shows responses to questions about timing of the public

involvement.

There was no significant difference in the perception
of citizens and Forest Officers as to the involvement

techniques used. Public meetings, news media and

 

Q8

.uxwu GH qoflmmsomflc mom

em mm
8 E.
o c

an mam
om \ mm
NH 2
o mm

.coflmaomc on» so usage Hanan mo pomwmo may macaw mcoflumosq
on noncommmu “Hosp Spwz usmumfimcoocfl Hammad coflpmwsw many on msmNHuHo mo oncommmu one I

cmEHu Hams
mama ooe
waned 009

acme mm? cofimflomp prmm
comoam>mp

mums mm>HpmchuHm Hmumm
mmmuw mcflccmam mwmq
ommum msficcmHm maumm

\H

muuowmo ucoEm>Ho>cfl
Deanna may mo mcflaflu map was 30m

quMpm mmmooum
pawEw>Ho>cH Deanna new cat sons

 

mmonmO Emmmom ZMNHBHU
mmmzommmm m0 Bzmommm

mmzommmm

mZOHBmMDO

 

mmdo <mm< mmmqodom ZH BZmEH>AO>ZH UHAmDm mo GZHEHB

Ha mqmdB

Ebomd mZOHBmMDO OB mmmzommmm

1+9
individual contacts, in declining order, were the
techniques reported. Answers to questions about
information and convenience of meetings are shown
in Table 12. Forest Officers and citizens agreed
that timing and location generally encouraged atten-
dance. This opinion is not shared by other citizens
who live outside the San Juan area of the state, but

were not included in the sampled population.

Members of COSC said they found it difficult to obtain
information from the Forest Service about dates and
places of meetings. They said several attempts were
made to have the meetings held in Denver, but to no
avail. The Colorado citizens' Coalition response made
several comments relative to the lack of notification and

inconvenience. In the Sierra Club vs. Butz lawsuit,

 

four of the eight violations of public involvement
procedures were specifically related to discouraging

attendance at participative sessions.

Answers to the question about factors influencing the
decision show that citizens felt public opinion was an
important factor. Most Forest Officers thought Forest
Service criteria predominated. One Forest Officer
said the decision was made "by the Forest Supervisor,
based on his best knowledge of the Forest, with

some input from Rangers, who at the time did not real-

ize the rather major implications of the initial

 

 

o o
o 0
mm mm
mH mm
o
:J
o 9
NM ha
mm mm
hm vv

Hw>oz
Eopawm
maamsmb
whm3H<

mmcommou oz

wcoc uoz

How cmxmm was

sowmfiomp Ho coacfimo cons
uomucoo H0 asapomfi a pm
wasp mo cowuwm m uw>o

NQOHummHoHpHmm

can ousmccmppm pmmmudoosm haam
lumsmm pmsu mEHu can coflumooa m
um A.0#m .mmcflpwmfiv macabsoo wumg

mason A.ouw .muflmmsmb can mpmoo
.meoouso mHQHmwom .mmflpflaflammmo

puma .mo>wumsHmuHm uconm soap
ImEHOmCHV sofiumoscmmum mm; soc:

 

mmOHth EmHMOh ZMNHBHU
mmmzommmm m0 Bzmommm

mmzommmm

mZOHBmmDO

 

mmdU ¢HM¢ mmmqaflom ZH BZMZH>AO>ZH UquDm m0 HUZMHZW>ZOU DZ< ZOHBQUDQmmmm

NH mqmfla

 

51

roadless area designations. In fairness, the Forest
Supervisor probably didn't either." Another said the
decision was a unilateral one made by the Forest

Supervisor prior to and without regard for the public

input. See Table 13 for detailed figures.

The citizens' opinion about whether their input was
considered in the Forest Service decision appears to

be an important element. The responses to this question,
in Table 13, seems inconsistent with their answers to
questions about when the public involvement process
started. In reacting to that question, 28 percent
thought it started after the decision was made; yet,

only 18 percent indicated their input was not considered.

The fact that 56 percent of the citizens thought the
public involvement process was well'timed might also
appear inconsistent. I suggest people may not
believe their individual input is as credible as that
of their peers. If such is the case, a person could
feel his input was probably not considered, yet feel
that public opinion (other people's opinions) influenced
a decision. He may also feel that others somehow
knew what was going on early in the process and were
able to express their desires and thereby insure
consideration of citizen input. In this sense, the
person might feel his individual role is that of a
passive reviewer of the decision. In this case he

rationalizes that the timing of the public involvement

 

.maw%MHmmwc mo mmmo How chHHomOumo can usoucoo How conHmcm mums qoflumosw was# on mwmcommmm

.OOH comoxw hue mamuou .muomwnmcp “muGMQAOHUHmm meow an once was mucommmn mno swap ouoz

a

 

m Ammcommmu ozv
vN mmw
m H >33on
mm wanflmmom msofimfiooc mofl>umm “munch ocu
ma 02 ca cwuopfimsoo usage snow mas
o m wuouomm msowcmaawomwe Hmnuo
ma o huHHMDw mmmcuwcafl3
Q, can huflawbmpfldm mama
NH v mcoHuMchwmcoo 0mm mamfluasz
hm mm mom: Hmfioumfifioo .moHEocoum
mm ha mmuflmwp no
womaom m0H>me pwmuom waME wow>umw pmmuom on»
0 mm song u.:oo acowmfiomp esp mcfiocmSHmcH
ma mm coacflmo Omansm muouomm momma mcu mums “mag
“woflmmo umwuom smnwuwo mmzommmm ZOHBmHDO

mmzommmm HSOm m>¢0 0m3
mBZmozommmm m0 BZmUmmm

 

ma mnmdfi

mmflu flmm¢ wwmnaflom ZH ZOHmHomQ HEB wZHUZMDQMZH mmoeudm

 

53

process was acceptable; at least he knew about it
before the decisions were implemented and could have
expressed disapproval, even if the expression doesn't

alter the decision.

Responses in this case reveal that the public wants to
know when decisions or recommendations are made, why
they are made, what they are and what level in the
organization made them. In this case, 59 percent of
the citizens said the decision was published; however,
one-fourth of these thought it was poorly publicized
and too much time elapsed between the decision and

the publicity. Only one Forest Officer said the

decision was not publicized.

A number of citizens expressed the opinion that public
participation in the San Juan issue was tokenism; a
nice idea, but without any real meaning. One citizen,
who attended all meetings and followed the issue
throughout, felt the preponderance of input was contrary
to the Forest Service recommendations. He said he
never saw reversal of any decision as a result of
public involvement. He felt his input and that of

the majority was deliberately ignored. Another
citizen recalled that the three public meetings were
conducted in a manner which discouraged dialogue and
input. Others said the meetings left them with the
impression that the Forest Service was faced with

unrelenting pressures from consumptive users of the

 

54

Forest. Basic value differences between "conservation-
ists" and Forest users was evident. One "conservationist"
expressed the opinion that "the Forest Service and users

are one big club and we aren't in it."

The time frame in which the review and public involvement
process was carried out was a matter of much criticism,
as were the procedures for the review, involvement

and evaluation. The impression imparted to some

citizens was one of disorganization in which the Forest
was forced to grope for any procedure it could come

up with to meet the deadline.

One citizen said the process was done in a piecemeal
fashion, never giving national overviews to people,
never sampling public opinion at a distance, but

always at the local level and always when decisions were
imminent. As an example of failing to provide national
perspective, this citizen said the Forest Service

used timber demand as a justification for non-
wilderness classification of the San Juan Roadless
Areas, but failed to disclose that only two percent

of the Nation‘s timber comes from Colorado and only

a fraction could come from the areas involved in the
decision. On the other hand, the areas in question
here were above average in wilderness qualities

when viewed from a national perspective, yet they

were represented as marginal or nonqualified and
compared only with Colorado wilderness rather than with

all potential wilderness in the Nation.

 

55

The response of another citizen provides further in-
sight into the perceptions people have about their
involvement in issues. This citizen, who was contacted
by mail, returned the blank questionnaire and scale
with the comment that she was not qualified to complete
the forms since she had only attended two of the

meetings and "never actively participated."

Forest Officers' Impressions of thg Public Invovlement
and Decision

In general, Forest Officers were more critical of the
public involvement effort than citizens were. They
expressed concern that it did not provide meaningful
public input, develop trust of the agency by citizens,

or resolve conflicts.

One Forest Officer said the process was one of public
information rather than public involvement. A certain
amount of it was really not open to public opinion

and discussion, but was a matter of identifying road-
less areas based on some rather nebulous criteria.

He said the Forest Officers at his level did not suspect
that the early boundary proposals would become fixed

as a result of a court decision. Another said there

was public input "of sorts" since the Supervisor had
been in the area many years and knew how most local

people felt about the matter.

 

 

56

Most of the Forest Officers expressed concern over the
small amount of participation they were allowed in the
entire process. At least three reported their first
knowledge of the issue came when the Supervisor

showed them a map with roadless area boundaries drawn
in. They were asked to check the map for accuracy,
not knowing what the criteria were. They reported
finding several errors, some as large as 20,000

acres in size. Their reporting of these errors was
the extent of their input. During the public meetings
these officers noted that the same errors still existed

on the maps.

Several of the Forest Officers made comments which
corroborate those of a citizen who described the
meetings as strict, militaristic affairs in which the
Rangers participated only when asked. It was pointed
out that in one of the smaller towns where a meeting
was held, the Supervisor was well known and well
respected. The local people accepted what he proposed
because of his personal reputation. There were always
some questions, but there was very little questioning.
Because of this situation, some officers felt that
someone less well known might have generated more

dialogue and more meaningful input.

Because of the newness of the public involvement program,

some officers were uncertain as to what the citizen's

 

 

5?

role was in the process. The citizens seemed to share
that uncertainty; they were interested, but without
direction. Contacts made by the Forest Service were
with local people, and these people trusted the agency

to make the right decisions.

The impression of one officer was that emotionalism
ran strongly through the entire process. The meetings
he attended were a forum for crowd reaction, confronta-
tion, and emotional outburst. Clearcut positions were
taken on both sides of the issue, with little display
of compromise or calm discussion of alternatives.

This emphasized the need to take time to plan and
systemize public involvement, including educating the

public about situations and alternatives.

The concensus of opinion on the part of Forest Service
participants was that no meaningul public involvement
took place in this issue; the time constraints,
absence of criteria, and lack of understanding of

participants' roles precluded a successful process.

Citizen Impressions of thgiForest Service

Citizen participants expressed their feelings about the
Forest Service in responding to six questions in the
questionnaire. These are presented in Table 14.

It was apparent that some citizens' lack of trust

of the agency was based on whether decisions agreed

58

TABLE 14

CITIZEN IMPRESSIONS or THE FOREST SERVICE
IN ROADLESS AREA CASEl

 

 

QUESTION RESPONSE PERCENT

What sources of information Forest Service 32
about natural resources man- Own experience 18
agement are most credible to Disinterested sources 9
you? Wilderness groups 5

Universities 5

Others (aggregation

of remainder) 23
What impressions did you have Good impression 45
from your contacts with the Poor impression 50

Forest Service in this matter?

Which of the following influ-
enced your image of Forest
Service people?

What makes you trust the
Forest Service?

What makes you distrust the
Forest Service?

Did your contacts with the
Forest Service alter any of
your beliefs or concepts

about their public involvement
process? Explain.

Other (could not catalog

in above catagories)

Uniform

General appearance
Reputation

Personal manner
Training and experience
What Rangers do

Others (aggregated)

Does not trust Forest
Service

Honesty or ability or
sincerity

Individuals

Past record

Does not distrust
Bureaucracy, attitudes
policies

Past record

Decisions favoring
commodity users
Unresponsiveness,
arbitrariness

Other (aggregated)

Comments generally
favorable (based on
content analysis)
Comments generally
unfavorable

Could not be cataloged

31

31
38

1Reported in percentages of respondents who did reply to the

question.

 

 

 

 

a 99"“: m».

mmracum

no}: r-

 

saivzaa fiesta!
oonslzsqxs nwo
baiasuainiaiu

  

aquosp aanniabiiw

aniaieznvififl
Havana) amnnfifl

   
 

  

nolnnnmcaul to Added-i “ “4?-

omsm autumn has“ “i" " '.
as sIdtboxo alo- Ill 3“ ‘

  

tn!

‘ P (~II!-PFr_n..-- =0
0 . i..- ... .
"-’ . “If nn'.<'.~' ban."
0 '311prrr:? Tnnq

ncfszrn #1: :iu.r‘ : it
‘ v '— . -.| . . - . _f.
(F 'j“ 95': . ...L ti
...” T: .
I.
“ f - l“.
.r g” r J .
:-,. .1..- .' r
1f: 'r . ‘
" I ..- I 1 r "'
C. F“-' . - I
.1. . ...]. .
,n i
l .1, | . . ..
' I r. --r
r ' ‘- 1. 1' k' " ‘ ‘
. , :.
r r . '
i .
..‘ a
.
I t I- I,
, .
V
'.
" '\.
q .
' .' -. —..
r
- _. x
.
... :
I

v" “LT L?h nnfifiarsinml 35d"
'wa afobinoc iuov maxi
1 I

‘zi.r' ‘;2 r ers& recto?
—r ' - I -thT :fi; in duidw
?rr'v r . : 1UP" Lssrm
9*1xwil utivvou

' 3 . ‘ s :31“

T w 'dzv 1 v2

59
with their personal philosophy about the issue.

Distrust was certainly implied when the Colorado
Citizens' Coalition and the plaintiffs in Sierra

Club vs. Butz asked for at least one field season
between notice of an impending decision and the de'
cision itself. Others said they distrust organizations,
especially bureaus, and trust is based in people
(individuals). In an analysis of general citizen
impressions, cataloged as favorable or unfavorable
towards the Forest Service, 50 percent were rated
unfavorable and 45 percent favorable. The remaining

five percent could not be categorized.

In order to test the hypothesis, that length and
frequency of contact strongly influence the citizen's
image of the Forest Service, data was compared with
the responses to trust questions, with attitude scale
responses and with the general substance of responses
to open-ended questions. Analysis of these data show
62 percent of the responses support the hypothesis.
This is not considered sufficient to draw any
conclusions, but implies that further examination

is warranted.

Comparison of Attitude Tests

Comparison of citizens and Forest Officer attitude
responses are illustrated in Table 15 and Table 16.
Table 15 shows the percent of responses in each in-

dividual interval for both citizens and Forest Officers.

 

60

TABLE 15

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES IN ROADLESS AREA CASE

 

Percent of Responses by intervall

A B C D E F G

 

Citizens ll 35 18 ll 9 10 6

 

Forest Officers 17 23 30 15 5 8 2

 

1

Letters from A to G are assigned each blank from left to right
between adjectives; e. g., A is assigned the blank nearest the
word "Strong" and G is assigned the blank near "Weak."

TABLE 16

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES

 

Percent of Responses Left and Right of Midpoint

 

Left Midpoint Right

 

Citizens 64 ll 25

 

Forest Officers 70 15 15

 

 

 

61
Table 16 is a grouping of left and right side responses.
These data indicate a slight difference in perception
between the citizen and the Forest Officer on the
left side and a greater difference on the right
side. This infers that Forest Officers have only a
slightly different attitude than citizens about the
positive adjectives applied to the subject of public
involvement. A more significant difference in attitudes
appears when considering the negative adjectives, the
inference being that the citizens think the bad part
of public involvement is worse than the Forest Officers

think it is.

General Observations and Summary of Case

 

Even though the Parker Case had begun to make its
impact felt, the solicitation and consideration of
public input was not functional in the decision about
the San Juan Roadless Areas. A number of factors
were instrumental in short-circuiting the process.
The limited time in which the Forest was required

to respond to higher levels, the lack of clearly
established and tested criteria for both the public
involvement and the land management decision, and the
human factors effectively prevented a satisfactory

public involvement effort.

 

 

62

The time constraints and lack of clear criteria are
reflected in errors that were eventually unearthed
in the review, some of which did not come to light
for several years. Some 309,000 acres of roadless
areas were never identified during the review, an

error of over 70 percent.

The more significant human factors affecting public
involvement were the lack of definitive role relation-
ships of both citizens and Forest Service personnel.
The strong personality of the Forest Supervisor, along
with his reputation in the area, certainly affected
the outcome. Other Forest Officers played a very
minor role in the issue and were uneasy about what was
happening. They were not sufficiently informed or
involved to support the process; this uncertainty

and lack of commitment was sensed by the public. As

a result, criticism of the decision—making process and
of the agency itself was increased. The public tempera—
ment and reaction to the enviromental movement at the
time had a bearing on the outcome. The issue occurred
in the infancy of class action lawsuits as a remedy

for decisions perceived to be wrong.

The meetings often ended in debates between the fac—
tions, local citizens on one side and the "out-

siders" and "conservationists" on the other. In

 

63
the minds of some, the issue was of local significance;

the general public was not affected by the decision
and should not have "meddled" in local issues. No
alternatives were proposed, offered, or encouraged;
nor was there any climate in which such alternatives

could have been rationally discussed and evaluated.

Public involvement, at least by today's standards,

was crude; possibly more damaging in terms of public
trust and Forest Service credibility than no attempt
at public involvement would have been. It left both
citizens and agency people with feelings of frustration
and distrust. On the positive side lies the fact

that the Forest Service learned, because of the

lawsuit and other repercussions, that the public was

serious about participation and would not be denied.

 

 

CASE 3

UNCOMPAHGRE AND WILSON MOUNTAINS PRIMITIVE AREAS

 

THE SETTING

In 1932 the Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountains Primitive Areas
in southwest Colorado were established by the Forest Service
under authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. The desig-
nation of the Uncompahgre area made several assumptions re-
garding the future use of the area, the most important being
that mining interests and activities would remain dormant.

The significance of this assumption lay in the fact that some
16,000 acres of land within the newly designated Primitive
Area was privately owned. It was expected that in a few years
this land would revert to public ownership through tax de-
linquency. Forest officials further assumed that travel, which
was relatively primitive at the time, would decrease in the

area.

In the ensuing 40 years, mineral activity increased and numerous
additional mining claims were filed (though many were not
patented). The development of 4-wheel drive vehicles during
World War II and their subsequent popularity greatly expanded
back-country motor vehicle travel. By 1970 there were thousands
of patented and unpatented mining claims, hundreds of structures
and buildings, 10 miles of maintained road, 25 miles of heavily
used unmaintained roads, and 6,500 annual visitors in the
Uncompahgre area. The situation in the Wilson Mountains area
was only slightly similar; here, the intensity of use increased

by a small amount, most of it being recreation use.

64

 

65

In early 1964, the Forest Service held a public hearing in
Grand Junction, Colorado, for the purpose of advising the.
public of a proposal to declassify the Uncompahgre Area. A
portion of the area, along with some contiguous areas, were
to be designated as a Scenic Area. A Forest Service report
(Forest Service, 1971) indicates public responses were re-
ceived from numerous individuals and groups. Before formal
action was taken to implement the proposal, Congress passed

the Wilderness Act.

In the late 1960's the Forest Service conducted a study of

the Uncompahgre Primitive Area for the purpose of reporting

to Congress on potential of the area for inclusion in the
Wilderness System. A report was prepared and public hearings
scheduled for November 1971. In mid—October, the attorney for

the plaintiffs in the Parker Case and the Sierra Club vs. Butz

 

case requested a postponement of the scheduled hearings. The
request was based on departure from correct procedure in which
the Forest Service failed to study qualifying contiguous areas
to the Primitive Area. The attorney cited the Parker Case
(which had been upheld in Appellate Court two weeks earlier) as
grounds for the objection. Based on the complaint, filed by
the Sierra Club and four other conservation organizations, the
Forest Service was enjoined by the U. S. District Court from

holding the hearings. The Forest Service almost immediately

 
  

    
 
  
  
   
 
 

. “lei “an.“ aunt; um _
. an: painful“; in 9:2qu our to!“ .

      

  

. .3 5*;
s .591A empdsqmoonu 9d: 2312351005 on lloaqoad -_

      

   

Iq n ‘
u . .
l' n 1

  
   

.

  
 

' I

   

fl“.
'0‘

..tfi" M
pier .25515 aunupiiinn anus firiw nnoIE .5915 ad: to _‘

u.

:23
suave: salvage :ee-H' J . w.‘ nines: s at hedsnpiaob 0d

  

 

'l .suivxsa 389161)

 

 

:; -o1 210v raaflo :-fi -'; L: "i.nju. ’L"
3. -xn“ru . u a“ .H- J ."L.;_ “.‘JOLLL WCIE bevieo
D
.. :~. _--. 1 r \'_: ;.- . ‘ . ”2.:“ .1? noijos
.i'il'
tib- L'- w:
T
I” '
.4 .
I 4 . LI' :5:

66

entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs which stipulated
(1) that the announced hearings on the Uncompahgre Area would

be informational in nature and would not jeopardize the Wilder-
ness characteristics of the Uncompahgre area or areas contiguous
to it, (2) that the Forest Service would convene additional hear—
ings on lands within and contiguous to the area, and (3) that

no recommendation would be made to the President and the Con-
gress until additional studies and public hearings on the area

and contiguous lands were conducted.1

The previously scheduled hearings were then allowed to proceed.
The Sierra Club, with support of seven other organizations,
mounted a drive and circulated literature in which conserva—
tionists were urged to attend in large numbers to testify in
support of an Uncompahgre Wilderness. The literature further
warned that the mining industry was expected to be there in
force. The hearings were later described as being often
dominated by anger, recriminations and name—calling. A news-
paper editor remarked that "This may have been in part because
people were deeply concerned, but were not well enough informed
and were consequently frightened, frustrated, and defensive.
Many who testified then seemed locked into preconceived ideas
without much backgrounding, either concerning Wilderness or

the resources of the area. Polarization prevailed."2

1Sierra Club, et al. vs. Hardin et. a1. Civil Action No. C-3511
U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

2Joyce Jorgensen, Plaindealer and Ouray Herald, Ouray, Colorado,
November 29, 1973.

 

67

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND DECISION

In 1973, a public involvement action plan for the Uncompahgre-
Wilson Mountains review area was developed by the Forest Service.
This plan called for a series of workshops to be held wherever

public interest was sufficient to insure attendance.

In November and December, 1973, a total of nine workshops were
held in various parts of Colorado, including major population
centers, college communities, and towns adjacent to the area
affected by the decision. Prior to workshops, notices and invi-
tations were sent to numerous government officials and citizen
groups. In addition, newspaper, radio, and television notices
were made and individual packets of information were made avail-

able to the public prior to workshops.

A newspaper account of one workshop reported the Forest Service
was making every effort to get informed public involvement under-
way before the formal hearings. The key words, according to the
article, were "involvement" and "informed." There was no hard
sell by the Forest Service. They presented four alternative

proposals and considered any others the participants proposed.3

In January 1974, two formal public hearings were held for review
and comment on four alternative proposals for the areas. At
these hearings, the Forest Service recommended a proposal which

would result in five Wilderness Areas totalling 80,000 acres.

3Plaindealer and Ouray Herald, ibid.

 

68

A fifth proposal, dubbed the "citizens' Proposal" was de—
veloped by the Wilderness workshop of COSC. Of those testi-
fying at the formal hearings, 78 percent favored the propo—
sal which called for three Wilderness Areas totaling

172,000 acres.

THE AFTERMATH

Although many people disagreed with the Forest Service recom—
mendation to the President, agreement with the public in-
volvement was widespread. In a congratulatory letter to the
Regional Forester, the Chairman of the Wilderness Workshop of
COSC said, "Everyone I spoke to felt much more knowledgeable
about the many-faceted problems land managers must deal with
after participating in the workshops ... I'm optimistic that
the hearing testimony will reflect the educational efforts of
the workshops. Already, the oral testimony has proven to be

much more factually than emotionally oriented."

A newspaper account of the 1974 hearings said they were low
key when compared with the 1971 hearings in which emotions
dominated fact. One reporter said the Forest Service Work-
shops caused everyone to get their facts together beforehand,
thus making the hearings the dullest that reporter had ever
attended. The disagreement between various parties in the
issue was restricted to the recommendations made; mutual re-
spect and understanding replaced confrontation and emotional

oratory.

69
ANALYSIS
Who Was Involved
Approximately 500 persons participated in the public in—
volvement process; most through attending one or more
of the nine workshops. Names of participants were ob-
tained from Forest Service files, COSC and Sierra Club
sources, and from other participants. Lists were grouped
by geographic address and a total of 119 randomly select-
ed persons were contacted; of these, 26 were interviewed

or completed mailed questionnaires.

A total of 10 Forest Officers were substantially involved
in this case. They included Forest Supervisors, District
Rangers, and Staff Officers from District, Forest,and
Regional levels. Personal interviews were conducted with
six officers; the remaining four were interviewed by

telephone.

Socio-economic data collected from the citizen participants
is compared with similar data for the general population
of the State of Colorado. These comparisons are illustrated

in Table 17.

These data indicate that the citizens participating in the
Uncompahgre and Wilson Mountains Primitive Area issue were
better educated and more affluent than the average citizen
of Colorado. In addition, they were not representative of

the ethnic make-up of the people of Colorado.

 

.Nsma .monmfifiou mo ucmfiuummmo .m.D .mSmcwo man we smmusm
.cofiumuumwcflecd moflumflumum wofieosoom mam Hmfloom .xoom mumo wuflo mam hucsoo Eoum mumoH

 

 

 

Haoflumasmom
com; m oéw T: ES «.3 33m scum Ema
F1 0
7. mmoufiuflu mm>ao>cH
Seam» eds ode CASH mad some mumo
r 0mmaaoo Hoocom mwumamfioo
mummy v swam mummy
msflumamfioo mswuoamaoo Hmuoe
usmouwm usmouwm ommuw>¢
r mEoocH mawfimm smwmmosmo soflumosmm
Hmscsm ommuo>¢ unmouwm

 

mm<0 €mm< m>HBHSHmm ZH mszHBHO mo ZOmHm¢mEOU UHSOZOUMIOHUOm

NH manda

 

 

 

 

71
WhygThev Were Involved
The factor most reported as the reason for becoming involved
was that they were "directly affected"; 28 percent of those
sampled indicated such motivation. During interviews and
from remarks in questionnaire responses it appears that many
who report being directly affected are active in conserva-
tionist organizations. There is a philosophy in such groups
that everyone is directly affected by decisions on public

lands.

Organizational membership and industry or job related reasons
was reported in equal frequency, 23 percent, as the next most
influential factor in generating involvement. Organizational
membership undoubtedly played an important role in the selec-
tion of participants. One participant, who was active in an
environmental organization, reported having the role of call-
ing members to encourage their attendance, then coordinating
bus transportation to the scene of workshops or meetings.

The organization rented buses to accomodate those members who

would attend out-of-town meetings.

Several participants commented about the large numbers of
conservation group members attending the workshops. The con-
tent of these remarks was that such people were not repre-
sentative of those who would be affected by the decision, but
only represented people who could afford the time and money

to attend workshops.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________1
72

A Caucasian participant commented about the apparent lack

of involvement of Spanish surnamed people in an area where
they make up 25 percent of the population: "They are eco—
nomically affected by the decision, but do not participate.
They are afraid they will be put down by others. They are

afraid of the racial implications."

Forest Officers were asked if they thought the people who
would be affected by the decision participated in any manner.
Seven felt that some participated, two felt that most par-
ticipated, and one did not know which answer was appropriate.
There is substantial evidence that participation in this issue
was strongly influenced by urgings from enviromental organi-
zations and from widespread publicity about workshops and

hearings, much of which was generated by the Forest Service.

Citizen Impressions of thg Public Involvement and Decision

In this issue, the impressions about when the public involve—
ment process started were substantially the same between citi-
zens and Forest Officers. Impressions about timeliness were
not similar between the two groups. Most Forest Officers felt
public involvement came too late. The responses are compared

in Table 18.

Table 19 displays the responses to questions about "pre-edu-
cation" or dissemination of information and about convenience

of meetings and workshops. There were minor differences as to

 

73

ON om Umfiflu HHmB

ow mm opma OOH mpH0mmo psmfio>ao>cfl OHHQSQ
o o haumo OOH map mo mcHEHu one mmB 30$
OH m mUmE

mmB Goflmflomm Hmwwm
om we comoao>op mums

mo>fipmcnmpam Hmpmm mpumpm
o NH ommpm msflccmam mpmq mmooomm pcmfio>ao>sfl
o o ommum mcflssmam mHHmm OHHQSQ mnu pflc sosz

 

mmonmO Emmmom ZWNHEHU

mmmzommMm mo szmommm mmzommmm monemmDo

 

mmflo <mm< m>HBHSHmm ZH BZMSM>QO>ZH UHQmDm m0 GZHEHB BDom< mZOHEmMDO OB mmmzommmm

ma mqm<B

w

o o mm>wz

0 SH EomHom

ow No hHHmSmD

Ma om Hm wsmzaa
o: om how cmxmm mm;

commflomo no sowcfimo ems:
Pomp:oo no wcflpmme m P<
or m: msfip mo mofinma m pm>o

ecoflPmQAOAPpmm csm

mosmUprPm cmwmssoocm maamsmcmw
pmgp asap mcm soapmooa m Pm
A.opm .mmsmpwmsv mpomPcOo who;

meson A.opw .mPMMman mam mpmoo
.mmEoopso manwmwom .wowpwawnmemo

mama .mw>wpmcsmpam onpm soap
ImEnomcfiv soapmoscmohg mm; Cogs

 

mmonmo emmmom szHeHo
mmzommmm mo azmomma mmzoammm

ZOHEMMDO

 

mm<o <mm< m>HBHEHmm zH ezm2m>no>ZH UHHmDm mo mozmHzm>zoo Qz< ZOHB<ODQmmmm

ma mgm<9

 

75

whether time and place of activities encouraged participation.
Citizen and Forest Officer perceptions of the involvement

techniques used were very similar.

One member of a conservation group said it had been difficult
to get the Forest Service to hold meetings in major population
centers. Another citizen said the time and location of work-
shops encouraged attendance by college students and preserva-
tionists, but not the general public. Individual perceptions
notwithstanding, this issue probably had more real involvement
by a larger number of people than any public land management

issue in recent Colorado history.

Answers to questions about factors influencing the decision and
about publicizing the decision are reflected in Table 20. The
factors predominant in the minds of citizens were commercial
interests, economics and multiple use. Factors most named by
Forest Officers were Forest Service policy and administrative
pressure. Twenty-four percent of the citizens felt certain that

their input did not influence the decision.

Content analysis of citizen responses to questions about their
impressions of the involvement process reveals that 33 percent
retain a favorable impression, 55 percent have an unfavorable
impression, and the remainder could not be cataloged. A feeling

that public involvement was only used to meet a requirement was

 

.mcwhmammfip mo ommm How mwnwuomoumo mam 9:09:00 wow mmnhamsm mumz coflummsv menu on mmmcommom
.ooH cowoxw hmfi mamuou .mHOMEHosu “mucmmflowuumm mEOm an acme wm3 oncommmu 0:0 cmau who:H

 

m mucoammu oz
om mm»
m 30.303

ow wanflmmom msoflmflomc mow>uom ummuom ms»

em oz CH mmuocflmsoo page“ use» mmB

,6

7. ma 0 szuo
ma em maofiumuomwmsoo one onHuHDE
.mmms Hmfloumfifioo .moafiocoom
mw mm mmuflmmm Ho

Seeded wofl>u0m unwuom Hmwme mofl>uom uwmuom man

ca mm 30cm 9.:00 soamfiooc map ocflucwsamsa

ea ma coflcflmo owabdm mnouomm momma map mum3 umsz

Hmoflumo ume0h swuwpflo mmzommmm onmeDO

mmzommmm HEOm M>¢U 0mg
mazmazommmm m0 Ezmommm

Hm<o <mm¢ W>HEHZHmm ZH ZOHmHUmo mma wZHUZmDAWZH mMOBUdm

ON mqm<fi

 

 

 

. .-.|ll...

7?

expressed by 22 percent of the citizens. Several citizens
commented on what they describe as lack of concern about

public opinion on the part of the Forest Service.

Those citizens retaining unfavorable impressions generally
addressed two points of view: 1) the process was a sham
and was only used to satisfy the law (the viewpoint usually
expressed by the pro-wilderness citizen); 2) the process
allowed the preservationists to overwhelm the proponents of
less wilderness (the viewpoint usually expressed by the

Forest users and local citizens).

Forest Officers' Impressions of the Public Involvement and

 

Decision

The extent of involvement by individual Forest Officers who
participated in this issue apparently varied considerably.
One Ranger said there was very little involvement at his
level; he mostly furnished requested information after the
Regional Office staff handled the workshops. Another Ranger
was very active in contacting numerous individuals and inter-
est groups, providing information and discussing pros and

cons of the various proposals with the interest groups.

Forest Officers' perception of the citizen participation was
that people with conservation group affiliations made up the
bulk of attendance at meetings and workshops. Forest user

groups such as ranchers and loggers generally depended on the

 

78
Forest Service to represent their interests. Local people,
in most cases, were well aware of the issues and of meetings
and workshops, but few attended. One Ranger estimated that
workshop attendance was 90 percent preservationists; in
other meetings on the issue they comprised 80 percent of
the attendance. Most Forest Officers felt that people who
will be most affected by the decision had little partici-

pation.

Forest Officers felt the public involvement had little effect
on the final decision. The major effect was that of genera-
ting greater public acceptance of the decision. The purpose
of the workshops, in the mind of one officer, was to inform
citizens of the rationale for the decision. Whether this was

the real intent or not, the workshops apparently had that effect.

In discussing short—comings of the public involvement effort,
the following points were mentioned:
Public involvement started too late.

Definition of objectives and planning of the process to
achieve them was poor.

Involvement of those most affected by the decision did
not occur.

Forest Service personnel's involvement was a reaction
to situations rather than a course of planned action.

Local people failed to follow the process through to
its legislative end.
The overall impression retained by Forest Officers is one of

having been exposed to a preview of a useful tool and

 

..'.:..'-'«:".-::1 190;.“-

79

experiencing disappointment because it didn't function as
well as they had hoped. Most of them were enthusiastic
about the potential of public involvement; they see it as a
means of resolving conflict. Some said that public involve-
ment has been used as a sop to pacify the Forest Service
critics; others said the agency had attempted to use it hon-
estly but failed to achieve satisfaction because of inex—

perience and lack of understanding of the process.

Citizen Impression§ of the Forest Service

 

Citizen impressions are reflected in their response to six
questions in the questionnaire. These are presented in Table
21. Numerous additional comments were made during interviews
and on questionnaires; most of these comments relate to the
Forest Service image and seemed to over—ride remarks about
the decision or public involvement. The essence of these

comments are discussed here.

Several citizens felt that the Forest Service is in the unten-
able position of having responsibility for both preservation

and consumptive use. Some felt that rules and regulations ham-
string the agency at all levels. One citizen said she trusts
the National Park Service more than the Forest Service because
of the Park Service mandate for preservation. She trusts Forest
Service individuals after she gets to know them and feels em-

pathy for the agency because of its conflicting roles. The time

.. ":1

.-

L

      
 

.:'anb :H: assume-

.:;'-I:-:- ems-w ':'-:.'-'

.1 . 5 , .
- .. . I
. ..i --

80

 

 

TABLE 21
CITIZEN IMPRESSIONS OF THE FOREST SERVICE
IN PRIMITIVE AREA CASEl
QUESTION RESPONSE PERCENT
What sources of information Forest Service 26*
about natural resource man- Wilderness Groups 10
agement are most credible Universities 6
to you? Own experience 6
Professional Societies 6
Agency in charge 6
Comparison of several
sources 6
None are credible 6
Others (aggregation
of remainder) 28
What impression did you have Good impression 29
from your contacts with the Poor impression 29
Forest Service in this matter? Public involvement
was not sincere 16
Others (aggregated) 26
Which of the following influ- Uniform 0
enced your image of Forest "Civilian" clothes 0
Service people? General appearance 2
Reputation 15
Personal manner 26
Training and experience 28
What Rangers do 4
Other things (explain)
Prior encounters 4
Others (aggregated) 21
What makes you trust the Does not trust Forest
Forest Service? Service 28
Honesty or ability
or sincerity 16
Neither trusts nor
distrusts 8
Past record 8
Other attributes
(aggregated) 40

1Reported in percentages of the respondents who did reply to

the question.

*One third of these respondents stressed "local" Forest Service.

 

 

   
 
 

 

'zuoa
‘r'r...-:.‘£..'t juodn
31:91:: 1)::
fur)" -‘

 

    

J

81

TABLE 21 (cont'd.)

 

 

QUESTION RESPONSE PERCENT

What makes you distrust Bureaucracy 18

the Forest Service? Past record 7
Decisions favoring
commodity users 7
Hypocrisy 7
Deceit 7
Preconceived ideas 7
Ignoring public opinion 7
Other (aggregated) 40

Did your contact with the Comments generally

Forest Service in this issue favorable (based on

alter any of your beliefs or content analysis) 33

concepts about their public Comments generally

involvement process? Explain. unfavorable (based on
content analysis) 52

Could not be cataloged 15

 

-
rt
4 .
. .
. .
I
.
.
.

 

 

 

82

lag, the years between the issue and the collection of this
data, may have softened the impressions of the citizens;
those impressions may have been different immediately after

the issue.

The attempt to determine whether there is some correlation
between the degree of contact with the agency and the citi-
zens' image of the agency, as described in the East Meadow
Creek case, was continued. Analysis of the data show that
67 percent of the responses support the hypothesis that the
image improves with contact; 22 percent of the responses
clearly do not support the hypothesis. The remaining re-
sponses could not be catagorized with sufficient accuracy

to be included in either class.

Some citizens talked about what the agency needs to do to
improve its image. There was feeling that the agency is using
public involvement and Enviromental Statements to justify de-
cisions. Some feel that the Forest Service doesn't know how

to use public participation even though they seem to want it.

Comparison of Attitude Tests

Citizen and Forest Officer attitude responses are compared in
Table 22 and Table 23. Forest Officers' responses are clustered
on the left or positive side of the midpoint. Citizen responses
are nearly evenly dispersed to left and right. The inference

drawn from these responses is that the citizens' feelings about

83

TABLE 22

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES IN PRIMITIVE AREA CASE

 

Percent of Responses by Intervall
A B C D E F G

Citizen l4 l3 8 27 10 18 10

 

Forest Officers 29 25 27 13 5 l 0

 

1Letters from A to G are assigned each blank from left to right
between adjectives; e.g., A is assigned the blank nearest the
word "Strong" and G is assigned the blank near "Weak."

TABLE 23

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES

 

Percent of Responses Left and Right of Midpoint

 

Left Midpoint Right

 

Citizens 35 27 38

 

Forest Officers 81 13 6

 

-- --n m 'r-r
.5!.-J.T'.'.n1 i}

 

 

 

.-.__ ...... -..-....-.m...__... . _....-.- .. _. .. .
...... . ' . I“ "'"'1"‘.l
— -.--_-—--- — ---——--—--- -— --—- --- -——-~- - - _u- l-‘I-l-- —-‘-— m

 

. --_ . . ....--u..- . . - -....- ...- -. . . . . _.— -.--..- .-.. .. . _- ... . . ...-.-....-.- ......" .-.-.- ...—-... -
_ , . '.
I .. . n _ _. ..'l
. ' u' ' u-I -
._ ...—...- ...- -...— . _. ... .. .. --. ...—... .-.-..” . - .. ...“-.. . . .._.. ...... .. .. . . .- ..--.. _... . .. .... ---—...... .
~ , .. . . . . . .. I
I . . . I . ,
' \ U o .
I u I l' ..
I I u
I
I
I
i u
I
.. . . .. . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. . . .. - -..
. .. -. .... . ... .. . . . . . -.

8h

Forest Service public involvement activities is not signifi-
cantly positive or negative. Forest Officers, however, hold
strong, positive feelings about public participation in nat-

ural resource decisions.

General Observations and Summary of Case

Although many people were involved in this case, most were
wilderness advocates. A lack of balanced representation
bothered some citizens and nearly all Forest Officers.
Citizens were more satisfied with their participation in this
issue, not because they agreed with the decision, but because

the opportunity for input was available.

A pattern of the relationship between citizen image of the
agency and length or degree of exposure to the agency is dis-
cernable. The citizens' distrust of the higher echelons in
contrast to trust of local Forest Officers (where most of the
contact occurs) is indicative of this phenomenon. The most
mentioned distrust factor was "bureaucracy" and the local Ranger

was not perceived as part of the bureaucracy.

The public involvement in this issue left the Forest Officers
more frustrated than the citizens. In previous cases the citi-
zens were frustrated for reasons cited. In this case the
Forest Officers were frustrated because their role was less
than they expected and the anticipated conflict resolution did

not occur. And, although they were critical of the process in

 

".- Em.

C.

 

85

this case, they expressed favorable attitudes about public
participation as a management tool. Their criticisms and
suggestions for improving the process indicate a growing
desire to make public involvement more effective. There is
evidence that some of the lessons learned through the pre-
vious two cases were applied in the public involvement pro-
cess in this issue. Several of the attributes of successful
involvement, lacking in prior cases, are evident in this

case. The process was more visible, made participation easier
for the citizens and provided citizens information necessary

for making meaningful input to the decision.

 

 

CASE 4

BEAVER CREEK SKI AREA

 

m SETTING

During the period from 1960 through 1967, downhill skiing
in the Western United States grew at a high rate. This
growth caused the Forest Service to inventory potential
ski areas on National Forest lands and, in 1969, to select
several areas as suitable for development. Beaver Creek,
an area 110 miles west of Denver, was identified as one

of those sites.

Early in 1972, Beaver Creek was selected as one of two
final candidate sites for the Alpine events of the 1976
Winter Olympic Games. The private land, adjacent to the
National Forest, in Beaver Creek was purchased by Vail
Associates from rancher owners in anticipation of develop—
ment for the Olympics and subsequent year—round recreation
uses. In the spring of 1972, an interdisciplinary Forest
Service planning team began a study of the Meadow Mountain
Planning Unit which included Beaver Creek and a 16,000—acre

portion of the Holy Cross Roadless Area.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND DECISION

The Roadless Area review in 1971 generated the first formal
public involvement in the Beaver Creek issue. Three public
meetings were held in late 1971 and early 1972. A citizens
advisory group was formed to work with the Forest Service

in formulating management alternatives for the area. Because

of the Olympic situation, the planning schedule for the

86

‘-I.
U'.‘ ELIE!)

 

?_ '. -.'..';r. r.-:u tarts 1:12.

I ' n. . n...
. .' . . . 'Z' - -._ .-_.-'. <.'- ..- ' -....I.L-‘-':J-.'
- . ' ‘ ' ....
I
I
3 . .-.
I
. I

3"

..:;

8?

skiable terrain was accelerated and public interest and
involvement increased, resulting in numerous public and

special group meetings in 1972.

While Vail Associates was planning to develop a new ski
area in Beaver Creek, the Wilderness Workshop of the
Colorado Open Space Council (COSC) was attempting to ex-
pand the acreage for wilderness designation in the adja-
cent Holy Cross Roadless Area. In an attempt to resolve
this obvious conflict, COSC and Vail Associates made an
agreement that Vail Associates would limit it's develop-
ment to 2,000 acres and COSC would not seek wilderness
designation for those acres. The Sierra Club and the
Wilderness Society, which had supported the move to ex-

pand the wilderness, endorsed the agreement.

In 1972, anti-Olympic organizations were successful in
placing a referendum question on the Olympics on the general
election ballot. In November, Colorado voters rejected the
Olympic Games. Meanwhile, land use planning for Beaver Creek
and adjacent areas continued; the Olympics had not dictated
the planning need, it had only influenced the schedule.

After November, the pace of planning slowed.

In 1972 and 1973 the Forest Service worked closely with the
local communities and the County government on the Meadow

Mountain land use plan. An attempt to solicit the partici-
pation of State agencies was generally unsuccessful at this

point.

 

 

88

After the 1972 referendum removed the Olympic impetus, Vail
Associates continued to press for a skiing permit on the
National Forest lands above Beaver Creek. In January 1974,
the Forest Service filed a draft Environmental Statement
which recommended the designation of Beaver Creek as a

Winter Sports Area.

THE AFTERMATH

Public response to the Environmental Statement was immediate
and loud; opponents expressed a concern for the impact of
growth, fostered by such ski developments, in the mountain
communities of Colorado. The continuing pressure for more
wilderness areas was also accelerated by this issue. For
the first time, several state agencies took an interest in
the Beaver Creek area and criticized the lack of planning
for community growth in the surrounding areas. Thus, the
State found itself in an adversary relationship to the
County, which was responsible for controlling those impacts
and which had participated in the development of the Meadow
Mountain land use plan. By its action, the State implied

that the County was unable to redeem its' responsibilities.

The Beaver Creek Ski Area became a political issue in the
1974 gubernatorial election: In September, following re—
lease of the final Environmental Statement by the Forest
Service in August, the incumbent candidate requested a post-

ponement of the decision, pending a review by the Colorado

‘l
.2'1 .
..‘ ...-

  

..." 1:3 .-:r-n

  

..- I ' '
. — a u -- -
. . I- .l- I "'0"
.- ' . “I 'l :'
. I. -

89

Land Use Commission; his opponent continued to call for a
thorough review of land use and ski area development de-

cisions before any new permits were issued.

In December the Colorado Land Use Commission held a public
meeting to review State agency concerns about the impacts
of growth in the Beaver Creek area. In January 1975, the
Commission recommended designation of the area for ski
development. The Governor, who had been defeated in the
November election, agreed with the Commissions' decision;
shortly thereafter, Beaver Creek was designated by the

Forest Service for development as a ski area.

In late January, the new Governor asked for an administra-
tive review of the decision. His concern mirrored that of
the state agencies who addressed the growth issue. The
request was viewed by many Colorado citizens as the full-
fillment of campaign promises of the newly elected Governor.
In addition, the replacement of certain Land Use Commission-
ers by the new Governor was reportedly influenced by their
stand on the Beaver Creek issue. The Sierra Club also
appealed the decision based on wilderness considerations

for the adjacent Holy Cross Roadless Area. There were many
who supported the decision, including the Council for Envi—
ronmental Quality, who praised the Beaver Creek proposal for

its ecological planning. The issue was finally resolved in

90

July 1975, when the Forest Service Chief upheld the

Regional Forester's decision to allow ski development.

Over a period of three years there was considerable pub-
lic scrutiny of the Beaver Creek situation. Public in—
volvement was widespread at the local, state, regional
and national levels. It was a focal point in three ma—
jor issues: The Olympic Games, the study of potential

wilderness additions, and a state gubernatorial race.

ANALYSIS

Who Was Involved

Several hundred persons made input in the Beaver Creek
issue, but only about 40 persons actively participated
in the issue over a period of months by giving continu—
ing input as the issue developed and was concluded.
Names of these participants were obtained from Forest
Service files and personal contacts, from COSC and
Sierra Club sources, newspaper accounts and from other
participants. A total of 38 randomly selected citizens

were interviewed or completed mailed questionnaires.

A total of six Forest Officers who had significant in-
volvement in this issue were interviewed; they included
line officers and District, Forest and Regional staff
officers. One additional Forest Officer, a line officer

from an adjacent area, was interviewed. He had closely

 

.r I'. (:1-

- I II
.....-

 

 

91

followed the issue and attended several public meetings as

an observer.

Socio-economic data collected from citizen participants is
compared with similar data for the general population of
Colorado in Table 24. These data indicate that the citizens
involved closely approximated the racial composition of the
State, but were better educated and more affluent than the

average Colorado citizen.

Why They Were Involved

 

The most reported reason for being involved was "indirectly
affected." Industry or job related reasons were second.

Only 14 percent reported organizational membership as causing
their involvement. A more complete breakdown appears in

Table 25.

Both the Colorado State Planning Office and the Sierra Club
declined to participate in the public input and decision-
making stages but they later entered the case in an adver—

sary role.

Citiggpilmpressions of the Public Involvement and Decision
Most citizens said the public involvement process started

before the decision was made, however, 40 percent of them

felt the alternatives were developed prior to public par-

ticipation. Most Forest Officers thought the public was

involved at an earlier stage than citizens indicated.

 

 

mam
WNN
wed
mam
wva

Ammummmnmmmv uncuo

mGOmmmH Uwumamu Don Ho wuumdch

mHSmHoQEmE HmGOADmNfiammuo
pwuomwmm manomuamcH
pmuoomwm mauoouflo

mmflo MHNMU mm>¢mm ZH BZMEH>AO>ZH mom mzomflmm

mm mqmda

 

.mhma .woquEou mo ucmsuummwn .m.D .mdmsmo 0:» mo smmusm
.qowumuumflnflEcd mOHumwumum wowfiocoom mam Hmfloom .xoom mumo huflu mam hucsou Scum eaten.H

 

 

 

oom.m m 0.3 S: SS «.3 acofimgdom
2 oumuw Eoum mumo
O,
oom.waw o.ww o.~v o.vm H.vH mannauflo po>ao>cH
scum mnmo
mmmaaoo Hoosom mwuwamfiou
mummy v swam mummy
mswumamfioo mcfiuwamfioo Hmuoe
unwound nnwouom mmmuw>¢
wEoocH mHfiEmm cmwmmosmo soHumodmm
amazed mmmuo>¢ unwound

 

ammo Kmmmo mm>¢mm ZH mszHBHU mo ZOmHm<m200 UHEOZOUmIOHUOm

em mqm<9

93

One Forest Officer was uncertain when public involvement
began. See Table 26. There was no significant difference
in perception of citizens and Forest Officers regarding
preeducation and convenience of contacts. About half of
each group thought preeducation occurred over a period of
time; one-third felt it was done at a meeting or contact
when a decision was requested. Nearly all participants
said meetings and contacts were sufficiently convenient.

Detailed responses are in Table 27.

There were some differences in perception as to the tech-
niques of public involvement used in this issue; citizens
cited public meetings and the news media more than did
Forest Officers and they placed less emphasis on ad hoc
groups and key person or individual contacts than did

Forest Officers.

There was wide diversity of opinion among citizens as to
which factors influenced the decision. Factors most often
mentioned were public opinion, site suitability, public

need for recreation and commercial interests. Nearly one—
fourth of the citizen respondents said they didn't know

what factors influenced the decision. Forest Officers

thought local government and community concerns, public need
for recreation and site suitability factors had most influence

on the decision. Twelve percent of the citizens felt their

 

 

ea c :Hmuumosb
hm mm mwfiflu Hams
mm em muma 008 muuowmm ucwfim>ao>cfl
o m wahmw 009 UHHnsm ms» mo mcfiEflu wmu mms 30m
ea c cwmuquCD
o m ommE mm3 soflmfiomm Hmumd
mm ow pomoflo>0m EH03
mm>HumsH0uHm Hmumm
mp o mm mmmuw mnflcamam mumq muumum mmEOOHm
hm cm wwmum mafiscmam aaumm unmaw>ao>cfl oaansm man man smsz
MMUHmmo Bmmmom szHBHU mmzomwmm monmeoo

mmmzommmm ho Bzmommm

 

mm<0 mmmmo mm><mm ZH BZNZW>AO>ZH UHAmDm m0 wZHZHB BDOm< mZOHBmmDO OB mmmzommmm

mm mflmdfi

 

 

 

..:—...J- . u .. .. I ... . I. .
Euru. - I . . ... ..I .
.II.I I..II III III .I.III I. III: . III .I I .. ..II. III III. I. I: ...
. q .. A“
. . I a
. . ._ . . . I
.. . s
_ .
.

 

95

Hm>mz
Eopamm
SHHmDmD
mhmsam

szonxsb
meow #02
now cmxmm mm3

coflmHowU Ho sofisflmo nch

o m
o m
mm vs
«H ma
o w
vH 5H
mm mm
mm we

uomumoo no mcwuoma m um
mEHu mo poflumm m Hm>o

meowummfiofluumm psm

mosmccmupm owmmusoocm haamumsmm
umnu mafia mam soflpmooH m um
A.oum .mmcflumoev muomucoo mums

mwsom A.oum .muawmsmb mam wumoo
.mmEoouso wflnflmmom .mmflufiaflnmmmo
mama .mw>flumcuwuam usonm sofluma

Iuomsflv :oHumospmmum mmB awn:

 

mmlomO memom ZQNHBHU
mmmzomwmm ho Bzmommm

Wmflo Kmmmu mm>4mm ZH

mwzommmm

ZOHBMMDO

BZWSM>QO>ZH UHAmDm m0 HUZMHZH>ZOU 02¢ ZOHB<UDQQMMA

5N mmm<fi

 

IIIIIII’IIIIII IIII. I II
a
I u
a
I I
I

 

 

96

input was possibly considered. A listing of responses

appears in Table 28.

A slight majority of citizens and all Forest Officers
said the decision was publicized. The news media was
most mentioned as the means of publicizing the decision.
The issue was given much publicity shortly after the de-

cision during the gubernatorial race in 1974.

Some citizens said the agency was sincere in its attempt

to obtain and use public input; others said it was only
going through the motions of public involvement. A greater
percent of the citizen participants in this case expressed
the opinion that the agency was more sincere than has been
noted in prior cases. A few commented about an apparent
difference between local and higher level Forest Service

posture regarding National Forest management policy.

Forest Officers' Impressions of the Public Involvement

 

and Decision

There were varying opinions among Forest Officers regarding
public involvement and the agency's sincerity in using it in
this case. Two Officers said the agency was only going through
the motions, using public involvement to justify a prior deci-
sion. One Officer expressed the opinion that public involve—

ment is "a necessary evil"; all others were convinced that

 

.mcflamammwm mo wmmw How monanommumo mam ucmusoo Hem mwnmflmcm
0H03 newvmosw wasp on mwmmommwm .mucmmwowuumm 080m an mums nms mucommmu mac cmnu wuoza

 

m oncommmu 02
NH wow
6 firmness

mm hanflwmom macamwowm moa>umm umwuom may

NH 02 ca monomamcoo poms“ n50» mm:
o NN szocxsb
m o uwmcmm HmooH mo qoflummcwssoowm
7. ov o mammosoo Suficsseoo
0’ mam unmemuw>om Hmooq
n ma coflsflmo ceabsm
on 3 sfiflnmflsm Ban
0 HH mowuwaom

0 ma moweosoom HmwmmE moa>umw ammuom on»

no mummumucfi Hmwonmsfioo coflmflomm map mcaocmsamsfi

SN ma coflummuomn now moms owabsm muouomw uoflms on» mums umms

awoawwo 330.... com 3.3 $20me 203360

mwzommmm mzow m><w 0m:
mezmazommmm ho Ezmummm

 

mwéu MHMKU mm><mm ZH ZOHMHUWQ mmB GZHUZWDAmZH mmoaodm

mm mamfla

 

 

 

98

it is a necessary and useful tool in decision-making. Some
were bothered by the political aspects and the contra-
dictions between politics and good land use planning. Failure
to involve the State government in early planning was identi—
fied by one officer as the major cause of problems experienced
in this case. The difficulty in getting a concensus from
people with different value systems was another expressed

concern .

Three major areas of concern were expressed by Forest Officers:
how to get the affected people involved; how to use their input;
how to gain and maintain trust. Forest Officers were about
evenly divided on whether or not public trust resulted from
the public involvement in this issue. They were in agree-
ment that more trust was generated at local levels than else-
where; this is where face to face and small group contacts
take place between the Ranger and citizens. Forest Officers
were particularly skeptical of public meetings, where groups
are larger and the proceedings are often directed by Forest
Service personnel from levels above the Ranger. They note
that distrust and frustration are frequent products of those

meetings.

Citizen Impressions of the Forest Service

Citizen impressions are reflected in their response to six
questions, presented in Table 29. The Forest Service was the
most credible source of information to one-fourth of the citi-

zens sampled, followed closely by personal experience and

99

TABLE 29

CITIZENS IMPRESSIONS OF THE FOREST SERVICE

 

 

QUESTION RESPONSE PERCENT

What sources of information Forest Service 26

about natural resource man- Environmental Groups 13

agement are most credible Universities 13

to you? Own experience, con-
sultants, private
sources 22
Agency in charge 13
Other (aggregated) 13

What impression did you Good impression 75

have from your contacts Poor impression 17

with the Forest Service Could not catagorize 8

in this matter?

Which of the following in~ Uniform 2

fluenced your image of General appearance 10

Forest Service people? Reputation 17
Personal manner 29
Training and
experience 30
What Rangers do 2
Other things 10

What makes you trust the Does not trust

Forest Service? Forest Service 16
Dedication, integrity,
performance 42
Prior experience,
personal contact 32
Other attributes
(aggregated) 10

What makes you distrust the Does not distrust

Forest Service? Forest Service 16
Decisions favoring
commodity users 19
Bureaucracy, size 12

Did your contact with the Comments generally

Forest Service in this favorable (based on

issue alter any of your content analysis) 33

beliefs or concepts about Comments generally

their public involvement unfavorable (based on

process? Explain. content analysis) 27
Could not be
catalogued 40

1Reported in percentages of the respondents who did

reply to the question.

 

99

TABLE 29

CITIZENS IMPRESSIONS OF THE FOREST SERVICE

 

 

QUESTION RESPONSE PERCENT
What sources of information Forest Service 26
about natural resource man— Environmental Groups 13
agement are most credible Universities 13
to you? Own experience, con—
sultants, private
sources 22
Agency in charge 13
Other (aggregated) 13
What impression did you Good impression 75
have from your contacts Poor impression ‘ 17
with the Forest Service Could not catagorize 8

in this matter?

Which of the following in— Uniform 2

fluenced your image of General appearance 10

Forest Service people? Reputation 17
Personal manner 29
Training and
experience 30
What Rangers do 2
Other things 10

What makes you trust the Does not trust

Forest Service? Forest Service 16
Dedication, integrity,
performance 42
Prior experience,
personal contact 32
Other attributes
(aggregated) 10

What makes you distrust the Does not distrust

Forest Service? Forest Service 16
Decisions favoring
commodity users 19
Bureaucracy, size 12

Did your contact with the Comments generally

Forest Service in this favorable (based on

issue alter any of your content analysis) 33

beliefs or concepts about Comments generally

their public involvement unfavorable (based on

process? Explain. content analysis) 27
Could not be
catalogued 4O

1Reported in percentages of the respondents who did
reply to the question.

 

 

 

 

100

private sources. A good impression of the agency was
retained by most citizens as a result of their contact
in this issue. When asked if contact during the issue
changed the citizens concepts about the agency's use of
public involvement, one-third of the responses were fa-
vorable to the agency, 27 percent were unfavorable and
40 percent could not be catalogued. The disparity be-
tween this response and the high rating on the attitude
scale may be caused by the perception of people that pub-
lic involvement has great value and is "right" but, in

this issue, was misguided.

Citizens involved in this issue reported personal manner,
training and experience as factors which influence their
impressions of Forest Service people. In responding to
questions about trust, nearly half the respondents said
dedication, integrity and past performance are reasons
they trust the agency. One—third of the respondents gave
personal contacts and prior experience with the agency as
reasons they trust the Forest Service. Some distrust the
agency because of its upper echelons, past decisions fa-
voring commodity users, bureacracy and size. The earlier
hypothesis that trust and favorable opinion of the Forest
Service is affected by frequency of contact was tested in
this issue. Analysis indicate that 73 percent of the re—
Sponses support the hypothesis that image and length or
frequency of contact are directly related; 27 percent of

the responses do not support the hypothesis.

whiz-.25. III-2’:

 

' .53 '. '. ...... =21:1

 

:-. - ' ' ' I".-.:~- .;. ...I: ..sa'.I-J'.'.:' uilom:

 

101
Comparison of Attitude Tests
Citizen and Forest Officer responses on attitude scales
are compared in Table 30 and Table 31. These data indi-
cate that citizens hold public involvement in higher
regard than do Forest Officers. One—third of the Forest
Officer responses were at the midpoint in this case; an

ambivalence not expressed by officers in previous cases.

§§pgral Observations and Summary of Case

The significance of public involvement and the role of the
participants began to emerge and a new group - County and
State government — assumed an important role in Beaver
Creek. In earlier cases, the citizen was a receiver of
information and a passive reviewer of the decision. In the
Beaver Creek case the citizen's role of providing social
value judgements began to develop. Attempts by the Forest
Service to involve local government agencies and special
interest groups early in the decision-making process indi—
cates that the lessons of previous failures were being

heeded.

The involvement strategies of the agency reveals that public
involvement was emerging as a process rather than a program.
The need to meet natural resource requirements to the ex—
clusion of social needs was questioned, thus directing the
attention of the agency to social goals. Citizens were able

to exercise control and achieve these social goals within the

 

102

TABLE 30

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES IN BEAVER CREEK CASE

 

Percent of Responses by Intervall
A B C D E F G

 

Citizens 16 27 23 18 8 3 4

 

Forest Officers 10 22 13 34 10 ll 0

 

1Letters from A to G are assigned each blank from left to
right between adjectives; e.g., A is assigned the blank
nearest the word “Strong" and G is assigned the blank near

 

 

 

"Weak."
TABLE 31
COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE SCALE RESPONSES
Percent of Responses Left and Right of Midpoint
Left Midpoint Right
Citizens 66 18 15

 

Forest Officers 45 34 21

 

103

a system and did not find it necessary to seek

i’equalization through the courts, as they had

done in previous cases.

 

ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY

This commentary will draw conclusions about the hypothesis
developed in the introduction and will present three models
of public involvement. The first two models are based on
examination of the case studies reported; the third is a
conceptual model which takes into account not only the ex-
perience of the case studies, but uses current interaction
theory and research reported in the literature to avoid the
shortcomings of other models. Some suggestions for moving
the Forest Service into the third model will be made, and
the essential elements of a public involvement process will

be discussed.

The analysis of the data collected in the case studies leads
to the following conclusions about the hypothesis presented
in the Introduction:

1. Attitude measurements of Forest Officers do not
support the hypothesis that the attitude of the
resource managers was a significant factor in
preventing successful public involvement in the
cases studied.

2. The data support the hypothesis that public involve-
ment is means-oriented; it is used to give informa-
tion and proposals rather than to solicit information
and opinions about goals.

104

L,\..-.

105
3. The data supports the hypothesis that the lack of

understanding of factors involved in public parti-

cipation prevents an effective involvement process.

As understanding of the factors grew, in the last

two cases, the process became more effective.
Model I is a characterization of the public involvement process
practiced by the Forest Service in the East Meadow Creek and
San Juan Roadless Area cases. See Figure 4. It is an ineffec-
tive model which satisfies very few of the attributes contained
in the checklist previously presented. This model does not in-
corporate current interaction theory and the consequences for

the participants are undesirable.

Model II represents the theory of public involvement which was
operational in the Wilson Mountain—Uncompaghre and Beaver Creek
cases; this model identifies the current public involvement pro-
cess of the Forest Service. See Figure 5. Model II shows pro-
gression in the application of current interaction theory and a
reduction in the severity of adverse consequences. This is re-
flected in the increased satisfaction of participants as cases
progressed from Model I to Model II. More of the attributes of
effective public involvement were present in the cases which
this model characterizes.

Model III presents an effective, equitable public involvement
process which incorporates the lessons learned in the cases re-

ported, utilizes empirical research reported in the literature,

and applies current human interaction theory. For example, it

.msfissmam How mousuflquSm we
Roma mmwm .usmswfiocwum msowp
Imsuflm mummno>cm “uswcflbm ma
sowumufiumaom .m>flumasmfismfi
mam msflHHouusoo .Hmsowumuufl
.Dsoumfiwsoosfl .0>wmsmm0©

mm soon mum mustNOHDHmm

106

.Amuudoo wsu ..0.fiv memem
msflufiamsvm stom uswfiwamfifl

on Mwmm mmwooum msflxmfi
Is0fimfiowp can mcfimaso whose

.sueu
uhm>soo om umfiwuum

smnu .musmsommo

«0 =aonumanonuumm=
ufloflaom .mEmHmoum
cmosmamn .pmws
UNEosoow .umoo

Isoo mwsloamfluasfi
may ..m.m .mHmom
meumH ou Hmwmm<

.ufi msfluo>mm wmosn

mo uuommsm map
afloaaom .GONmfiowm
map mnwamGOHumm

.usmsmwuomsw

sfimm Op umfiwunm
“msofimflomm we
danced mmfi>m4 .SH
IHmHoumHHsd muomn
Ioum csm .msmumoum
.mwflowaom Dame
Imamafl msm smfimmo

 

mumeAOHuHmm new mwocosvwmsoo

BZMSW>AO>ZH UHAmDm Nflmdm m0 Nmommfi

mmflmwumuum sOHuom

v MMDUHW

.©0>Ho>sfi
mEoowb HANS pa
uuommsm Samsouum
0&3 mmosu Ho seam
Iflowc one wmommo
033 mmOSD SHGO

.s0fimwomp
Hmsowmmowoum m ma
DH “panama Ge Hmo

lessons we soflmfiowo

.humsofipomou
we usafiw>ao>sH

.GOHmflomU mBOH
IHOM usmfiw>ao>sH

 

msoapmssmmm uoflmz

.H ammo:

mofluwfluwuomumao

.N

.H

 

.usmanomEH mmfioomn osfi>mm

Iwomm .Hsooo msoflumsufim mmOH
\sHB .mwmflsosmumswmflc Homm
musmmwofiuumm .sofluommmflumm

Imam msm msoflvmspfim mummuw>m<

.comswaamso mum wsofimfiomc
coon s0>m =.ms sm>m= Ho Emu
ImMm madman on xwwm msoNHufiU

.hufiamsvw mo wmswm mmumH0fi>

-lO7-

.Eoummm pruwn
m How msflsoumwm ou mmuo>wp
we wmnmsm .s0flpommmflummmfim
mam muflamswocfl mo mmsfiamwm

 

wwcmmfiofluhmm How mmosmswwmsoo

FliIII ,

.msONDm

lumcflmsoo HmoflmoHofin

mam amuswEROHfl>sw
mufimmsmsm .Hmflmnmb
IOHusoo wn hmfi “may
mGONmflowp Eon“ soap

Iswupm uuw>fic mHOOHm

IMO umouom .copoom
Ixm we smnp soflmmwm

Isoo kumwum How Rum
.s0fluflmommo aficmHOmfim

.mmcoum seen .mudm

Imwnm hammm mswufluwo

.wwflu
IomHm oasoumws psm

.SONHOQ hoswmm .wmfiv

IHmwa Hmcowmmmmoum
so msoflmwowm wwmm

.mmmmms

Ixmw3 mufl wuosmfi

no QSOU amam .sofim
Iflowc mo mapmswupm
mNflmmnmEm .mucfi
Ipon um mosmcsmupm

.womHm .wEHu Honusou
.soHumEMOMGH Honusoo

=.0mfluummxw= cam
somnmm Hmsowmmwwoum
mmD .muflamsoflumm

 

mmfl wumuum scepod

.mooHDOme
Hmnsums so we
mammamfim .wmflvumm

INm HmGOAmmwmoum
mo HoSOm sodounu
chfiHmmH mum mHmow

.msoflmflomm

uoommm on wme
Iuwsom mum musmmm
Hmooq .mpmflmn
Inca .mmsoum when
Immhm .mofi>umm umm
Inch ..m.m .mpswwm
Hmsnouxw SQ cmmflo
Inwxo we aouusou

.meows mum

mHHfixm Hmfiuo>mnwn
Ho HmoflmoHOHOOm
Hmfiommm oz .cwflm
INHHSG ma scamflowc
m on sofluflmommo
gonna mesons“
Emnmosm m we
usmEm>Ho>sfi UHHQDA

.Umneumaom mum
musmmfloflunmm .m

.mcoflmflowp
uoowmm Dos mmop
mamas unease .a

.mwusmfino
wsmme ma mmmooum .m

 

wsoflumESmmm HOmmz

x.m.ucooc w Embon

woflumaumuomnmmu

 

 

 

 

108

 

.oonoco noom

mmonom masonm mnemmmnm umsu
mwNHHmsoHnmn wosmmd .mnmoonm
man nomnum xnmonmwo umwnom
Usm smuflufio nuonv scamflomc
apes mmnmmmnm osz mmoss

.uswfim>ao>snsos

mo mwosmsvmmsoo omnm>mm

msonvm no mansumn 0>Huflmom mo
conummwoflusm an mmumbnn0E ma
usmfio>ao>sH. .musmmnonunmm smn
Ifluflo mo Mann as ome msOmnmm
cmumosmw nmuuwb .usmsamwd

.sonmnowm can
on cwmommo mm amfi
0:3 mmosu mmnmsou
mnnommw noonno
.mummnwucn
msfimmmnmxm

omoau mo coaummflo
Inunmd may mun>cn
“mama no muses
Imnnswmn can now:

.ntom now
masonm mach mswu
Innflo .ummnwpsH
mm w>mn on ssosx

masonm Hmwommm
psm UHHQDQ
Hmnoswm MMHDOZ

omeN

.mpmmflonunmm
SHHDM on uwonwusfl
no mfiflp m>m£ nos
mmom no nmsoso
manmwmcwazosx

nos we usn .Bosx
on momma UHHQSm

.mosmmm up un0mwm
Hmflommw usomuws
mummnonunmm Hans
mamowm cwuommmd

.Umnsmfino wsmmfi
ma mmwoonm

.mummfio
launmm commando
man an cwuommwm

mmosu mo mEom

 

.msflmeIGOMwHomc Inuno msfl>ao>sn .Hmoficcowu

now cmpmos wwnmso musaflc mnOMmQ mw>flu ma uswEmoaw>mU
mmHuH>Huom coaumOHMNusmpn Imsnmuam moaw>wm m>flumsnouam .s0nmnowc
wHom .sfimunwoss ma nmoammo csm msfissmam .Hmfloom cam Hm0fis mwcwomnm
unmnom msm sonnuflo mo waom wanmw mumamfioo [sown ma sofimflowo nsmfiw>ao>sH
mnstNOHunmm now medwmmmwsoo mmflmmumnum coauom msoHDQESmmm nOnmz moflumflnmuomnmco

BZHSM>AO>ZH UHAmDm Bzmmmbo m0

 

m mmeHh

Mmommfi I HH AMQOS

o
M

c
r-I

 

 

 

109

.snmunwoss
csm Hmsoauncsoo s“ umsna
.wusmmfioaunmm wEOm sn umflxm
momswwcmsfl mo mmsflawwm .Hmom
Hamnm>o on» smsn nwsumn mumo
Ions msu so cwmsoow scansmuum

.uHSmon nos mms no wmfi umsna
.nmoao nos we wusmmfloflunmm Mo
maom .omms mm3 sowmnooc msu
30: Boss nos om musmmflonunmm

.soflumnsonmsoo
m>flmmwoxm psosuflz
mfimfiwOGOO GHOfiQO

. HOHHQ UGO

nanny mesons» mo
usqu nmuumn xwww

msmNHuno msm mosoms

.Umms

mm3 usmsfl nflosn
wamoom Hams .son
Ifiomm wnnonansm
.usmsfl mHSmmoE csm
nooHHoo .cmummnwu
Isa Emmw mamowm

we mwsflnmms

csm wmsflumofi paom
.smam uswEm>Ho>sH
OHHQUQ moam>wo

.mnmsuo
smsu =Hmsww mmda:
mnm musmmHONDnmm

mEom .mHmom
monsommn Hmnsums
csm mHmom HmMOOm
so mammsmsw Hmsvm

.mw>ao>sn wnm
mamoom smsosw we
soflwflowm uowmmm
smo msmununo

.mnsooo
msflcsmumnmmss
ImHE csm scan

ImNHanom 080w

.csms pm soap
Imsuwm us» on
nsm>nmm ma uswE
Im>no>eH onnnam

 

musmmflonunmm nOM mmososwwmsoo

mnemoumnum soauod

msOHumESwmd noflmz

A.m.uqooc m masons

monumnnouomnmso

 

 

 

 

 

110
recognizes that the roles of the participants must be defined
in the early stages of public involvement. See Figure 6. As
can be seen from this model, the process avoids the adverse

consequences of the previous models.

This research shows that it is desirable for the Forest Ser—
vice to move to the public involvement process described by
Model III. Successful implementation of the model requires
recognition and understanding of the three dimensions of a

process and their relationships. These dimensions are pro-
cedure, content, and human interaction. The procedural di—
mension emphasizes the importance of continuity and the se-
quence of events. It must provide the means of determining
who is to be involved, i.e., seek those affected by deci-

sions, and provide the means of involving them.

The content dimension must continuously examine the goal of
the process. It also provides for the measurement and eval—
uation of input and must provide for skills to collect and
assess that input. This requires that the Forest Service
place more emphasis on the behavorial and social science
skills to increase professional effectiveness in working with
people in the development and execution of public policy.
Guidelines for the selective education and training of pre-
sent and future Forest Service personnel to achieve this end

are needed.

 

 

 

111

.msnxmsnsONmfluwm now moms

30s cosmos nmuuwn mo sonmom
sfl pmcsmmxw mam50n>mnm mmnwsm
.mmmoond sass senuommmnumm
msm mufiamsqm mo mmsfiammm

.sOHmHoom suns sonnommmflumm
nwnmonm csm umsnu Hmsusz

.s0numoHMHuswcfi mHon
nmmao .ufl on usofiuuwfifioo msm
soflwflowm can mo msflwsmumnomsb

.HmssOmnmm woe>nwm
umwnom mo sOHumo
Ismw m>nuomem now
mwswamcflsu mon>mQ
.sONuomnwusn smEss
msm .usmsn .mnscmo
Ionm mo msofimswfinm
amenuflno wonsu
momsaosw nmsu
mmwoonm mon>wQ

..sunnomms nemnnm.
man now xmwmm nos
on .wamsomsmpsomm
nsooo HHHB soap
Immnoannmm madmmm
uos on .mouowmwm
wwosn msw>ao>sfi
mam mansmnuammn
mo msme moHo>mQ

.Ewnwhm swmo sm sH
wswufiuno suns smHm
.soflummsmo Hm
IsOmnmm woswflnmmxw
musmmHOHunmm ow
soHumanm smflmwo

.msnxmelsonwowc
on Hmnnsoo

we usmfio>ao>sn
unabsm .mmnsm
IsONDmHon smsss mo
ms0nuomnmusfl esp
mnmmflmsoo Emumwm
smsss sH wmsmso

.mwnsmsfl
sOHquNOMHan
newsu csm pwnm
Inmwuswcfi mo nmsE
mamowm cwnommmm

.muommwm
Hmofissowu csm
HmNOOm suon m>ms
soflmnowc osu csm
m0>wnmsnouam one

.Umusmflno
Hmom we mmwoonm

.soflmfiowm can
sfl mquHOHuan
mamowm pmuowmws

.msflme
IsONmHowp psm
nsoEmon>mp o>flu
Imsnwnam mwmwo
Imnm usmfiw>ao>sH

 

musmmnoflunmm now mwosmsqwmsoo

wmmoomm BZMSW>HO>ZH UHAmDm M>HEUmmmm

 

woflmmumnnm soflpos

m MMDOHm

msoflmeSmmm Hmflmz

Zfl m0 Mmommfi I HHH

moanmnnmvomnmso

QmQOE

 

 

 

 

.muHSmmn

momnoofimu m>wummnowunmm

.mmows Hmnoow Emma on mumsvmcm
mammw csm wuwawnwcwno mswmm
wosmmm ms» psm mmwowaom
unommsm msm umwoom msmuwuwo
.mEmnmonm wo usmnsoo

ms» so monsoow mw sowusmuus

112

.uw unommsm msm sowmwomm
ms» csmumnocss Ho>mH HmooH
um mnwowwwo ummnom .musmm

Iwowunmm wo sowuomnmwsw Eonw
muaswwn umsnu owHQsm .mmwon
nwmsu msmumnmmss mnoowwwo
ummnom msm msmnwuwo suom

.mHmom

HmHOOm on msmma
mnm mmonDOmwn
Hmnsumz .Hmsoww
Imnmmo ww mmmoonm
wsmfim>ao>sw owansm

.coms mm:

usmsw nwwsu 30:
s30£m mw Deanna
msu csm mmnwowa
Imam mnm Emsu now
mamsownmn msu msm
msowwwomo .mHnm
Iwomnu csm wanwmw>
ma mmmoonm
sOMDmQHOHuan msB
.sowwmmwowunmd
swnwuwo wwmsHosw
sowsk Emumhm

smmo sm sw mnsooo
mswxmfilsowmwowo

.mmmms
HmAUOm mswummfi

so ma mwmmsmfim
.mswxmfilsowmwowc
wo pnmm mums
Inpnemn m mn Ewan
mmmoonm m ma sown
Immwowunmm Unansm

.mosHm> Hmuowoom
msw oswanwwoc
on ma smnwuwo

wo oHom .mw>wums
Inwuam wo mmosmsv
Iwmsoo manwmmom
msm mumc Hmo
stsowu mcw>onm on
ma woswmm wo maom
.sowmwomc msu

sw conmcwmsoo mm3
wsmsw nwosu sosx

Dune owansm msa

.musmmwowunmm
ma mswcsmpm
Inmoss Hmspsz

.mswxms
IsOHmwomc wo
wnmm Hmmmnwsw sm
ma nsmsw owansm
umsu monSmmm
Ewumwm usws
I0>Ho>sw veabsm

 

musmmnoflunmm now mmososvomsoo

 

mwflmwumnwm sowwom

msoHuQESmmm nOnmS

“.m.ucooc w smoons

mowumwnwwomnmso

.m

 

. --;_..,. -

113

The human interaction dimension stresses that deliberate
change is brought about through effective human inter-
action processes. It emphasizes the importance of good
communications and of discussion-decision activities
throughout the entire public involvement procedure. The
public involvement process must be internalized by agency

personnel.

Additional research to develop techniques for involving
affected citizens in decisions is needed. Such techniques
should address three elements: how to determine who will be
affected by a decision; how to provide them the information
they need to make meaningful input to the decision; and how
to collect that input from a reasonable number of affected
citizens. The techniques employed in marketing research and

those used by national pollsters may be adaptable to this need.

Further study of ways to increase the effectiveness of Forest
Service personnel in working with people in complex social
interactions is also needed. Some alternatives to examine

are recruitment of people with formal training and experience
in sociology and psychology, training of selected existing
agency personnel in these skills or selection of new employees
with academic training in both biological and social science

fields.

 

 

SUMMARY

Through examination of the public involvement processes utilized
by the Forest Service in four actual cases, and the comparison
of those processes with current interaction theory, three models
of public involvement have been developed. A checklist of at-
tributes for successful involvement was developed and used to
construct questionnaires and attitude scales which could be used
to determine if the public involvement process of each case met
the criteria of the checklist. Citizen and Forest Officer par—
ticipants in the cases were then interviewed and tested; the

data were analyzed and used in creating the models.

The first model is based on the analysis of public involvement
in an issue involving a decision to sell timber in an area ad-
jacent to a Primitive Area and an issue involving the agency's
recommendation of roadless areas to be protected pending study
for Wilderness designation. In these issues, the public involve—
ment process was unsatisfactory to citizen and Forest Officer
participants. In both issues, citizens sought reversal of the
Forest Service decision through the courts. Public trust of
the agency was damaged and Forest Officers were often dissatis—
fied. In one of the cases, the local Forest Officers were ex—
cluded from the decision—making process and assumed a role
similar to that of the citizens: as outsiders, clamoring for

participation.

114

 

 

115

Public involvement in these two cases started after the de-
cisions were made. It was means oriented: the purpose was
to provide information and advise citizens of the decision.
Very few of the attributes of effective public involvement
are contained in these cases. This is an ineffective model
in which the assumptions and resultant action strategies
lead to adverse consequences for the participants. The prin-
ciples of interaction theory and the results of applied re-
search reported in the literature are ignored in the public

involvement process portrayed by this model.

Model II typifies the current public involvement process of
the Forest Service as represented by the second two case
studies. These cases involved a decision to declassify a
Primitive Area and a decision to designate land for ski area
development. The analysis of these cases shows a progression
to a more effective public involvement process. The shift
from preoccupation with natural resources to a concern for
social goals by agency personnel emerges. The role of par-
ticipants is better defined in these cases and greater satis-
faction with the involvement process is expressed. Public
trust of the agency is more evident than in previous cases
and equalization was available within the existing system, so

redress in the courts was not sought.

Model III represents a new theory of action for an equitable
system of public involvement in policy, program, and project

decision-making. This model applies the experiences of the

 

116

case studies, other applied research and the knowledge of
human interaction theory to a process which avoids the ad—

verse consequences of the previous models.

Model III is goal oriented and places the emphasis of public
involvement on meeting social needs. The roles of citizen
participants and agency participants are defined, and time
and energy are not wasted in role identification activities.
The model provides for planning wigh people in an open
system rather than planning £95 people in a closed system.
The system characterized by this model is a visible process,
and insures that input is obtained from those affected and is
utilized in the decision. The consequences of this model are

agency credibility, public trust and attainment of social goals.

The successful implementation of Model III requires that agency
personnel understand three essential dimensions and insure
their inclusion in the public involvement process. These
dimensions are procedure, content or input, and human inter—
action. The procedural dimension emphasizes timing and con-
tinuity of events. The content dimension provides for collec-
tion, measurement and evaluation of input and must include the
skills for such measurement and evaluation. This requires that
the Forest Service place more emphasis on the behavorial and

social science skills in the education and training of present

   

"‘I'} E‘fiLUI-finll‘.

 

9_,I;| bur-

. 3.3: (it:

       

dazfiflfih-

1' ." .' .3H'IC'

 

117

and future personnel to increase effectiveness in working
with people. The human interaction dimension stresses the
importance of dialogue between participants that results
in discussion-decision activities throughout the process.
Deliberate change is brought about through such inter-

action of people.

The implementation of Model III and the outlining of criteria,
procedures, input and social interaction will insure a pro—
cess which realizes the goal of equitable public involvement
that is legally correct, publicly acceptable, and technically

sound.

 

   

APPENDIX

 

 

118

FIGURE A1
CITIZEN QUESTIONNAIRE

Please circle the answer that best reflects your response to
the question. Please add any comment that expresses your
feelings about the question.
1. Did the public involvement process start

in the early planning stage?

in the late planning stage?

after alternatives were developed?

before decision was made?

after decision was made?
2. Was the timing of the public involvement effort

too early?

too late?

well timed?
3. Which of the following involvement techniques were used?

Public meeting

Ad hoc or steering committee

Key person or individual contacts

News media

Survey or opinion poll

Workshop

Field trip

Group contacts

Professional contacts

Other (describe)

 

119

4. was "preeducation" (information about alternatives, land '
capabilities, possible outcomes, costs and benefits, etc.)
done over a period of time?

done at a meeting or contact when opinion or
decision was asked for?

not done?
5. Were contacts (meetings, etc.) at a location and time
that generally encouraged attendance and participation?
Always

Usually

 

Seldom
Never
6. Why did you become involved in this issue?
Directly affected
Indirectly affected
Organizational membership
Industry or job related reasons
Other (explain)

7. Was your input considered in the Forest Service decision?

 

NO
Possibly
Probably
Yes
8. What were the major factors influencing the decision the

Forest Service made?

 

120

9. was the decision publicized? If so, how? When?

10. What sources of information about natural resource

management are most credible to you?

11. What impression did you have from your contacts with

the Forest Service in this matter?

12. Which of the following influenced your image of Forest
Service people?
Uniform
"Civilian" clothes
General appearance
Reputation
Personal manner
Training and experience
What Rangers do

Other things (explain)

13. What makes you trust the Forest Service?

 

 

 

121

14. What makes you distrust the Forest Service?

15. Did your contact with the Forest Service in this issue
alter any of your beliefs or concepts about their pub—

lic involvement process? Explain.

16. In order to determine if there is a direct connection
between public involvement and socio-economic status,
please circle the appropriate data that applies to you.

Caucasian Non-Caucasian
Annual income -- less than $5,000
$ 5,000—8,000
8,000-10,000
10,000-12,000
12,000-15,000
15,000-25,000
25,000-50,000

50,000 +

Circle number of years of education you have completed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20

 

122

17. How much contact did you have with the U. 8. Forest
Service before this situation?
None
Very infrequent contact
Occasional contact for less than five years
Occasional contact for more than five years
Frequent contact for less than five years

Frequent contact for more than five years

 

 

123

FIGURE A2

CITIZEN ATTITUDE SCALE

Check the point on the scale that best indicates how you feel

about the way the Forest Service involves the public in de-

cisions about the National Forests.

Strong
Pleasant
Active
Wise
Exciting
Fair
Adequate
Positive
Honest
Useful
Good
Reasonable
Valuable

Clear

so

so

0.

0.

Weak
Unpleasant
Passive
Foolish
Dull
Unfair
Inadequate
Negative
Dishonest
Useless
Bad
Unreasonable
Worthless

Hazy

 

 

124

FIGURE A3
FOREST OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE

Please circle the answer that best reflects your response to
the question. Please add any comment that expresses your
feelings about the question.
1. Did the conscious public involvement process start
in the early planning stage?
in the late planning stage?
after alternatives were developed?
after decision was made?
2. Was the timing of the public involvement effort
too early?
too late?
well timed?
3. Which of the following involvement techniques were used?
Public meeting
Ad hoc or steering committee
Key person or individual contacts
News media
Survey or opinion poll
Workshop
Field trip
Group contacts
Professional contacts

Other (describe)

125

Was "preeducation" (information about alternatives, land
capabilities, possible outcomes, costs and benefits, etc.)
done over a period of time

done at a meeting or contact when opinion or decision
was asked for?

not done?
Were contacts (meetings, etc.) at a location and time
that generally encourage attendance and participation?
Always
Usually
Seldom
Never
Did the people who will be affected by the decision
participate in any manner
None participated
Some participated
Most participated
How was the decision made? What were the major factors con-

sidered, and which were dominant in the decision?

 

 

 

 

10.

11.

126

Was the decision or the final recommendation publicized?

If so, how? When?

What impression did you have from your public contacts?

Did public trust result from the involvement effort?

Did the involvement effort alter any of your beliefs

 

or concepts?

 

 

127

FIGURE A4

FOREST OFFICER ATTITUDE SCALE

Check the point on the scale that best indicates how you feel

about the idea of the public participating in decisions about

management of natural resources.

Strong
Pleasant
Active
Wise
Exciting
Fair
Adequate
Positive
Honest
Useful
Good
Reasonable
Valuable

Clear

0.

.0

Weak
Unpleasant
Passive
Foolish
Dull
Unfair
Inadequate
Negative
Dishonest
Useless
Bad
Unreasonable
Worthless

Hazy

 

 

128

FIGURE A5

DECISION LOG

Date, decision, rationale for decision and exactly what is done.

12/2/74

12/2/74
(changed
12/3/74)

12/2/74
(changed
12/3/74)

12/2/74

Test attitudes of Forest Service people towards
public involvement through Osgood Technique (des-
cribed in Crano, Chapter 10, page 28). Reason for
method - see description of strengths and weakness-
es described by Crano. Use evaluation scale to test

attitude; reasons described in Crano.

Use potency and activity scales to measure perception
by non-Forest Service participants of effectiveness

of public involvement efforts.

Test Forest Officer's perception of effectiveness

of public involvement efforts by potency and activity
scale tests. Rationale: Forest Service people may
be laboring under false assumption - that they are
effective when others (non-Forest Service partici-

pants) see them as ineffective, or less effective.

Give tests before interviewing to avoid injecting any
subtle or unintentional bias (which may result from
interview) into test. This will apply to all tests

given.

 

12/3/74

12/6/74

12/6/74
(changed
5/25/75)

1/7/75

5/20/75

129

Decided not to use potency and activity test. Not
certain of value of such tests for this study.
Based on further review of literature and discus-

sion with Dr. Darnell.

Use income brackets that Census Bureau uses. Com-
pare with locale where samples were taken to see
if participants are representative of county make
up. Same with education. Based on recommendation

of Dan Schler.

Use self—administered test on 1/2 of participants
and interview other 1/2, compare and explain dif—
ferences, if any. Reasons: makes cost of sampling
less and increases knowledge about the methodology.

Based on recommendation of Dan Schler.

Considered constructing Likert Scale using state—
ments gathered from interviews with 5 Forest Ser—
vice people. Consideration based on suggestion by
Schler. After compiling statements and reviewing
Crano on the method, I decided against it.

Reasons: not enough statements for reliable test,
too much time expended for potential gain; no signi-
ficant improvement over Osgood Technique already

set up.

After interviewing people in Roadless Case, there

seemed to be less trust, greater criticism and more
negative feeling towards the Forest Service by those
with least past exposure to Forest Service. Decid—

ed to add 5th page to citizen questionnaire to test

5/25/75

5/25/75

7/13/75

10/26/75

130

hypothesis that Forest Service image is better with
time tested "acquaintance" than with newer "acquaint-

ances."

Decided to use more mailed questionnaires, rather
than 1/2 and l/2. Reason: Personal interviews too
costly; very good response from telephone interviews

and mailed questionnaires is being obtained (about 90%).

Decided to give questionnaire to Forest Service people
and have them complete the forms and mail them to me
anonymously after interview. Reason: some may other-
wise be reluctant to give candid response (partly due
to my job in Regional Forester's Office) based on dis-

cussion with 2 Forest Officer participants.

Determine percent of responses in scale falling at
mid—point (zero level) and consider dropping those
words from analysis if the percent reaches a certain
level. Based on Dr. Darnell's work on semantic
differential. Words that have large percent of "zero"
rankings may be ineffective in evaluating attitude.
This should be established by considering all scales

in all cases and computing percent zero ranking in total.

Decided to lump responses, in question 1, to 3rd and
4th items (after alternatives were developed? - before

decision was made?) Rationale: There is really no

 

11/20/75

131

difference between the two. A number of respondents

have answered the question by checking both responses.

Change analysis of Attitude Scales, dropping numbering
of intervals and averaging of "Scores." New analysis
consists of reporting the percent of responses for
each interval (identified by letters rather than
numbers) and the percent of responses on either side
of the mid-point. Based on suggestion of Dr. Manthy

and reference to literature.

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

132

LITERATURE CITED

Ackoff, Russell L., Scientific Method, Optimizing Applied
Research Decisions, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962.

Behan, R. W., University of Montana, Presentation to
U. S. D. A. Forest Service conference, April, 1972.

Bentley, William R., Resource Planning in a Democratic
Society, unpublished lecture, University of Mich., 1972.

Berelson, Barnard, Content Analysis in Handbook of
Social Ps cholo , Dr. G. Lindsey, Editor, Reading,
Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. An Introduction to Social Research,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

 

Burke, Edmund M. Citizen Participation Strategies. American
Institute of Planners, September, 1968.

 

Campbell, James H. and Hepler, Hal W., Persuasion and Inter-
personal Relations, In Dimensions in Communications,
Campbell & Hepler (Ed.), Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Belmont, California. 1965.

 

Crano, William and Brewer, Marilyn. Principles of Research
in Social Psychology. McGraw—Hill. 1973.

 

Darnell, Donald K. Concept Scale Interaction in the Semantic
Differential. The Journal of Communication, Vol. XVI
No. 2, June, 1966.

Forest Service, USDA, Public Involvement and the Forest
Service. A report from the U. S. Forest Service
Administrative Study of Public Involvement, May, 1973.

 

Hahn, Alan J., Citizens in Local Politics; Non—participation
and "Unrepresentation." Journal Community Development
Soc. VI, No. 2, Fall, 1970.

133

Holsti, O. R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and
Humanities. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

Horland, Carl 1., Janis, Irving L., and Kelly, Harold H.,
Credibility of the Communicator. In Dimensions in
Communications, Campbell & Hepler (Ed.) Wadsworth Pub.
Co., BeIfiont, Calif., 2nd Ed., 1970.

Johnson, Homer H. and Scileppi, John A., Effects of ego-
involvement conditions on attitude change to high and
low credibility communicators. Journal Personality
and Soc. Psy. 1969, 13, 31-36.

Karpino, Paul, FUND, Boulder, Colorado, Personal Conversa-
tions. 1973.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H., The
Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, Ill. 1957.

 

Schler, Daniel, University of Colorado, Unpublished Presen-
tation at Vail, Colorado., March 8, 1973.

Synergy, Citizen Participation/Public Involvement Skills
Workbook. Los Gatos, Calif., 1972.

OTHER REFERENCES

Alden, Howard, Dept. of Recreational Management, Colorado
State University, Personal Communication, 1974.

Arnstein, Sherry R., A Ladder of Citizen Participation.
American Institute of Planning Journal, Berkley,
July, 1969.

Bem, Daryl J., Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs,
Brooks/Cole Publ. Co., Belmont, California, 1970.

 

Bonato, R. R. The Effect of Source Credibility and Amount of
Information on Opinion Change, University of Conn., 1961.

 

 

Cutlip, Scott M. and Center, Allen H., Effective Public
Relations. Prentice - Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., 1971.

Cummings, L. L. and Scott, W. E. Editors, Readings in
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. The
Dorsey Press, Homewood, Ill., 1969.

 

 

133

Holsti, O. R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and
Humanities. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Horland, Carl 1., Janis, Irving L., and Kelly, Harold H.,
Credibility of the Communicator. In Dimensions in
Communications, Campbell & Hepler (Ed.) Wadsworth Pub.
Co., Belmont, Calif., 2nd Ed., 1970.

Johnson, Homer H. and Scileppi, John A., Effects of ego—
involvement conditions on attitude change to high and
low credibility communicators. Journal Personality
and Soc. Psy. 1969, 13, 31-36.

Karpino, Paul, FUND, Boulder, Colorado, Personal Conversa-
tions. 1973.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H., The
Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, Ill. 1957.

 

Schler, Daniel, University of Colorado, Unpublished Presen—
tation at Vail, Colorado., March 8, 1973.

Synergy, Citizen Participation/Public Involvement Skills
Workbook. Los Gatos, Calif., 1972.

OTHER REFERENCES

Alden, Howard, Dept. of Recreational Management, Colorado
State University, Personal Communication, 1974.

Arnstein, Sherry R., A Ladder of Citizen Participation.
American Institute of Planning Journal, Berkley,
July, 1969.

Bem, Daryl J., Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs,
Brooks/Cole Publ. Co., Belmont, California, 1970.

 

Bonato, R. R. The Effect of Source Credibility and Amount of
Information on Opinion Change, University of Conn., 1961.

 

 

Cutlip, Scott M. and Center, Allen H., Effective Public
Relations. Prentice - Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., 1971.

Cummings, L. L. and Scott, W. E. Editors, Readings in
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. The

Dorsey Press, Homewood, 111., 1969.

 

 

13L»

Hare, A. Paul, Borgatta, Edgar F. and Bales, Robert F.
Editors, Small Groups, Studieg in Social Interaction,
Alfres A. Knapp, New York, 1965.

 

Horland, Carl 1., Janis, Irving L. and Kelly, Harold H.,
Communications and Persuasion: Psychological Studies
of Opinion Change, New Haven, Conn., Yale Univ. Press,
1953.

 

Leavitt, Harold J., "Applied Organizational Change; A
Summary and Evaluation of the Power Equalization
Approaches. A Seminar in the Social Science of
Organizations, Pittsburg, Pa., 1962

Schler, Daniel, University of Colorado, Personal Communi-
cations, 1973-76.

Schler, Daniel, Community Development as a Process,
Lee J. Cary, Editor, Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia
1970.

 

Strauss, George, Some notes on Power Equalization.
Institute of Industrial Relations, University of
California. Berkeley. 1964.

Zimbardo, Phillip and Ebbesen, Ebbe, Influencing Attitudes
and Changing Behavior Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"IWfllfillllllllflfllfllfi“