Watchdog groups to pull back from Forest Plan process

The following letter was sent to Flathead National Forest superviser Chip Weber:

—————

We, the undersigned, have done our best to participate in good faith in your “collaborative” Flathead Forest Plan revision process. To various degrees, however, we are decreasing our involvement in the meetings involved in this deeply flawed process we hardly consider “collaborative.” We do so for the following reasons:

1. Your refusal to issue a timely Assessment of the Management Situation and, now that it has finally been issued, your refusal to take a timeout from meetings while the public reviews this 718-page document.

2. Issuance of a $285,000 contract to Meridian Institute that was modified to have Meridian determine areas of common ground at the meetings rather than have participants “work as a group to determine areas of common ground.”

3. Meridian’s refusal to keep accurate records of who says what in the meetings, in spite of numerous requests to do so and substantial disagreements over conclusions Meridian is drawing from the meetings.

These circumstances have resulted in a process that is ill-informed, poorly documented and is creating conflict and resentment rather than shared understanding and good will among the participants.

Frankly, it defies logic that the American taxpayer is expected to shell out well over a quarter million dollars for a series of meetings to be left with no record of who said what at those meetings so they can draw their own conclusions or examine the basis for what Meridian Institute and the Forest Service conclude.

We will remain involved in this process in written form so that our contributions cannot be omitted nor misconstrued by Meridian or the Forest Service, but our presence at the meetings will be diminished. We will now discuss the above points in more detail.

We find that the process is being rushed and that the majority of it has been conducted (some eight meetings since September) prior to the public receiving the requisite Assessment of the Management Situation (which was finally posted April 16). This was needed so participants could intelligently discuss the current situation, what changes may be necessary and how best to make them.

Instead, the cart has been before the horse as the process has entertained wildly unrealistic proposals that ignore the current situation and the legal and scientific sideboards within which the Forest must be managed. This is causing a widening gap between folks who have set a portion of their self-interest aside to advocate for fish and wildlife and those advocating for their self-interest and personal uses of the Forest.

One reason for this lack of cohesion in the meeting groups may lie in the contract between the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution/Udall Foundation and Meridian Institute, entered into on behalf of the Flathead National Forest. It was modified in a way that undercuts the very foundation of collaboration.

Whereas the initial contract required that folks “Work as a group to determine areas of common ground,” the modified contract removed the words “Work as a group to” leaving the task of identifying common ground up to contractor Meridian Institute.

This has resulted in public meetings with virtually no emphasis on the group(s) working to identify common ground and a lack of faith in Meridian Institute to adequately document how it is arriving at “emerging themes” and “commonality around the room.” Indeed, Meridian has flatly refused on numerous occasions to track who is saying what so participants can better understand one another and Meridian can provide a trustworthy basis for its conclusions. The public is left not even knowing how many people, let alone who, agree or disagree with these “emerging themes.”

Meridian’s budgetary excuses for refusing to keep accurate records only spawns further distrust in light of its $285,000 contract and IECR’s findings that this is a “very healthy budget for facilitation support for plan revision.”

We question whether Ms. Lewis’ insistence that her contracting rate remain at $307 per hour — half again what IECR finds “more common” at $200 per hour and the Department of Interior finds “quite high, and well above the industry average” — has resulted in decreased hours and services devoted to the “collaborative” as Meridian has made budget cuts elsewhere to get within a budget IECR would agree to.

We are aware that the Forest Service has contracted with Meridian Institute, via IECR, in order to conduct this “collaboration” without having to convene a formal Federal Advisory Committee and publish its meeting notices and detailed minutes in the Federal Register. Delegating to contractor Meridian Institute the Forest Service’s FACA-forbidden task of asking for a group opinion however, does not lessen the importance of keeping accurate records necessary to substantiate conclusions drawn from the meetings and process.

In spite of numerous requests and basic common sense, you have failed to require that Meridian keep full and accurate records. This has robbed the process of the opportunity to build trust and faith and has instead resulted in distrust and a process lacking integrity.

It has become clear over time that this has been a rushed process, beginning with a flawed contracting process with little regard for the value of participants’ time as meetings took place far ahead of the Assessment of the Management Situation. Now that the long-promised Assessment of the Management Situation has arrived, FNF and Meridian again refuse to stop the meeting process until the public has had adequate time to review the 718-page document.

A number of us have been involved in numerous “process advisory” conference calls with Meridian and FNF. Our pleas to slow the process down to foster a more cooperative atmosphere and garner more well informed public input have been refused at almost every turn.

We now, more than ever, question the purpose, efficacy and sincerity of these “collaborative” meetings. It seems FNF and Meridian are in a race to check items off their “to do” list rather than proceed at a pace and in a manner that fosters public good will, faith in the process and informed citizen participation.

We will to various degrees be disengaging from the meetings involved in this process, especially in light of Meridian and FNF scheduling some 14 hours of meetings to be held in April only several days after posting the 718-page Assessment of the Management Situation — and a similar schedule of meetings in May without prior repairs to the process as outlined above. Should you make substantial changes to your “collaborative” process that you feel may address our concerns, we’d be glad to reconsider.

In closing, just let us say we are deeply saddened that this opportunity for meaningful and informed public involvement has thus far been squandered at great expense to the American taxpayer.

Keith Hammer is the chairman of the Swan View Coalition, Arlene Montgomery is the program director for Friends of the Wild Swan, and Brian Peck is an independent wildlife consultant.