ECR Best Practices Webinar

Case Study: Giant Sequoia National Monument

Philip Murphy, www.InfoHarvest.com

Selected ECR Best Practices
 Openness and Transparency
 Meaningful Engagement and Implementation

 In GSNM Case Study

 Custom Design for engagement and grounding
 Process - Long term commitment
 Advertizing and Findability
 Interaction engages
 Risk-taking on Agency for Process and Collaboration
Giant Sequoia National Monument
 2007 – 2011 Plan Revision
 2000 Monument proclaimed
 MSA agreement with stakeholders
 2004 Management plan rejected – incomprehensible
 2007 GSNM Plan Revision

 Driving issues
 Fire fuels build up
 Fire Resilient Eco-system
 Accountability
 Socioeconomics
Custom design for engagement
 Tech was custom designed to support custom process
 Assessment revealed
 Need to ground all participants in the Proclamation
 Need to summarize science opinions
 Gather stakeholder feedback/suggestions
 Need to engage stakeholders in criteria design
 Make sure DEIS analysis provided needed data
 Make sure analysis is comprehensive
 Design: Interactive app to explore how Monument works
 Design: Corresponding paper framework for public meetings
Long Term Commitment
 Assessment: project Space
 Pre-scoping: proclamation and commentory
 Scoping Comment period
 DEIS Prep: Science Analysis Requirements
 DEIS Comment Period
 DEIS Analysis
1. Pre-Scoping proclamation explorer
 Show the entire proclamation
 Cross reference to neutral commentaries
 Invite doc centric feedback
 Shows science advisories that had been developed
 Invite doc-centric discussion
Proclamation and Commentaries
Click on hyperlink
Neutral summary for “Objects”
Comments on Science Advisories
2. Engaging on Alternative Design
 How does forest work?
 How to Actions on the forest work?
 How to evaluate suggested Action Alternatives?
 Collaboratively develop decision framework
 Work with Forest service to develop metrics for criteria
Interactive – what matters to YOU?
Interactive – your values plus science
How do Actions work on the Forest?
Why do Alternatives vary for your values?
Bring it to public meetings
Advertizing and Findability
 Web 1.0
 Google Search
 Google Ads – pretty targetable
 Web 2.0
 Facebook ads – very targetable
 Supports more balanced participation
Risky for Agency (or any decision maker)
 Need to collaborate at many steps in process
 Need to reveal their thinking on how forest works and
how Actions work on the forest
 Openly discuss internal divisions
 Collaboration on how alternatives will be evaluated in
DEIS means less control on what science will be included
 Some criteria may be in conflict with agency rules
 More transparency risks more accountability