1. Background
The Vermont Forest Resource Plan is designed to serve as an overview
for planning future activities within the Department of Forests, Parks,
and Recreation. In 1986, the department completed and adopted its last
comprehensive plan; this current effort is an update. It includes many
recommendations to be implemented in the coming years.
The plan was prepared in the context of the department's long-term mission,
but it also reflects other contemporary studies recently completed or
currently underway. In addition, in an effort to include as many perspectives
as possible, the department adopted a participatory process that ensured
that professionals from a wide range of forest-related interests had direct
input. Moreover, Vermont citizens had several opportunities to learn about
the plan and contribute to its development.
The following pages describe in general the people who participated and
contributed to the plan's development. The second section explains how
the plan was designed and the various phases during the 24-month planning
period.
2. People Who Participated in the Plan's Development
People from many walks of life participated directly in formulating the
Vermont Forest Resource Plan. Among these were, of course, the professional
foresters within the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. Also
central to the preparation process was the Forest Resource Plan Steering
Committee, whose members were invited to represent a range of forest-related
interests and to serve as a forum for recommending actions to the department.
A. Department Involvement
The department assembled a planning team to oversee the preparation of
the plan. This team was comprised solely of department employees and was
led by David C. Stevens, Director of the Forestry Division. The planning
team designed and approved the planning process, invited Steering Committee
members and other public participants to be involved, and oversaw the
expenditure of funds for the project. The planning team also assisted
the Steering Committee by preparing materials for their consideration
and interpreting their input throughout the project. After receiving recommendations
from the Steering Committee and the public, the planning team was responsible
for preparing the draft and final plan.
Department regional offices are responsible for carrying out many legislative
mandates, and their staffs have unique perspectives on the challenges
and opportunities of implementation. Meetings with these staffs were scheduled
twice during plan preparation. In addition, several people from these
offices assisted in the organization and running of regional public meetings.
B. Steering Committee Involvement
The Steering Committee consisted of a group of 29 individuals invited
by the department to serve as an advisory body. Its membership included
representatives of many interest groups‹from private foresters to loggers,
environmental advocates to state agency representatives, the wood products
industry to consulting foresters. The committee met 12 times during the
plan preparation process and provided wide-ranging advice on the following:
- the planning methodology to be used;
- recommendations, or actions, to be considered by the public and the
department as part of the plan;
- the format for and location of public meetings;
- the contents of the plan.
The committee was invited to provide input as a body or individually
throughout the project. The department hired a neutral facilitator, Barry
Lawson of Barry Lawson Associates, to help the committee. Lawson's roles
included ensuring that every interest was fairly represented at committee
meetings, that Steering Committee meetings were run in accordance with
agreed-upon agendas, that deliberations on issues were thorough and productive,
that agreements were worked out when possible, and that notes of each
committee meeting were accurately prepared.
C. Focus Group Involvement
In the early stages of the planning process after desired future conditions
for the forests had been proposed by the Steering Committee, three focus
groups (economic, social, and environmental) were organized to identify,
discuss, and eventually select "indicators˛ for these conditions. The
department was assisted by the Green Mountain Institute in Social Democracy
and by three students from the University of Vermont's School of Natural
Resources in organizing and training the focus group participants. Each
of these groups met on three different occasions and shared information
among them. The indicators will be used both to assess the current condition
of the forests in the state and to monitor the future success of the department
in achieving desired future conditions. The three focus groups convened
as one group at the conclusion of their work to develop a unified set
of recommendations to the Steering Committee.
D. Public Involvement
Over 250 members of the public attended 14 public meetings held around
the state. The first set of meetings, held in October 1997, focused on
the desired forest conditions and selected indicators. Meetings were held
in Springfield, Rutland, Essex Junction, Randolph, Island Pond, Wilmington,
and Morrisville. Considerable concern was expressed over the role of state
government in the management of private forest lands.
The second set of regional public meetings occurred in May 1998 and focused
more specifically on proposed actions for achieving the desired conditions
developed earlier in the process. These meetings were held in Springfield,
Rutland, Essex Junction, Berlin, Lyndonville, Wilmington, and Morrisville.
Interest ran high in the specific actions proposed in the draft plan.
As a result of these meetings, several modifications were made to the
draft plan.
Public input at all meetings reflected an adverse reaction to legislative
action regarding clearcuts in excess of 40 acres and, to a lesser but
real degree, rulings regarding the use of herbicides on forest lands.
This was a period of tension between timber interests and environmental/recreational
interests, both of whom were trying to influence the often delicate balance
the state was attempting to achieve among many interests.
3. Managing the Plan's Development
At the beginning of the planning process, two management approaches were
undertaken. The first involved structuring the plan around a set of the
following:
- "desired conditions˛ for the forest lands of the state;
- "current conditions˛ as reflected by a set of indicators, or
measures, of the present situation;
- actions which would help achieve the desired conditions.
This structure dictated the various phases of the study.
The second approach was to maintain a schedule of project activities
and tasks over the entire planning period. A project management plan (chart)
was prepared early in the process by the planning team and facilitator.
It was revised as appropriate throughout the planning period. The planning
team used this approach to determine the sequence of tasks and time required
to complete each phase. The elements of the project management chart that
relate to each of five phases of the planning process are provided on
the following pages with a written summary of each phase.
4. Five Phases of Forest Resource Planning
This Chart (83k) diagrams the
Five Phases of Forest Resource Planning. It will open in a new window
so that you may toggle between windows while viewing this section.
Phase One-Organizing the Forest Resource Planning Effort, Plan Vision,
and Desired Conditions
This first phase focused on establishing the Steering Committee, selecting
a facilitator, organizing the planning team and focus groups, and designing
the forest resource planning process. Substantively, the first goals were
to establish a vision for the plan and identify future desired conditions
of the forests of Vermont toward which the plan should strive. For each
of the so-called "desired conditions,˛ objectives were also developed
which would later serve as the basis for specific recommended actions.
Focus groups were convened to suggest practical indicators for these
future conditions. At the same time, the planning team worked with teams
from the Green Mountain National Forest planning effort and the Agency
of Natural Resources Lands Conservation Plan regarding the substance of
each plan and their individual schedules. With regard to the Agency of
Natural Resources Lands Conservation Plan, the integration included many
elements. Planning teams met together regularly to discuss common issues
and concerns, and developed a common set of definitions and terminology.
Actions of common interest in both plans reflected the input from the
respective Steering Committees.
Results from past planning efforts were also documented for possible
inclusion in the 1999 Forest Resource Plan. The facilitator, planning
team, and Steering Committee devoted considerable time in Phase Two in
determining which of the recommendations from past studies should be carried
forth into the 1999 Forest Resource Plan.
Phase Two-Refining Desired Conditions and Indicators, Definitions of
Terms, and Public Input
In Phase Two, the Steering Committee and planning team refined the indicators
and desired conditions with the help of the focus groups. This required
carefully defining the terms to be used in the plan. For many participants,
these definitions became a principal focus of debate. Considerable effort
was required to reach agreements within the committee on the definitions.
Initial work began on the assessment of current conditions of the forests
of the state and on a large set of potential actions, or recommendations,
that should be considered for the eventual plan. The first series of public
meetings were held to inform the public of progress and the process being
used to develop the plan, and to receive comment on the vision and desired
conditions proposed by the Steering Committee.
Phase Three-Assessment of Current Conditions and Initial Selection of
Recommended Plan Actions by Steering Committee
Phase Three was intended for assessing the existing conditions of the
forests in Vermont. A severe ice storm during January 1998 caused the
postponement of the evaluation of assessment data until later in the planning
process. Undeterred, in this phase the committee did consider actions
to achieve future desired conditions. While this process was necessarily
less than ideal, the actions eventually chosen for the plan were screened
in Phase Five to ensure compatibility with the completed assessment.
Meetings with department staff also yielded ideas for the plan. Many
actions came from past forest resource-related studies (e.g., the 1986
Forest Resource Plan and the Northern Forest Plan). Others came from professionals
interviewed by the facilitator. Committee members, the public, and department
staff each proposed actions for consideration. In all, over 700 recommendations
were considered.
Phase Four-Steering Committee Recommendations for Plan Actions for Public
Review, Comment on Plan Actions, First Steps in Plan Preparation.
Phase Four consisted first of completing Steering Committee deliberations
on possible plan actions for public review and comment. Following this,
a second series of public meetings focused on these proposed plan actions
and the planning team met again with the Steering Committee to announce
the results of the public review and to receive additional comments and
recommendations from the committee.
Work continued on the assessment of current conditions, and the initial
results were presented to the Steering Committee. The department then
began assembling material for the first draft of the plan reflecting committee
input and information and comments garnered from the public.
Phase Five-Final Plan Preparation and Completion of the Assessment
In the last phase of the planning process, the department completed the
first draft of the plan, concluded its work on the assessment, obtained
public comments on the draft plan, and refined the plan into its final
version. Documentation of the entire planning process was completed for
inclusion as an appendix to the plan. The Steering Committee reviewed
both the first and final drafts of the plan and provided guidance to the
department on the contents of an executive summary. This executive summary,
plus a summary of responses to public comment and a press release announcing
plan completion, were produced by the department.
|
