July 15, 2003

Lessons Learned

As the government charters other advisory boards and the boards take up their duties, all may want to know the lessons this Science Advisory Board of a Monument learned on its way to the conclusion of a Final Report. The first lesson was learning how the Proclamation and Charter that specified scientific advice on the management plan focused its deliberations. As written above, each meeting began with the reading of that duty and was reinforced by a prop always on display, a toy truck with sideboards.

At all meetings, the deliberation on draft advisories, assigned to and written by an individual Board member, comprised the core of the Board's work. The importance of this procedure cannot be over-emphasized. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance of the Advisories adopted by the Board, the procedure of making individual assignments on a specific issue, to be drafted in advance of Board meetings, worked exceptionally well. Relatively little time was spent on seemingly endless deliberations that went nowhere. The Board Chairperson was diligent in making specific assignments, and Board members were diligent in following through on those assignments. The Board conveyed the Advisories to the Designated Federal Official soon after each meeting, and he posted them publicly on http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm/advisories.html. By this procedure the Board intended to accomplish its mission to provide relevant, scientifically grounded advice to the Forest Service during the development of the initial Giant Sequoia National Monument management plan. See the chartered purpose of the Board at http://www.usda.gov/ocio/directives/DR/DR1042-136.htm.

The Board sought to be relevant and effective by submitting its advice while it could be profitably used. The Board deliberated issues raised by the current stage of the Forest Service planning process. The outline--Issue, Facts, Implications for the Monument, and Advice--kept the advice pointed and appropriate to the mission of scientific guidance. Each Board meeting featured the Forest Service accounting to the Board their response to the Advisories. The Forest Service responded further in Appendix F of its DEIS. And at its final meeting the Board fully audited the Forest Service response and adopted Advisory XXII about heeding Advisories. These measures surely made the advice more cogent and useful.

Another important decision was made at the Board's second meeting, and that was to hold its meetings in, or in close proximity to, the Monument. This allowed the Forest Service, the Park Service, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Tule River Indian Reservation to conduct informational field trips for the Board and for members of the public. It encouraged public participation and attendance at Board meetings by local and regional residents of the area surrounding the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Substantial attendance at all of the Board meetings -- including Tulare County supervisors and the chairman of the Tribal Council -- suggests that this decision was a productive one. Board members got acquainted with numerous members of the public and listened to their opinions in both formal statements and in informal settings. All participants were able to see examples of the concerns and suggested management actions in the field. Of particular value was the opportunity to view the different approaches to the management of giant sequoia groves by the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Tule River Indian Tribe, and the State of California. A newspaper editor who attended most of the meetings thanked the Board for its public deliberations that helped the public grasp the planning process.