| Across the United States, public and private land managers are working together to develop new methods of land management. Many of these methods are non-traditional approaches involving collaboration and partnerships across the traditional boundaries of government agencies, property lines, and organizational structures. However, as the number of these public participation activities continues to grow, many questions arise. Foremost among these is how to determine which decision-making relationships are ethically, politically, and legally appropriate between government and non-government parties. One source of information used in examining this question is the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972. The FACA prescribes standard guidelines for federally chartered advisory committees. However, due to its many procedural requirements, administrative limits, and a long history of legal challenges, the Act is also used to form interpretations of how to involve the public without needing to charter a committee. These factors have also been cited as barriers that "chill" public participation with land management agencies. Through an Internet survey and telephone interviews, this study quantifies and examines participants' reported numbers and types of missed opportunities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (FS) and the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The study findings show that federal land managers in the BLM and the FS are familiar with the FACA and how it relates to public participation, however, the statistical significance of 'FACA phobia' in relation to a ten percent loss of participation efforts over a two-year timeframe is a clear indication that the Act continues to be a source of misunderstanding and a barrier to more deliberative public participation opportunities. In order to provide useful guidance to federal land mangers, and other natural resource practitioners, a theory of public deliberation must recognize the complexities of federal policy-making and attempt to reconcile the needs of deliberators in their various roles. This study provides insights on one of the significant challenges facing deliberative democracy with the hope that theorists will consider the significance of practical needs for implementing a theory of public deliberation. |
