I take a great deal of license in choosing material from this and Chap. 12. I will not cover in class, nor on the final exam, the material on interpersonal skills, "listening" and other social aspects of collaborative planning. The class lectures/discussions and these notes are your guide to what material will be on the final.

Government entities (like legislatures, executive branches and judiciaries, of federal, state and local governments), individuals, NGOs and various "interest groups", corporations, etc.

These are all: "Stakeholders." Other terms have been used: "affected interests" and affected parties.

• Neighbors and users: those with some direct involvement with the land and resources. You can always count on neighbors getting involved and having strong input (every land use planner knows to expect to hear from "abutters"—those who have property adjoining the property on which something is to be built). So this has a geographical quality. But you can also expect USERS of all sorts to want a say, even if they don’t live nearby. This is sometimes contentious, as "locals" claim that "outsiders" should have less say.

• "Interests" or interested parties: This s sometimes called the "community of interests" to separate it from the local communities and users with direct involvement. Here are all the environmental and industry groups; individuals with a content interest (e.g., someone who supports logging, but maybe from afar).

• Procedural watchdogs: some groups and individuals get involved not over the content, but over procedural issues, fairness and equity. "good government" and open government groups fall into this, as do anti-discrimination groups.

• Bill payers: taxpayers, fee payers, contributors, foundations, etc. may want a voice. Sometimes direct "bill payers’ like those who pay a fee for use (e.g., hunters or local residents who pay for access) claim to have more interest than, say, national enviro groups. This can get sticky: does Boulder city council have to include non-residents who use our open space?

• Elected representatives; agency personnel; appointed commission members, etc: Various people play formal roles, typically stemming from their job in government or their appointed by an elected representative (most "commissions" are appointed board, like the Open Space commission). They have formalized policy roles and will have both formal and informal input to decisions. Often when they speak as some other from of stakeholder they must say that they speak as a "private citizen" and may even need to recuse themselves from their formal role.

• Casual to intense
• Occasional to frequent involvement
• "stakeholder orbits"

Part of your analysis is to assess the involvement you expect from different stakeholders.

The text barely mentions this but I argue it is key to your role as a professional environmental conservationists. You should do a stakeholder analysis right at the start of any non-trivial management program.

First: think hard about who will show up as stakeholders (see above lists). Then also consider whether your actions will help create new stakeholders. The asses:

• Type
• Characteristics
• Interests
• Probably level of involvement (and where/when in the process)
• Needs
• Power (this is not in the text, but gets to my discussion of assessing who has "veto power" over the management. Are there any groups that could conceivably stop your program ? Think twice, because there almost certainly are even if you don’t think they have that power.

• None!
• Notification
• Review and comment
• Consultation
• Partnership and collaboration at various levels