conflict resolution

Media, Divides and Talking Across Them: Some Polling and Some History

by

Both of these sources (Limerick’s history post and the webinar) talk about people in the middle.

The Colorado Media Project had an interesting webinar on “Reclaiming the Public Square: Trust, Media and Democracy in Post-Election Colorado.” I think it’s worth watching to get the views of (some) media folks on problems and solutions. The presentation by Stephen Hawkins runs from 5:06 to 18:00 and was my first introduction to More in Common

More in Common works on both short and longer term initiatives to address the underlying drivers of fracturing and polarization, and build more united, resilient and inclusive societies.

More in Common divides Americans politically into eight “Tribes” (see the chart above). Following that is a presentation about some Gallup polling that put people into three political categories (Ds, Is and R’s)(see chart above). It would be interesting to take some forest-related questions and see what different narratives might result from dividing folks who answer into three or eight categories. My guess is that eight would yield more understanding of peoples’ points of view. You don’t have to be a sociologist of science to think that how you structure the study (what groups you choose, exactly what questions you ask) can affect the answers you obtain.

Patty Limerick had an interesting idea in her “Not My First Rodeo” post History’s Essential Workers about the role of interpreters in Western history.

A Familiar Story from the Past, A Fresh Approach for the Present
As Meriwether Lewis and William Clark traveled from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean, the terrain they crossed presented an almost unfathomable variety of landforms. And yet the diversity of the languages they encountered proved far more difficult to comprehend.

At every stage of the trip, the expedition encountered a group that spoke a different language. On a few occasions, this required Clark and Lewis to engage in an early nineteenth century experimentation with what would later be called “the telephone game,” a chain of interpreters lined up to pass on a single message. In one episode when clear communication was of great importance, Lewis spoke in English to a French soldier from the expedition. The soldier then spoke in French to the expedition’s official interpreter, Toussaint Charbonneau. Charbonneau then spoke in Hidatsa to Sacagawea, who spoke in Shoshone to a leader of that tribe. And then the process reversed: Shoshone to Hidatsa to French to English.

Here’s an idea that we suspect no one else has proposed: this would be a good time to adopt his chain of translation and put it to use to our world today.

There is no mistaking our national dilemma: people who are firmly committed to one political position are unable to communicate with people who are firmly committed to an opposite political position.

Lewis and Clark offer us a promising technique.

A far-left progressive Democrat would speak to a centrist Democrat. The moderate Democrat would speak to a centrist Republican. The centrist Republican would speak to a far-right Republican, who could then offer his response to the centrist Republican, and that response would then move back along the chain.

After a few messages have traveled back and forth through the chain, the time would be right for a designated interpreter to step in. Asking everyone to pause, the interpreter could ask everyone a few debriefing questions: “What did you just hear? Was it what you expected to hear? Where do you agree and disagree? Were there parts that you simply did not understand and that need more explanation? Do you need to keep using this chain of indirection, or are you ready now to talk with each other?”

Limerick has an interesting idea but in our forest world, I’m not sure our views fall into neat political categories whether three, four as in Limerick, or eight. Thoughts?

How Does a Decision-maker Know What’s “Right”? Guest Post by Jim Furnish

by

Thanks to Jim Furnish’s for his take on “what makes a land management decision right?” (Others are welcome to submit posts on this topic).

This poses THE trenchant question when working one’s way through a controversy. The very existence of controversy indicates opposition, unease, and concern about the status quo or new proposal. The science and art of finding the most elegant solution is the responsibility of decision-makers, but “right” decisions can prove elusive. Good leaders excel here; poor ones flounder. Difficulty increases because outcomes often remain unknown for some time, meaning that knowing what’s right at decision time may be impossible. I’ll share what worked for me, acknowledging that one has to tailor their decision-making methods to their own skills and character.
Before proceeding, let me address what I consider to be an oft-stated but errant myth: “good decisions leave all parties of a conflict equally upset.” In my experience, this became almost dogma as I heard many decision-makers explain their rationale for a course of action, thinking that the right decision necessarily lay in a brokered middle ground that left both sides angered and neither whole. I find this notion confounding. A right decision should incorporate as much common ground as possible, leaving both sides feeling they achieved important aims; “win-win”, to echo a trite saying.

Realistically, this is often not possible. Which leads to another common brokering concept: what can all sides “live with”? This suggests optimality. It has a positive feel, but this hints at settling for some least offensive solution. It also reflects a social construct, neglecting an all-important priority — does the decision do right by the land?
I consider the land ethic issue to be the essential element of right decisions for natural resource managers. This may not factor in decisions for a banker or insurance manager, but must be a priority if one is managing land. In my view, this was the essence of my national forest business. Here I give some deference (not much) to private land managers for whom economics and profits play a more prominent role, but for public lands I think a bias for environmental considerations exists, or should.

Why? Public lands must be managed to benefit the citizenry, and this basic stewardship responsibility underpins all decisions. Commercial transactions commonly involve forest products, ski areas, grazing, and concessions among others, and private entities naturally focus on their bottom line. I never considered it my responsibility to assure the financial health of a business contractor. But if my decision did not focus primarily on the environmental effects of commercial entities doing business on public land – in my role as steward – who would see to it? I think “citizen owners” of public land have every right to expect and demand this of public land managers.

How to apply this in trying to reach a right decision? Context matters. As an example, consider ATV use, a heated issue since ATVs burst on the recreation scene about the 1980s. Most agencies found themselves caught flat-footed as ATV users exploited a cheap, fast, and nimble ride to essentially replace 4WD vehicles. New trails laced forest and alpine, and solitude disappeared. How does one find the right balance between exclusion and permission? Do users have an inherent right to go virtually anywhere outside Wilderness areas?

I begin with the adage “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”. The FS took an important, long overdue step about 2005 by requiring that ATVs stay on designated routes, to be determined by comprehensive travel plans. A major issue was whether illegally created ATV trails could or should become a designated route. The FS left that door open to be determined locally. The battle was on. Enviros pushed for minimal routes and large scale exclusion zones. ATVers wanted almost every existing track to become a designated route. I slide toward the enviro end in seeking the right balance on that spectrum.

I try to simplify an arguably complex issue by asserting that ATV use is capable of significant soil and water damage, wildlife impacts, noise, and loss of solitude. ATV use is legitimate but needs restrictions as per Nixon’s Executive Order 11644. Accordingly, ATV use is permissible after negative effects are minimized and/or mitigated. Environmental issues as well as effects on other users must be accounted for. This means that ATV users should get the short(er) end of the stick. All things considered, this is not unfair and it’s “right” in my book.
I think historic context is crucial in working through other conflicts like logging and grazing. Timber industry had it their way for decades until the spotted owl solution in the Pacific Northwest came down heavily in favor of wildlife habitat and fish protections. The agencies doled out pain unequally; again, right in my view. Similarly, ranchers historically received preferential treatment and federal grazing has been supported at well below market value for decades. This context should tilt “right decisions” toward an environmental bias to help restore balance, especially when necessary to restore degraded environments.

Ultimately, I tried to weigh all factors in reaching a just outcome, but this didn’t mean I tried to make everything equal. Strive to help all sides to an issue achieve their aims, but it’s often necessary to take from one side to give to another in reaching a right decision.

Peter Williams on The Challenges of “Getting It Right” in Land Management Decisions

by

Christmas readings often involve seeking peace (e.g., lions lying down with lambs, and other non-biological ideas). We tend not to use that kind of language so much in resolving or managing environmental conflicts. Still, I can think of no one better to start off 2020 than with a thoughtful (as usual!) piece by Peter Williams on “getting it right.” Here it is:

Recently, The Smokey Wire has had several really interesting posts or comments that raise the question of what we mean by “getting it right” when it comes to Forest planning and other land management decisions including project plans. Tim Coleman and Russ Vaagen, among others, talked about the Colville National Forest. They provide a perfect example of how different people can see “right” differently. I had good experiences working with both of them about a decade ago on various local USFS planning efforts, so I appreciate their insights regarding the County Commissioners, local industry, USFS, and local residents [LINK].

Sharon challenged a few of us to think about this question of getting it right, with Tony Erba offering the first take a few weeks ago [LINK]. The question we were asked was about “getting it right” when it comes to land management decisions and what role can USFS and stakeholders play in that. I’m going to offer two main thoughts: (1) it’s worth taking a step back to consider the question and (2) what we mean by the “it” in “getting it right” is also worth careful consideration.

The question about “getting it right” seems to go to the idea of a “right” answer, as opposed to a “good” answer, and this affects our search pattern, meaning it affects what we look for. From a decision-making perspective, if we search for a right answer, we often think in terms of a single best answer being the ultimate right one. For this reason, my first thought is to take a step back, to reframe the question.

Let me offer an example, overstating it to make a point. Folks searching for a right answer may disagree about what is the right answer, but they all agree there is one and they can find it. Often, they even begin their search already knowing what they mean by a right answer, at least in some significant ways often based on their technical training or beliefs about how the world works. Their search pattern is defined by agreement that there is a right answer and, more powerfully, by their disagreements regarding whether and when they have found the answer itself. These disagreements tend to be or become counterproductive if not destructive because if you aren’t right, you must be wrong.

In contrast, consider what searching for a “good” answer can mean. Instead of looking for the single right answer, a search for a good answer looks for a broader set of plausible, viable answers. Also, consider that looking for a good answer as a group or as a community often allows room for constructive disagreement because it begins with developing some shared understanding of what different folks might mean by “good” with regards to addressing or resolving the local, immediate issue.

This constructive disagreement, handled well, can enlarge the edges of the envelope within which is that set of good answers. And, within that set, more folks can see more of their interests, which is a really different result that you get from the right-wrong frame.

So, my first point is that searching for a right answer and searching for a good answer are different in truly meaningful ways. If you want to explore this idea, read “The Unbounded Mind” by Mitroff and Linstone (1993). Yes, one could quibble about the words or argue that I’m just setting up a conceptual stalking horse, but I hope the point is still useful for discussion.

My second point is that whether a land management decision is right sometimes depends on whether you look at it in the near-term, as opposed to from a longer-term perspective, as well as whether you look at it from a technical perspective, a legal perspective, or a community perspective.

A different way of looking at the idea of “rightness”—somewhat similar to the idea of looking for a good answer—might be that a land management decision is right when it is appropriate given what is known about the issue, the resources available to address the issue, and the willingness to live with the decision.

There’s an interesting literature about “appropriateness-based decision making” as opposed to “traditional rational planning.” The former tends to focus on trying to understand the situation, including how the group or participants see themselves and what they see as an appropriate process. Traditional rational planning, in contrast, tends to define rightness in terms of consequences understood through technical lenses, like the ubiquitous “Effects Analyses” so familiar as part of a NEPA process. For a really readable look at this, check out March’s “A Primer on Decision Making” (1994).

As an aside, an effects analysis would still occur as part of a NEPA process framed by “appropriateness,” but it would look different because more attention to the situation, community, and process would happen up front, up-stream of what we might call the formal NEPA process. The main take-away I would offer here is that what most of us would call the traditional NEPA process is not the only way to comply with the NEPA Act and CEQ regulations, but that’s a whole different discussion, one that Jon Haber might have particularly useful insights to add.

Coming back to this question of “rightness” for a land management decision, I’m going to suggest that a particularly useful way to think about this is to focus on what happens the day AFTER the decision. Let’s assume we’re thinking about rightness as more like a set of good options (point #1) that are appropriate for the circumstances and participants (point #2). What’s right might come down to whether, once the decision is made, the participants share a general willingness to live with the decision and whether many will actually support implementation, perhaps helping make it happen or helping assess whether desired outcomes occur and undesired ones do not.

The reason I suggest this approach is it seems more likely to avoid the trap that Tony Erba alluded to, where, after a bunch of meetings that seem to be going in a worthy direction, folks retreat to their starting positions and the USFS—or whoever—is left holding the proverbial bag. That’s no good for anyone who cares about public lands or collaborative conservation.

Tony Erba on The Challenges of “Getting it Right” in Land Management Decisions

by

This is a guest post from Tony Erba, in our series “What is “getting it right” in land management decisions, and how can stakeholders and the FS facilitate that?” I’ve asked a couple of people for guest posts, but anyone, anonymous or  not, is welcome to submit one.  I wonder whether others have similar experiences of the FS doing its best and things falling apart. Do you have insight into the causes? What could the FS or stakeholders have done differently? On a broader level, is the idea that the FS can somehow make peace among long-term mistrusting factions if they just “did it right” an unreasonable expectation? If it is, what should the FS do?  I’d have a tendency to put my forest at the bottom of the revision list and start a “possibly building trust” effort with small projects.  What would you do?

My one personal experience that addresses your questions was with the southern Utah plan revision effort. We had developed topical working groups around five particular topics:  timber, grazing, dispersed recreation, roadless areas, and I cannot remember the fifth one.  I was the planning team representative for the roadless group (each topical working group had a broad spectrum of perspectives, selected by our 3rd party facilitator and collaboration sponsor so each group was balanced). I felt the roadless group did an effective job of asking questions over five meetings (about a month apart) about the history of roadless areas, the current policy (2001 Roadless Rule), and the wilderness evaluation process described under the 1982 planning rule. Much confusion existed (as you can imagine) and I put in a lot of hours to bring information to the group so we all could have a common information base to work with.

The conversations were robust and it appeared that the group was making progress to find a middle ground that all could live with (i.e., a “right” answer).  But, at the end, when each member of the group was asked if they could support a “middle ground” approach on how the soon-to-be revised plan would treat roadless areas (as well as recommend any wilderness areas), I was stunned to hear each person fall back into their “camp” and advocate for their position as it was at the beginning of the group’s engagement. Five meetings of discovery ended with the FS holding the bag in making a decision on what to do rather than leveraging the group’s knowledge and learning that was gained through the group’s meetings.

The other groups fared a bit better, but not much. I think we tried to overcome decades of mistrust (especially with the environmental history and conscience of Utah) with an open and transparent collaborative process, thinking that if we did it “right”, others would recognize that effort and contribute meaningfully to move beyond the conflict. Perhaps that was too idealistic on our part, but we were committed to expand the public conversation beyond what was required for an EIS’s public involvement requirements under NEPA. In doing so, we unearthed deeper levels of mistrust and skepticism, resulting in an outcome really no different than if we had done just the minimum. However, I do think we did move the needle a bit with bringing people together who normally do not seek each other and had them learn a little about the other person. In the end, our failure hopefully resulted in a success in another place in Utah at a later time, but since I moved to DC in 2004 for my EMC job, I did not witness whether this success actually occurred.

 

 

Lawsuit drives proposed changes in elk feeding permit

by

 

The State of Wyoming has been feeding elk during the winter at several locations on the Bridger-Teton National Forest for decades.  Environmental plaintiffs challenged a 2016 decision to authorize the continued use of the Alkali Creek Feedground, and the court remanded the decision because of NEPA violations, as described here.

Rather than appealing or spending years studying the feedground’s impacts to address the judge’s concerns, the Forest Service and Wyoming wildlife managers came up with a plan that will allow emergency elk feeding on a smaller area for five years and then end the operation by 2024 (with a possible extension). That plan is now being “scoped” and is open for public comment.  The scoping letter is attached to this article.

This is an example of how litigation may lead to a better decision (after the appropriate public review process).  It appears to have made the State take a closer look at whether it really needed this feedground.  However, plaintiffs don’t appear to have been involved in the new proposal yet.  It’s also interesting that the original decision was based on an EIS/ROD, which the court found to be inadequate, but this is being proposed as a categorical exclusion (so maybe the Forest has an idea that they are not going to be challenged on it?).

Midwest timber wars revisited

by

For the first time in nearly three decades, the Shawnee National Forest in Illinois has proposed a commercial timber harvest of mostly native oaks and hickories. And environmental activists whose high-profile fight against logging in the 1990s led to a 17-year moratorium are once again raising alarms.

Lisa Helmig, acting forest supervisor with the Shawnee National Forest, said the plan is rooted in the best available science about how to maintain the keystone oak ecosystem that is native to the Shawnee foothills.  “The oak ecosystem has been in place here in the central hardwood region for 5,000 years,” she said. But Helmig said the ecosystem is at risk due to a lack of natural or man-made disturbances, such as fire, storms and, yes, even logging. Without these disturbances, non-native, shade-tolerant sugar maple and beech trees sprout up and fill in the forest’s midstory, she said.

The activists have filed an objection, based largely on their past experience with timber harvest on the Forest.

The trees that have grown up to replace the harvested oaks and hickories are mostly 28-year-old stands of “undesirable” beeches and maples.  “When you think about how many oaks were here, it’s heart-wrenching,” Wallace said “Had they not cut the oaks, we’d have oaks here,” Stearns added. In addition to the Farview site, in their letter they write that we also returned to the North End Ecological Restoration project logged in Pope County in the late 1990s. “Little to no oak and hickory have been visibly restored.” They cited other examples, as well.

This is the root of their concern: What the Shawnee National Forest’s leadership claims is happening isn’t.

Asked about their concerns, Helmig said that her “gut reaction” is that the Forest Service likely didn’t follow through with what should be a multiphase treatment. Helmig said she’s confident that the Forest Service is committed to seeing (this) project through… “We have a wonderful silviculturist on staff now,” Helmig said. “He’s been here five years and is absolutely fantastic.”

Hopefully we can assume that there has been a science-based determination that ecological integrity requires regenerating some young oaks and hickories.  But implementation unfortunately still boils down to “trust us,” and “we’re different now.”   (But then the Forest evicted the media from the objection meeting, wrongly according to the Washington Office.)

Reducing the “Bad Blood” Factor in Conflict Management: from Peter Williams

by

I thought I’d repost this because Peter has much experience in this area. It originally came up in the context of “what is privatization” and “why do all the big Monument designations happen in Utah? What are the dynamics of some folks picking Utah as a target, and then attacking them for reacting? What’s behind it? Brian mentioned bad blood of longstanding duration between different political figures.  But what to do when there is bad blood, lack of trust,  or past negative interactions?  If you’re in partisan politics, or the media sources that echo them,  you seek to inflame them to make yourself look better, to get more clicks or to advance your narrative. But is there an alternative path of joint story- telling, compassion and peace-making (hmm. is this touchy-feely?)

But Peter Williams has experience in trying to work through conflicts and here’s what he thinks:

What to do about “bad blood” is an interesting question in this discussion, as well as a crucial challenge in any collaborative effort. Brian Hawthorne, Sharon, and Jon all touch on it. In my experience, which I assume others can attest as well, not only can there be bad blood, there can be different stories about why it happened. And Sharon reminds us of another related problem, which is that folks may not ever talk with you about those past issues. Some call those “the undiscussables,” a pretty apt name.

This thread has strong examples of the challenges of bad blood. Taking just one, we can look at how Utah residents and others have been affected by the Utah Wilderness battles, the subsequent declarations of National Monument status, and, twenty years from when it flared up, the boundary changes and subsequent business reactions of some in the outdoor recreation industry. And that doesn’t even get into the background history going to the 19th century at least.

Maybe a question is how to find a way forward when history is hot, alive, and emotional. From a collaboration perspective, combined with ideas from conflict management, I find it helpful to recognize as early as possible what I call “competing histories” because finding a competing history tells me I need to look for the frames or lenses through which people receive their story, their version. Those frames are the source of the bad blood and, with the right approach, folks will tell you enough, even if most of the story is still largely undiscussable. If successful, I also know I reached the stage of “sufficiently trusted outsider”, not always easy, sometimes not even possible, always worth trying.

Then I do at least two things with those competing histories. First, I find ways to acknowledge those in my discussions with folks, to speak to the undiscussables myself so they don’t have to, because, as a sufficiently trusted outsider, I can do it with less emotion, less baggage. This is all part of what I call “re-humanizing” the discussion, getting beyond caricatures and stereotypes enough to have a conversation about a joint future. Folks who do collaboration work, like me, sometimes need to take on a “third-party” role of sharing what we’ve heard–with permission–because that relieves the actual participants from doing it themselves with all the emotion that can conjure.

Second, I find ways to document the history, like in presentations or documents, which acknowledges it has been heard and, where possible and needed, gets at facts instead of stories. This is a way to use validation to accomplish some needed de-escalation.

Let me leave you with this idea: Finding ways to distinguish “bad blood between people” from the history of events that produced that bad blood may give the people a better chance of finding a way forward. With hot issues, like debates about privatizing public lands, this could be helpful because you can create space between undiscussables and whatever really needs discussion.

Mining by the Ouachita National Recreation Trail

by

I found three things interesting about this situation.  Legally, I think there is a problem if the environmental analysis for a mine fails to say anything about the proximity to or the effects on a national trail and its users.

Bo Lea, president of FoOT, told The Sentinel-Record Jan. 15 that the Ouachita National Recreation Trail is a 223.5-mile premiere hiking and biking trail, and FoOT’s concern was that project’s environmental assessment made “no mention of the Ouachita Trail except for one map that shows a 150-foot buffer between the trail and the mining area. That’s only 50 yards.”

The Forest seems to be assuming that the buffer will fully mitigate any effects, but that has to be disclosed and supported by some analysis.

Politically, this area is in the Congressional district of Bruce Westerman, who has become renowned for proposing anti-environmental riders to Forest Service legislation.  At least he is consistent:

“I’ve long supported sustainable mining in the 4th District, provided it benefits local communities and stewards natural resources well,” Westerman said Tuesday in an email. “I look forward to the results of the Quartz Mine’s environmental review, and hope to see it progress in the upcoming year.”

Lastly, this is an area that is promoted for mountain bike use by the Forest Service and organizations that appear to support both hiking and biking.  It’s an “epic” biking trail, and it doesn’t go through any wilderness areas.

Disagreement About Fuel Treatment: Exhibit A?

by

Still More Agreement About Fuel Treatment: Conservation Colorado and former Secretary Zinke

Sharon said:

That’s why I’m thinking that finding some projects that entail:
1. FS clearcutting in California
2. Fuel treatments in backcountry
3. Fuel treatments taking out big fire-resilient (living?) trees

Would help us understand exactly what the issues are.

I think this project might be a good place to start:

Destructive wildfires along the California-Oregon border in recent years has the U.S. Forest Service pursuing projects to clear forests of burnt debris and trees that could feed future fires. One of those projects included selling the rights to log old-growth trees in Northern California, until a federal judge halted the timber sale on Friday.

Environmental groups asked a federal court to halt the Seaid-Horse timber sale in the Klamath National Forest. They say it would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by clear-cutting protected old-growth trees and harming Coho salmon.

Its purpose is: “Reduce safety hazards along roads & in concentrated stands, reduce fuels adjacent to private property, & to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire losses of late successional habitat.”

So it’s got California, clearcutting, fuel treatment and big trees.  It’s also got wildlife issues, which is the other point of disagreement I suggested.  Maybe not back-country, but certainly not front-country – mid-country? 

It even comes with a spokesperson who is probably familiar with our questions:

Western Environmental Law Group attorney Susan Jane Brown says old-growth trees in Northern California provide a habitat for threatened species such as the northern spotted owl. They’re also the most resilient in enduring wildfires.

“We could agree that cutting small trees is a good thing to reduce fire risk, but when it comes to cutting very large, very old trees, that’s an entirely different matter,” Brown said.

 

 

Sierra Nevada Logging Examples

by

Back in 2012, I worked my last season with the Forest Service, on the Amador Ranger District of the Eldorado National Forest. In particular, I led the crew in marking the cut trees in this overcrowded unit.

The above picture shows the partially logged unit, as well as the sizes of logs thinned.

This part of the same unit shows a finished portion, and two other log landings.

Here is a link to the larger view.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6022239,-120.3284245,1019a,35y,90h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

There are also other completed cutting units in the area, which I worked in. Most of those were also cut in 2018, six years after they were marked. The existing plantations were cut back in the 80’s. At least one new goshawk nest was found, and the cutting unit was dropped.