conflict resolution

New Study Shows the Value of Active Forest Management

by

Yes, we have already seen what happens with a hands-off, “whatever happens” strategy.

P9094831-web

I haven’t read the article all the way through but, this appears to solidify the importance of managing our forests, and the fire dangers within. The are four entire pages of citations, plenty of pictures and some very convincing common sense recommendations that use site-specific science. The picture above is from a roadside treatment along the local Highway 4 corridor. This treatment extends for many miles along the highway, making this “ignition zone” much more fire resistant than it was. Also evident in this picture is the lack of old growth beyond the “Roadside Zone”, a remnant of logging practices in the last millennium.

http://www.calforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Efficacy-of-Hazardous-Fuel-Treatments.pdf

Let us hope that the warnings are heeded and solutions are implemented with site-specific science. However, I would VERY much like to see a current view of that picture of fire intensities near Alpine, Arizona. I’m sure it would show increased amounts of bug trees outside of the firelines. Certainly, wildfire effects persist for MANY years, even outside of the firelines. I have seen it happen multiple times, in multiple places.

Supreme Court Affirms Programmatic EIS for Sierra Nevada Framework

by

Burney-Falls-poster-web

Jun 20: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 08-17565.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Appeals Court indicates that, “This court’s opinion filed on February 3, 2012, and reported at 668 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2012), is withdrawn, and is replaced by the attached Opinion and Dissent. . . The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote onwhether to rehear the matter en banc. . . The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc, filed on April 18, 2012, are denied.”

According to the Appeals Court, Plaintiff-Appellant Pacific Rivers Council (Pacific Rivers) brought suit in Federal district court challenging the 2004 Framework for the Sierra Nevada Mountains (the Sierras) as inconsistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Appeals Court said, “The gravamen of Pacific Rivers’ complaint is that the 2004 EIS does not sufficiently analyze the environmental consequences of the 2004 Framework for fish and amphibians.” On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service.

The Appeals Court rules, “Pacific Rivers timely appealed the grant of summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Forest Service’s analysis of fish in the 2004 EIS does not comply with NEPA. However, we conclude that the Forest Service’s analysis of amphibians does comply with NEPA. We therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand to the district court.”
In a lengthy dissenting opinion, one Justice concludes, “. . .the majority makes two fundamental errors: First, it reinvents the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, transforming it from an appropriately deferential standard to one freely allowing courts to substitute their judgments for that of the agency. . . Second, the majority ignores the tiering framework created by NEPA. Because the majority ignores such framework, it fails to differentiate between a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) and a programmatic EIS that focuses on high-level policy decisions. . .”
It appears that an impossibly comprehensive study of the entire Sierra Nevada “watershed” will not be required for the amended Sierra Nevada Framework plan. If the Forest Service loses this case, it would have to limit the harvest of trees within thinning projects to 12″ dbh in some areas, and to 20″ dbh in the rest of the Sierra Nevada. This decision means that the Forest Service has followed NEPA law since the amendment has been in force. If the Pacific Rivers Council had prevailed, we would be seeing a complete failure of the Forest Service’s timber management program throughout the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Pacific Industries has plenty of their own lands, stocked with plenty of trees in the 12″-20″ dbh size. There would be no need for SPI to bid on the thinning projects that would be offered by the Forest Service under the old diameter limits. The small amount of harvested trees between 20″ and 29.9″ dbh are what pays for the biomass removal needed for true restoration. When thinning projects reduce wildfire threats, and actual wildfire impacts, water quality and fish habitats are improved.

Summer Arrives With a Vengeance

by

Spring ends with wildfires making people homeless. After the fires are contained and controlled, does it really matter if ignitions were man-caused or the result of “nature”? Actually, there seems to be a “natural component” of human-caused wildfires. We should not be welcoming this “natural” and inescapable component.

Leviathan-wildflowers-web

This view from an abandoned fire lookout on the Toiyabe National Forest shows a decreased snowpack compared to a “normal” June. The Colorado fires were expected but, the “whatever happens” strategy has once again failed  us humans. There are MANY things we could have done to reduce or eliminate this tragedy but, it seems that some people prefer shade over safety. The Forest Service seems willing to reduce detection services, to save a few pennies.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.014782,-104.692841&spn=0.114038,0.264187&t=h&z=13

This view of the Black Forest area shows how very little fuels work was done prior to this year. News footage seems to show that homeowners preserved the trees all around them. The aerial view shows why people wanted to build their homes there. They love their shade! It IS unfortunate that so many people’s homes burned but, there is ignored reality working here.

Similarly, are we really prepared to accept whatever damage or loss to our forest ecosystems? We do know that there will be big wildfires this year, due to weather conditions. Are we willing to let “whatever happens” (including arson, stupidity, auto accidents and any other human ignitions) determine the state of our National Forests? Remember, there ARE people out there who will sue to stop fuels projects that sell merchantable trees.

Dialogue in an Era of Divisiveness: ACR 2013 Conference

by

meeting 1

On LinkedIn, I joined the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, and they posted this meeting announcement for the Association for Conflict Resolution Environment and Public Policy Section 2013 meeting in Washington, D.C.. The title is “Dialogue in an Era of Divisiveness” which sounds very germane to the goals of this blog. Here’s a link to the agenda.

If I were in DC, I would definitely attend. There are many Forest Service and other agency speakers and a variety of interesting topics. I bet that there are some lessons we could learn from these collaboration and conflict resolution experts. If any blog readers are attending, one or more posts on what you find out would be appreciated.

Note: “collaboration” seems to be used in this agenda without the negative undertones associated with it sometimes in the Forest Service context. It would be interesting to observe this at the meeting.

“How to Respond to Criticism” by Fred Kofman

by

verbal aikidoNow, I am not a particular fan of Linkedin. It seems like it’s always on the edge of virus-like behavior, and doing unwanted things. At one point I must have clicked the wrong key and it sent messages inviting everyone I knew and also that of my husband. I got so mad at them I quit and closed my accounts. However, because SAF has a group there full of interesting material for this blog, I decided to rejoin it.

I was surprised yesterday to find something timely and useful pop up from Linkedin. It could also be because the other groups I belong to are the National Council for Dialogue and Deliberation and the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, or perhaps a direct message from the Universe.

Of course, whether these two pieces are worth the loss of privacy is not exactly clear. I hope that you don’t need to be on Linked In to read these pieces.. they are by a fellow named Fred Kofman entitled “How to Respond to Criticism” parts 1 and 2. Here is the “linked in” link to part one..and below is an excerpt.

The only way to win a fight with a colleague is not to have it. Beating him will get you, at best, a defeated resentful opponent.

Here are four general strategies that reduce conflicts. They don’t guarantee you will avoid them, but minimize their probability.

Should they happen, they increase your odds of resolving them constructively. They create a positive predisposition towards collaborative relationships.

If you face an arrogant attack, they will help expose its irrationality, not only to you, but also to others who might frown upon your critic’s strong-arm tactics. If you face constructive criticism, they will help you and your critic turn the fight into a dance.

These strategies are not “nice” in the sense that they allow anybody to state whatever opinion they want. They are “clarifying” in the sense they eliminate the fog of war that prevents rational discussion. They are rules of engagement similar to the ones of the scientific method, which focus on reason and evidence. They take hostility out of the equation, allowing for a logical consideration of the different points of view.

* Speak with humility. Present your argument in safe language, as I described here. Own your opinions. Present them in first person as the conclusion of your reasoning process. This gives others the chance to present a different opinion without clashing with yours. For example, when you say, “In light of the evidence from the focus groups, I believe that the marketing campaign is ready to launch.” you make room for your counterpart to say, “I disagree. The focus groups may have liked the ads, but our retailers are not convinced.”

* Listen with respect. Pay attention to others’ arguments, as I described here, especially when you disagree with them. Reciprocity is the most powerful influence you can exert. If you genuinely try to understand their perspective, they are more likely to try to understand yours. For example, when you say, “It worries me that the retailers are not convinced, what do you suggest we do about it?” you neither discount his data nor yours. This allows both of you to examine all perspectives.

* Choose your battle. If the disagreement is a matter of personal preferences, there is no need to agree. It is futile to argue whether chocolate “tastes” better than strawberry. It may taste better to you, and it may taste worse to him. Unless a joint decision is necessary, it is best to agree to disagree. The desire to “be right” fuels fights that serve no practical purpose.

* Choose your battlefield. Culture can be defined as “the way we do things around here”. If you live in a culture where might makes right, your humility and respect will weaken you. Bullies will always win out in bully-land. Or at least until the group is eliminated by fitter competitors. Reason always beats force in the long term. If you don´t want to go the way of the dinosaurs, evolve to a more rational niche.

Here is a link to his second piece.

And we are pretty respectful here, generally, but once in a while some folks veer off track a bit..

R: “Do you think there is a place for dangerous language? I think the dangerous language comes across a lot stronger. It’s punchier and has a bigger impact. It’s like swearing, sometimes you want to have a bigger effect and therefore a swear word might be more appropriate.”

M: “When stakes are high, I find dangerous language dangerous. It comes, as you say, a lot stronger, like a punch with a big impact. I don´t know anybody who likes to get punched. If you want to hurt people, this is a great way to do it. If you want to collaborate with them, why would you want to intimidate them with swear words?”

R: “But sometimes (sometimes) it is perfectly normal to use more colorful language. Sometimes things ARE stupid, don’t you think?”

M: “No, I don´t think things ARE stupid. I think stupidity is in the eye of the (arrogant) beholder. I do believe that it is perfectly normal to use colorful language, and that is why it is perfectly normal for people to abuse each other, destroy relationships and waste energy in fruitless arguments. I also find it is perfectly normal for companies to collapse because arrogant bullies cannot work together.”

Here is a link to the author.

Dogwood Alliance and International Paper Find Common Ground

by

Peace is breaking out all over..
Here’s the link…

Dogwood Alliance and International Paper Find Common Ground

Work to Focus on Forest Conservation in Southeastern United States

MEMPHIS, Tenn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Apr. 10, 2013– International Paper, the world’s largest paper company and Dogwood Alliance, one of the Southern United States leading forest conservation organizations, announced an agreement today that will help advance science based forestry improvements in the world’s largest paper producing region. The former foes will map forests around International Paper’s southeastern operations to identify whether any endangered forests or high conservation value areas exist. This mapping will help ensure that IP is not sourcing from any endangered forests as per its long-standing company policy and will also identify mutually-agreed upon areas where conservation can be focused. In addition, IP and Dogwood Alliance will work together to discourage the conversion of natural hardwood forests to pine plantations.

This collaboration builds on initiatives recently announced by International Paper. The first is IP’s membership in the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Forest & Trade Network in North America. Additionally, IP announced a $7.5 million five-year project with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to restore and conserve forests in the Coastal Carolinas, Cumberland Plateau and Texas/Arkansas Piney Woods regions. Finally, IP announced an increase in its sourcing of Forest Stewardship Council certified fiber by more than 1.2 million tons during the past five years, and expects to triple that increase by the end of 2014. The company continues to support multiple certification standards as part of its public goal of increasing certified fiber.

“IP has a clear, built in need to maintain healthy forests; our business creates the economic basis for millions of acres of land to remain as forests over long periods of time,” said Teri Shanahan, International Paper’s vice president of Sustainability. “Engaging with our critics is an important part of our process of continuous improvement. We look forward to working with Dogwood, because it’s clear that, although we approach it from markedly different perspectives, they are as passionate about the forests as we are.”

“IP’s leadership on FSC certification and its recently-announced commitment to fund conservation in regions that have long been a priority for us opened the door for transitioning our formerly adversarial relationship to one of collaboration,” said Danna Smith, Executive Director of Dogwood Alliance. “We are pleased to work with IP on these initiatives, that, when combined with our collaborative effort, set a leadership standard within the Southern forest industry.”

The collaboration will kick off with a 2013 pilot project to map forests around IP’s mill in Riegelwood, N.C. (near Wilmington). After the pilot project, IP and Dogwood Alliance will evaluate the framework used and modify it as necessary with the intent of applying it across additional IP southeastern operations.

This affiliation represents an unprecedented relationship between Dogwood and IP. Dogwood Alliance has been critical of International Paper in the past, though it has increasingly worked with industry leaders to find innovative business solutions that protect Southern forests.

Until today, International Paper has not been able to reach agreement with Dogwood Alliance although the company’s focus on sustainable forestry practices has led to collaborations with a broad set of stakeholders in the conservation community.

When a Preservationist Joins a Collaborative Group

by

Without making any value judgements here, I find this collection of meeting summaries to be fascinating. Chad Hanson is a full member of the Dinkey Collaborative Group, working to create a better future for the Sierra National Forest. It will be very interesting to see how this process will evolve, with Hanson’s input solidly in view. The level of transparency seems acceptable to me.  At the same time, The Sierra is using the new Planning Rule to update their Forest Plan.

Doug-fir-powers-web

Mr. Hanson noted that there was no option for opposing the proposal, and also stated his concern for his opposition going undocumented. Mr. Hanson expressed two main concerns with the proposal. He stated that the proposal assumed high intensity fire results in fisher habitat loss, and commented that the proposal states an inaccurate assumption that trees experience almost complete mortality when a fire burns. Mr. Hanson expressed that the mortality rate was not supported by current data. Mr. Dorian Fougères assured Mr. Hanson that his position would be documented.

Click to access stelprdb5364086.pdf

There are other meeting notes available by searching for “Dinkey Collaborative Hanson”.

Conflict Resolution Learning, The Four Agreements, and Moving the Goalposts

by

So, for now, it’s hard for you all to go back through past posts. Fortunately, I can and I found one that I think has been overlooked again, again from John, who got me started on the ESA post here. I think John hit on a rich vein of gold for discussion, that may end up being deeper and more meaningful on this topic than anything we’ve had to date. Because I think it’s so important, and fundamental to helping Legal World and Physical World people to stop talking past each other, I’d like to bring up the Four Agreements, by Don Miguel Ruiz

You can read about where the Four Agreements various places including here. The author of the blog post, John Johnson, is a professor of psychology so perhaps it is the “best available science”, which, clearly, we should all use!. Suffice it to say that many people have found these helpful in working through relationships with others. Perhaps organizations can’t do these for various reasons, and that would be worth exploring. But I think that fundamentally “not doing what you say you are going to do” is the basis for serious trust problems, that clearly we have on both “sides” and in the middle.

They are:
1. Be impeccable with your word. Moving the goalposts of what you say you want to resolve an issue is one example, or not monitoring when you said you would, or not following BMP’s.

2. Don’t take anything personally.

Sharon’s 2a Don’t mean anything personally. Castigate the behavior not the person (or the sin and not the sinner if you prefer that language). I think it’s important not to get caught up in that and I will provide an example. I think using “organization x” “district ranger y” will help depersonalize the issues.

3. Don’t make assumptions. (see how real this is? Matthew thought I was doing that yesterday)

4. Always do your best. (not sure that this relates to our discussion, but still worthwhile)

Anyway, back to John who said here

When I took natural resource conflict resolution courses at the University of Montana (several years ago) the instructors talked about your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). If your BATNA outweighed what you’d be getting in the collaborative, it was time to think long and hard about going with the BATNA.

What do folks think about a situation in which a group starts in a collaborative process but then determines that their interests/needs won’t be met through a collaborative process? In other words, if you go into it looking to collaborate but determine your needs won’t be met are you then allowed to go to court?

So John caused me to think about a couple of things. One is that perhaps we could get a volunteer to teach a mini- course for us in conflict resolution. I learned from Keith Allred at the Kennedy School SES training. But the training I wanted to take from the USIECR was fairly expensive and I couldn’t justify it with waning budgets and looming retirement. So we should probably explore that further.. if we could all learn together. Maybe a project for a graduate student? Retiree?

The second is that we learned about BATNA’s and did exercises using labor relations. But using those same thoughts frames the question as “us versus them.” Before I retired, we had an excellent all day training on the “Partnership Agreement.” One of the things they talked about (I think in terms of administrative grievances or discrimination complaints) was “”negotiating in good faith.”

So here’s my example. This reminded me of environmental organization X. We had worked on Colorado Roadless for seven years. At each comment period they moved the bar. In fact, I had developed a table of all the different times they wrote (this is public) and told us what they wanted. Each time we gave it to them, and they moved the bar, which I showed in the table. They must think it is OK to do this, because they were getting more of what they wanted (or is that making assumptions?) But they were not being impeccable with their word as far as I can tell. Does the end justify the means? (I don’t know why it was so important to please them- they had the ear of R and D administrations, but that’s another issue).

So my answer to John’s question, is “just be upfront with your needs. Write them down. Share them. Then litigate if you don’t get your “needs” met. But don’t tell us that the real problem is that folks wrote one page instead of five pages on cumulative effects, when you really don’t want to cut down trees there.” It is perhaps too strong to say that that that behavior is dishonest, because the system works that way, but that’s how it feels to some of us in Physical World.

Science synthesis to help guide land management of nation’s forests

by

clean_salvage-06

Key findings from the synthesis were:

  • Efforts to promote resilience of socioecological systems increasingly consider the interaction of social values and ecological processes in pursuit of long-term mutual benefits and social learning for local communities and larger social networks.

  • Research indicates that strategic placement of treatments to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations and to restore fire as an ecosystem process within fire sheds can lower the risk for undesirable social and ecological outcomes associated with uncharacteristically large, severe, and dangerous fires, which include impacts to wildlife species of concern, such as the fisher and California spotted owl.

  • Science generally supports active treatment in some riparian and core wildlife zones to restore fire regimes. However, adaptive management, including experimentation at large landscape scales, is needed to evaluate which areas are priorities for treatment and what levels of treatment produce beneficial or neutral impacts to wildlife species and other socioecological values over long periods.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/ufs–sst022013.php

Yep, this is what we are already doing on my Ranger District. It is always important to focus on what we are leaving, rather than what is being removed. We still have longstanding limitations of protecting old growth and a ban on clearcutting. The picture is an example of salvage logging just six months after completion.

Winter Reflection

by

It is especially so, in a profession like forestry, that some of us get a chance to reflect on what has happened, and what might happen. Some of us find other ways of being outdoors and enjoying nature. My winter “data collection” involves sampling, organizing and capturing millions of scenic “data points” in a pleasing manner. Sometimes one has an entire winter to look at a problem from a new point of view than they had before. Being more moderate, I keep and cultivate an open mind, welcoming new points of view to scrutinize. Anyone who said that collaboration, consensus and compromise would be easy and painless was lying to you. Like in photography, scientific studies can use composition, depth of field and field of view to adjust what the viewer sees, and doesn’t see. A telephoto lens and a polarizing filter can dramatically affect what you want the viewer to see.

P9099357-web

My young nephew called and invited me to take the extra bed in his Yosemite Lodge room. I hustled to get down there and we enjoyed a nice dinner, after I made Isaac and his friend some potent “Snugglers”. The three of us skied at Badger Pass, with glorious conditions the next day. The last morning, I took them to this secret spot along the Merced River. I never fail to get great pictures at this little-known spot, and I greedily sucked up more than my share of nice shots.

www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware