conflict resolution

Thank You, Dr. King

by

Sure, Dr. King was concerned about the great issues of the day, war and peace and civil rights. But some of the things he said about peace also relate to environmental conflicts. Things to think about.

In honor of our holiday honoring Dr. King, I selected some quotes that may be worthy of our consideration with regard to our daily “environmental conflict” lives.

We will never have peace in the world until men everywhere recognize that ends are not cut off from means, because the means represent the ideal in the making, and the end in process. Ultimately, you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.

Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.

Thank you, Dr. King.

(note, this is a repost from 2011)

“Scientific Integrity” and Klamath Dam Fish Fight

by

People disagree; scientists disagree, and yet people have to manage them, and data, and interpersonal, supervisor and inter-institutional bad chemistry, dislikes, vendettas and power struggles. It’s not easy to do that.

In my view, real “scientific integrity” involves QA/QC, and data and review that are open and transparent. Anyway, I just saw the Nature article on the Klamath fish fight in Roger Pielke Jrs.’ Twitter feed, though I had seen the PEER document earlier.

Here’s a link to the Nature blog post and below is an excerpt:

Seven US fisheries scientists have raised a formal complaint claiming that a supervisor threatened to eliminate their research division after the team produced controversial model predictions of survival and recovery of the threatened coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon.

“This falls into the basket of obstruction of science for policy or political ends,” says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), based in Washington, DC. The watchdog group filed the complaint of scientific misconduct on 7 January to the Department of Interior on behalf of the scientists who work at the US Bureau of Reclamation office in Klamath Falls, Oregon.

For years, federal research on Klamath Basin fish and wildlife has been caught in an intense debate about whether to tear down a series of hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Many environmentalists have blamed the dams for salmon die-offs and ecological decline, but some researchers have questioned the magnitude of expected benefits from dam removal.

The letter alleges that Klamath Basin Area Office manager Jason Phillips violated the agency’s scientific integrity policy adopted in 2011 as part of President Barack Obama’s nation-wide initiative to protect science from political interference. According to the letter, the scientists believe Phillips intended to shut down the research group — known as the Fisheries Resources Branch — after perceiving the team’s work on salmon and other fish contradicted the plans and findings of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The documents are linked in the Nature article. My point is that the scientists disagree. That’s OK, in fact that’s what makes science go! We just don’t have good scientific conflict identification and resolution mechanisms, IMHO.

Once upon a time, so long ago that I doubt that many people who are still working remember it, I went to a all Region 6 meeting on biodiversity. I remember that Jerry Franklin gave a talk and said something about genetics that the geneticists there disagreed with. So we went up to Jerry afterwards and said “but Jerry, geneticists don’t agree with that” and he said something along the lines of , “well I spoke with geneticist X. Why don’t you all get your stuff together?” (this may sound a bit abrupt but he didn’t actually say it abruptly, more with a tone of exasperation as in “how is anyone else supposed to know?”) Which is really, when you think about it, a darn good question.

At the time I remember thinking, “well, of course, there is actually no mechanism for “getting your stuff together.”

What do we have?

1) Meetings where each scientist does a presentation with 5 minutes for questions. Not much can happen in terms of dialogue on deep subjects in 5 minutes.

2) Journals… well, you can’t really have back and forth.

3) Blogs.. you can but many folks don’t feel that that’s their job to discuss with other scientists who disagree (and everyone is busy, so you understand). These can also degenerate.

4) “Science” panels. Usually they only pick one of each discipline, so you don’t get to hear within-discipline disagreements.

5) Regulator vs. regulated agency science disputes. Goal of managers is to put them to bed and move on… not to understand what is really true scientifically. No patience or public transparency. This is probably also true for private firms with in-house scientists that are regulated by agencies, but I don’t have direct experience with those.)

Anyway, I think a well structured, disciplined, and public discussion of points of view of NOAA, FWS, BOR and anyone else involved could move our mutual knowledge forward. I think “scientific integrity” is a total red herring (so to speak) in this case.

One more thing…if I were Congress I would only let one agency be funded to study one topic. We could save enormous amounts of money if several agencies were not allowed to pursue the same research topics without requirements, management and accountability for coordination (at least, and preferably some kind of utility in minds other than that of those to be funded). I personally have been in climate change research meetings where it appeared that BOR, USGS, and FWS were studying exactly the same thing; and obviously not required to, nor actually doing any, coordinating. Add NOAA and USDA to the mix, and you basically have a research pigpile at the public trough. At some of those research stakeholder meetings, I was embarrassed to be a fed. As in the Klamath case, to have a dispute, three agencies must have been studying the same thing.

Can we bridge the ideological divide on crucial conservation issues? The Science of Conversion

by

Check out this post on Bob Berwyn’s blog.
Some thoughts:

1. If you had read Doug Bevington’s book (recommended reading), you wouldn’t see the polarization between parties as “astounding.” According to that book, it was the conscious choice of national and other green groups to ally themselves with one party.

2. Believing that people are in one or another group versus a combination of thoughts and values on different topics is rather dehumanizing. That makes it easy to think of them as “other” and to study them rather than listen to them as human beings. This often happens to rural folks. Who controls the agenda of “science”? Generally a set of folks. Who gets treated as objects to be studies rather than listened to? Generally another set of folks.

3. Like many scientific studies, this one has many implicit values. Because I was a federal employee and had to work for people of both political parties, I don’t remember any R’s being “for” deforestation or toxic waste. Just sayin’. I think the world is a little more complex than being portrayed.

4. Finally, framing things as moral issues can be tricky. In my experience, it tends to be the last resort of someone who wants to tell you what to do or think, when you don’t agree and don’t find that person’s arguments to be convincing. There are general moral principles that most all folks agree on but often environmental questions are what Rushworth Kidder would call “right vs. right” in his book How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living (recommended reading). Also, framing things as moral issues tends to needlessly get people riled. That can lead to bad things like the Inquisition or .. well you can name your own .. current or historic.

You all across the country probably didn’t see this but in Boulder there was the following behavior you can read about in a story here Boulder County condemns ‘mob harassment, cursing and intimidation’ at fracking hearing:Commissioners announce security plan for future meetings:

Upon returning, Domenico, chairwoman of the board, asked the crowd to “behave in a manner that is respectful” so the board would have a chance to hear everyone who wanted to speak.

“In my mind, the fundamental problem with the hearing we had last night was the behavior of a certain subset of the folks who were there that were really determined to intimidate anyone who had a different perspective,” Toor said Wednesday. “In order to have a democratic process, you have to have an environment where everyone is able to safely express their opinions.”

Other “troubling” behavior cited by the board in its statement included jeering of Wendy Wiedenbeck, a Denver-based community relations adviser for Encana Oil and Gas USA, during her presentation at the meeting and the “mob harassment, cursing and intimidation” some protesters engaged in as they followed Wiedenbeck to her car later.

“Suppressing alternative comments and shutting out voices through intimidation and fear is not part of the democratic process we hold dear,” the commissioners’ statement read. “Last night’s effort by a small segment of attendees to threaten and intimidate a speaker walking to her car was nothing short of shameful. Public hearings should create a space for everyone to feel comfortable to participate.”

Wiedenbeck, and Encana employee since 2004, said in an email that she has attended hundreds of public hearings on behalf of the company and has never encountered as much harassment as she did Tuesday. Even after trying to leave the area, she said, protesters followed her, blocked the path of her car and pounded on her windows.

Once you have determined that the “other” is not like you, and is “immoral” to boot, then it becomes OK to engage in behavior that is disrespectful or hurtful.

5. It creeps me out when people subvert a noble goal, “departisanization” which I fully support, by not listening to both sides and finding a center of shared values, but by attempting to convert the people who disagree in a vaguely underhanded (er… immoral?) way. Ick!

Canada (BC) and US (Tongass) Forest Policy Comparisons: Nie and Hoberg

by

Check out these videos from Policy Issues in the Pacific Coastal Temperate Rainforest of North America On April 19, 2012. I thought it was extremely interesting to compare what happens in our system of court-governance compared to Canada’s and the way they work and results in neighboring and connected forests. Props to Bruce Botelho (City and Borough of Juneau) for organizing, moderating and posting such an interesting panel.

In Part 1, Nie and Hoberg compare the governance, processes and products of policy between countries.

In Part 2, Nie and Hoberg are part of a larger panel.

If you only have a small amount of time, about 16 minutes into Part 2 is a discussion of the role of litigation. About 47 minutes in is a discussion of Forest Service culture.

In response to a question, Martin suggests a land law review. I’ve got some links to the Natural Resource Law Center’s of the University of Colorado Law School’s progam, powerpoints and videos of its conference on that topic in 2010. but some appear to be broken so I’ll post those once I contact folks there and get them fixed.

They also touch upon jobs, local communities, and other topics.

One thing of interest to me (there were many) was when Hoberg said that he didn’t feel that 30% protected was “enough” because of the importance of that area. It is interesting how rainforests can be all about old growth and protection, while it is harder to make that same case in areas of frequent fires. Maybe we need two separate ways to think about conservation..clearly delineated so that rainy ideas are not projected onto non-rainy areas and vice versa. Also discussion on collaboration and comparing Alaska and other collaborative efforts, and Martin Nie gives his opinion on the new planning rule.

We hobbyist policy wonks usually don’t have funding to get out and about, and the video plus any discussion here seems like a great way to expand the mind and the dialogue with new ideas. Here is a link to the whole session program. Some of those look interesting as well, would appreciate any comments from folks who have viewed the other sessions.

I’d be interested to hear from you all anything that strikes you about these discussions, and if the contrast between US and Canadian systems provides any thoughts for you about improving our processes in the US.

Patty Limerick on Depolarization

by

This is an op-ed in the Denver Post by Dr.Patty Limerick of the Center of the American West. Note: you can order T-shirts with Gifford Pinchot’s quote here. I am posting because some of the research she cites may be just as true of positions and debates over land management. (I feel the same as she about being “civilian casualties” in a “battleground” state.)

Here’s the link, and below are some excerpts.

CU psychology professor Leaf Van Boven has been doing extraordinary research challenging the popular perception that polarization is the operating mode preferred by the American citizenry, and revealing, instead, the existence of a majority of moderates.

Van Boven’s work makes a close match to the findings of CU business professor Philip M. Fernbach. People asked to “justify” their political position become more entrenched and less moderate, Fernbach reports in a New York Times essay co-authored with Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown University. But ask people to “explain how [their] policy ideas work,” and “they become more moderate in their political views.” When people “explain, not just assert” they come to recognize the limits of their knowledge and become correspondingly more flexible and tolerant.

Thus, Sloman and Fernbach argue, if we are tired of extremism, “we can start to fix it by acknowledging that we know a lot less than we think.”

In a campaign season in which advertisements, speeches, and debate performances consisted almost entirely of assertion, the idea of “explaining” comes forward as a wonderfully appealing and restorative alternative.

And..

Fellow citizens, public officials, and aspiring candidates, join me in starting this Wednesday in this manner: contemplate what Adams wrote to Jefferson on July 15, 1813, and then imagine a world in which we took to heart the example that these two old men bequeathed to us:

“You and I ought not to die, before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

We do a great deal of this on this blog, and hope that we continue to do so.

“Thinking Differently and Acting Alike” from Roger Pielke, Jr.

by

Here’s a link to a Roger Pielke, Jr., piece in Foreign Policy. Here’s a link to yesterday’s post on his blog about it. The comments are fairly interesting also.

Of course, climate issues are of interest to people on this blog, but I especially liked this quote:

The vast complexity of the climate issue offers many avenues for action across a range of different issues. What we need is the wisdom to have a constructive debate on climate policy options without all the vitriolic proxy battles. The anger and destructiveness seen from both sides of this debate will not be going away, of course, but constructive debate will move on to focus on goals that can actually be accomplished. To paraphrase the great columnist Walter Lippmann, politics is not about getting people to think alike, but about getting people who think differently to act alike. The climate issue will never be solved completely, but it’s still possible for us to make things better or worse.

I wonder what would be the equivalent in our public lands debates for “results that can actually be accomplished”?

Below is an excerpt of the Foreign Policy piece that focuses on “what should we do next?”

So what’s the next step? For years — decades, even — science has shown convincingly that human activities have an impact on the planet. That impact includes but is not limited to carbon dioxide. We are indeed running risks with the future climate through the unmitigated release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and none of the schemes attempted so far has made even a dent in the problem. While the climate wars will go on, characterized by a poisonous mix dodgy science, personal attacks, and partisan warfare, the good news is that progress can yet be made outside of this battle.

The key to securing action on climate change may be to break the problem into more manageable parts. This should involve recognizing that human-caused climate change involves more than just carbon dioxide. This is already happening. A coalition of activists and politicians, including numerous prominent scientists, have argued that there are practical reasons to focus attention on “non-carbon forcings” — human influences on the climate system other than carbon dioxide emissions. The U.N. Environment Program argues that actions like reducing soot and methane could “save close to 2.5 million lives a year; avoid crop losses amounting to 32 million tons annually and deliver near-term climate protection of about half a degree Celsius by 2040.”

Some of these opportunities are political. For instance, in the United States, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a loud and theatrical opponent to most action related to climate, supports action on non-carbon forcings, particularly efforts to reduce the amount of particulates in the air. As he explained to the Guardian “Al Gore probably would be against automobile accidents and I am too. This has nothing to do with the CO2 issue.” The lesson here is that if Gore and Inhofe can find common political ground on one important aspect of the issue, then there is plenty of hope for progress.

Other human influences on climate, such as those caused by chlorofluorocarbons, which are also known to impact the ozone layer, offer other tantalizing opportunities for progress while circumventing the most gridlocked parts of the debate. Similarly, the global demand for huge amounts of energy in coming decades provides a compelling rationale for energy technology innovation independent of the climate issue.

Of course, we can’t ignore carbon dioxide. Carbon emissions will remain a vexing problem because they are so tightly bound to the production of most of the world’s energy, which in turn supports the functioning of the global economy. But even here the situation may not be hopeless. America’s recent boom in the production of shale gas illustrates the virtuousness of innovation: In the United States, shale gas has become widely available and inexpensive due to technologies developed by the government and private sector over decades and has displaced large amounts of coal in a remarkably short time, dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the process. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 were lower than those of 1996, even though GDP increased by more than 40 percent after inflation.

Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, because it is still carbon intensive, but the rapidly declining U.S. emissions prove an essential policy point: Make clean(er) energy cheap, and dirty energy will be quickly displaced. To secure cheap energy alternatives requires innovation — technological, but also institutional and social. Nuclear power offers the promise of large scale carbon-free energy, but is currently expensive and controversial. Carbon capture from coal and gas, large-scale wind, and solar each offer tantalizing possibilities, but remain technologically immature and expensive, especially when compared to gas. The innovation challenge is enormous, but so is the scale of the problem. A focus on innovation — not on debates over climate science or a mythical high carbon price — is where we’ll make process.

The vast complexity of the climate issue offers many avenues for action across a range of different issues. What we need is the wisdom to have a constructive debate on climate policy options without all the vitriolic proxy battles. The anger and destructiveness seen from both sides of this debate will not be going away, of course, but constructive debate will move on to focus on goals that can actually be accomplished. To paraphrase the great columnist Walter Lippmann, politics is not about getting people to think alike, but about getting people who think differently to act alike. The climate issue will never be solved completely, but it’s still possible for us to make things better or worse.

I’m all for doing better.

Why Won’t They Listen? ‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt

by

I don’t know if this is a good book or not. I don’t know if us talking about it might lead to partisan unpleasantness (I sincerely hope not, there’s enough of that to go around). I just read the review in the NY Times here today. But it seems like in our little area of interest, our blog might be working toward the needs that Haidt’s research suggests.

Our task, then, is to organize society so that reason and intuition interact in healthy ways. Haidt’s research suggests several broad guidelines. First, we need to help citizens develop sympathetic relationships so that they seek to understand one another instead of using reason to parry opposing views. Second, we need to create time for contemplation. Research shows that two minutes of reflection on a good argument can change a person’s mind. Third, we need to break up our ideological segregation. From 1976 to 2008, the proportion of Americans living in highly partisan counties increased from 27 percent to 48 percent. The Internet exacerbates this problem by helping each user find evidence that supports his views.

I think I’ll order it from the library and see if there is more relevant information therein.

The Way of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

by

Sure, Dr. King was concerned about the great issues of the day, war and peace and civil rights. But some of the things he said about peace also relate to environmental conflicts. Things to think about.

THE WAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, Jr.
Six Principles of Non-Violence

1. Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people —
It is active non-violent resistance to evil.
It is aggressive spiritually, mentally and emotionally.
It is always persuading the opponent of the righteousness of your cause.

2. Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding —
The end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.
The purpose of nonviolence is the creation of the Beloved Community.

3. Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people —
Nonviolence recognizes that evils doers are also victims and are not evil people.
The nonviolent resister seeks to defeat evil, not people.

4. Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform —
Nonviolence accepts suffering without retaliation.
Nonviolence accepts violence if necessary but will never inflict it.
Nonviolence willingly accepts the consequences of its acts.
Unearned suffering is redemptive and has tremendous educational and transforming possibilities.
Suffering has the power to convert the enemy when reason fails.

5. Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate ––
Nonviolence resists violence of the spirit as well as the body.
Nonviolent love is spontaneous, unmotivated, unselfish and creative.
Nonviolent love gives willingly, knowing that the return might be hostility.
Nonviolent love is active, not passive.
Nonviolent love is unending in its ability to forgive in order to restore community.
Nonviolent love does not sink to the level of the hater.
Love for the enemy is how we demonstrate love for ourselves.
Love restores community and resists injustice.
Nonviolence recognizes the fact that all life is interrelated.

6. Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice–
The nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win.
Nonviolence believes that God is a God of Justice.

Definition for BELOVED COMMUNITY – Term coined by philosopher Josiah Royce to denote an ideal community, used frequently by Dr. King to describe a society of justice, peace and harmony which can be achieved through nonviolence. In his sermon at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, on April 2, 1957, Dr. King said, “The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community.” (from the Glossary of Nonviolence).

In my copy of these principles, it says that they are derived from Dr. King’s
“Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Here’s the link to the King Center in Atlanta. Their digital archive is amazing.

The King Center Imaging Project

The King Center Imaging Project brings the works and papers of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to a digital generation. JPMorgan Chase & Co. began the project in April of 2011 with the intent to preserve, digitize and make publically available some of the extensive holdings of The King Center Archive collection.

Through the JPMorgan Chase’s Technology for Social Good program, a team of highly skilled individuals has been organized to help digitize more than 1 million documents. The team consists of imaging and archival experts, as well as students from Morehouse and Spelman Colleges, the King family’s alma maters and US Veterans from the US Veterans Curation Program.

The digital archive is a dynamic collection. Visitors are encouraged to check back regularly, as new content is always being added to the site.

Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You don’t have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love.

– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The Drum Major Instinct”
Delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, February 4, 1968

Webinar Tomorrow on Conflict Management in Planning

by

Webinar tomorrow on conflict management in planning.
Here’s the link.
Don’t miss this upcoming Live Webinar sponsored by: USDA Forest Service .

Title: What do you do when people start throwing food at the table? A conflict management perspective

Session Details:
Nov 18, 2011 12:00 pm US/Eastern Duration: 01:00 (hh:mm) vCal iCal
*** Please join the session 15 minutes prior to the start of the webinar. ***

What will you learn?
The 2011 Changing Roles webinar series has a theme: Considering Natural Resources in Land-Use Decision Making Processes. Natural resource professionals often refer to “being at the table” in reference to their participation in multi-stakeholder processes such as land-use planning and therefore, this same language is used in the session titles of this series. Each session will address the theme from a different perspective. This is the final webinar in the four-session series. This session will address common challenges faced in multi-stakeholder group processes and is aimed at resource professionals who are already “at the table” and engaged in land-use planning processes. This webinar will present strategies for working through conflict to create solutions to complex and contentious land-use issues. learn more here…

Who should participate?
Foresters, Land Managers, Natural Resource Professionals, Planners

Presenters/Authors:
Steve Smutko, Spicer Chair of Collaborative Practice, University of Wyoming, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics

There are many other interesting webinars and other information at this site. I liked this one about Carbon and Forest Products.

Colt Summit Map and FWS Concurrence Letter

by

It seems like this project has led to much discussion so..
Here’s the map of this project..

Given the discussion of wildlife impacts on previous posts, I thought it might be enlightening to review the FWS letter on the project.
Here is the link (the FWS letter is listed under “supporting”):

The proposed action consists of activities to improve habitat conditions for wildlife and restore forest conditions by developing a diverse mix of vegetative composition and structure that better represents historical conditions for the area. Activities include: vegetative treatments including prescribed fire on about 2,043 acres; decommissioning 4.1 miles of road along Colt creek; maintaining approximately 17 miles of existing roads under Forest jurisdiction and implementing BMPs where necessary; constructing approximately 3 miles of temporary roads and snowroads;
storing or decommissioning 25.2 additional miles of road; allowing 9.9 miles of road which is closed to public access and naturally restored to remain in this condition; replacing two aquatic barrier culverts; and conducting ground-based noxious weed herbicide treatments. All temporary roads and snowroads would be decommissioned following completion of the vegetation management activities. The proposed action consists of two distinct parcels that lie directly across highway 83 from one another and are in close proximity to a cluster of private homes.

Further information regarding the proposed action was provided in the biological assessment. The Service has reviewed the biological assessment and concurs with the determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), or designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13 (a), formal consultation on these species is not required.
The Service bases its concurrence on the information and analysis in the biological assessment prepared by Scott Tomson, East Zone Wildlife Biologist. The proposed action is located within the Northern Continental Dived grizzly bear ecosystem (NCDE), in the Swan subunit and the Mission subunit, and outside of the NCDE where grizzly bears may occur. Although temporary roads will be constructed during the grizzly bear non-denning period, they will only be used for harvesting activities during the grizzly bear denning period with the exception of units 6 and 7 which are located along Highway 83. These temporary roads would primarily be snowroads, would only be used for access/hauling, would be closed yearlong to the public, and would be decommissioned upon project completion. Some BMP would be conducted on approximately 7.1 miles of roads and trails. The best grizzly bear habitat in the vicinity of the project provides spring habitat and the majority of road work, including road construction, would occur from July 1 through April 1, outside of the spring period. The road along Colt Creek would be decommissioned and re-routed in lower quality habitat at mid slope, closer to private land along the Highway 83 corridor. Although this re-route would result in a half mile increase in linear road density, the action would result in a more desirable condition for grizzly bears overall. Upon completion of the project, total road density would decrease by 4 percent and security core would increase by 1 percent (330 acres) within the Mission Subunit. Open road density would decrease by 1 percent within the Swan subunit. Also, the re-routed road would be closed during the spring season (April 1 through June 30). In addition to access management related impacts, project related activities may result in minor effects to cover; however, adequate forest cover would be retained within the action area. The potential for some activities to result in disturbance to grizzly bears does exist. However, most of the activity would occur during the grizzly bear denning period. Also, adequate displacement areas within the Bob Marshal Wilderness and Mission Mountain Wilderness are within close proximity to the project activities. A district-wide bear attractant order is in place which requires safe storage of all bear attractants.
The proposed action is located with the Clearwater Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) in areas also designated as critical habitat for Canada lynx, containing primary constituent elements (PCEs). No precommercial thinning is planned and the stands selected for treatment are not considered mesic, multi-storied forests providing quality snowshoe hare habitat (lynx foraging habitat). Therefore, lynx foraging habitat (PCE1a) would not be impacted. Some temporary snowroads would be constructed for harvesting activities and most activity will occur during the winter. Therefore, some additional snow compaction would occur as a result of the action. However, such impacts would be minimal to lynx and to PCE1b. The project area is not considered to be high quality denning habitat (PCE1c). Large blocks of mature forest with significant amounts of coarse woody debris occur within the LAU and denning habitat is not considered limiting on the landscape. Therefore, impacts to denning habitat (PCE1c) would be minimal. Finally, the project area includes some matrix habitat (PCE1d). All treatments proposed would maintain the forested nature of the stands, thus maintaining the ability of lynx to travel through matrix habitat (PCE1d). Habitat connectivity would be maintained and the action would not result in permanent destruction of lynx or snowshoe hare habitat. The proposed action is consistent with all applicable standards and guidelines of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction.
We agree with the conclusions in the biological assessment that project related impacts to grizzly bears, Canada lynx, and designated critical habitat for Canada lynx would be insignificant.