Thoughts on Resolving the Forest Controversy in the Tanana Basin

by Anne Ruggles
Alaska Boreal Forest Council Miscellaneous Publication No. 2.

Anne Ruggles is a biologist and teacher. She was a member of the Alaska Wolf Management Planning Team, a citizen consensus-building team convened by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1991, and is a former member of the Alaska Board of Game. Anne receives email at aruggles@igc.org.

Executive Summary

The Division of Forestry's current approach to public process has severe short-comings. It promotes confrontation by forcing the public to react to its proposed plans. The Division is placed in the middle of the conflict with no unbiased, fair way to reflect the public's concerns and values in its decisions. Distrust of Division staff is so great that, unless significant changes are made in their public process, satisfactory resolution of controversial forest issues is unlikely.

Amendments have recently been proposed to the planning schedule for revision of the Tanana Valley State Forest (TVSF) Management Plan that will increase opportunities for the public's concerns to be heard. Still lacking, however, is a clear means for the public to participate in planning decisions and have some assurance that their concerns are fairly reflected in the agency's decisions.

One idea the Division of Forestry might consider to further strengthen the public process is to reorganize the existing TVSF Citizens' Advisory Committee to function as a consensus-building team. A facilitated team approach could produce recommendations for revision of the forest management plan that most people could accept or support, if three crucial changes were made. First, the makeup of the committee should be changed to more adequately reflect and represent the diverse interests of the residents of the Tanana Basin. Second, the Citizens' Advisory Committee should be empowered to identify and resolve key issues by consensus. Third, the Division of Forestry needs to be willing to implement publicly derived solutions to forest management issues to the extent possible within legal, biological, and fiscal constraints.

Experience locally and elsewhere suggests that consensus-building techniques can forge acceptable solutions to forest management issues where other methods have failed. Consensus-building approaches are effective because they fairly involve and provide results for all interested parties, but agency commitment to the process and its results is essential for the process to work. The facilitated, open dialogue builds trust among the interested parties and with the agency, and encourages participants to find common ground.

Considerable expertise and experience in using consensus-building techniques in natural resource management disputes exists in the community through the University, the Department of Fish and Game, and members of the public who have participated in consensus-building teams. Local residents are already aware of the technique and supportive of agency efforts to involve them in this fashion. By working with people in the community who have this experience, the Division of Forestry could more quickly and efficiently put consensus-building techniques to work for them, avoid many mistakes others have made, and greatly increase the likelihood of reaching satisfactory resolution of the local forest controversy.

The Challenge

Statutes recognize that State forests provide many values to society.[1] They direct state foresters to manage for multiple use,[2] sustained yield, and to "provide for the continuation of businesses, activities, and lifestyles which are dependent upon or derived from forest resources."[3]

Division of Forestry (Department of Natural Resources) proposals[4] to substantially increase logging in the Tanana Valley State Forest have many residents of the Tanana Basin concerned. Many residents believe that proposed levels of timber harvest will detrimentally affect the forest ecosystem and people's livelihoods, lifestyles and quality of life.[5] Residents rallied to oppose the addition of larger-scale timber sales to the TVSF Operations Schedules and State efforts to negotiate long-term management agreements with large timber companies.[6,7,8,9] Distrust of the Division of Forestry and the forest industry is high,[10,11] and opinions have become polarized.

Public interest in the scheduled revision of the TVSF Management Plan[12] has grown as people have begun to realize just what is at stake. The magnitude of the proposals has increased the potential for impact on both the forest ecosystem and people's lives, and exceeds the guidelines for harvest in the plan as currently written.[13] Thus, the public's stake in the outcome is high. Residents want a public process that fairly addresses their concerns.

The challenge for the Division of Forestry is to recognize and accept the need to change its relationship with the public. Only by working more closely with the public, as resource management partners, can the Division hope to regain public trust so it can again become an effective steward of the forest resources entrusted to its care.

The challenge for the people of the Tanana Basin is to find ways to work together to revise the Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan in ways that most residents can accept or support.

Failure to meet these challenges will likely result in worsened relations between State managers and local residents, further polarization and strife among residents with different views, and efforts by frustrated residents to seek legal or political alternatives to delay or stop management actions by the Division of Forestry.[14,15]

New Perspective Needed

Planning for the management of natural resources on public lands has become more complex and controversial in recent years. Public attitudes and values have been steadily evolving, and today are more diverse[16,17] and less product-oriented than in the past.[18] Often, changes in the management styles and direction of agencies responsible for public lands and resources have not kept pace with public expectations.[19] Indeed, the narrow focus of many professionals and agencies has been central to many resource management conflicts.[20] However, some professionals are beginning to realize that continued agency perception of land and resources as simple commodities is one of the main impediments to integrating other human values and ecological considerations into the decision-making process.[21]

Increasingly, traditional approaches that attempt to "sell" the management strategies of the professional forester or wildlife biologist are meeting public resistance and, in many cases, the relationship between management professionals and the public is worsening. The public is no longer content to let foresters, wildlife biologists, or other professionals have free rein to manage public resources on their behalf. They are demanding more active and effective participation in management decisions.[22]

Agencies are realizing they must ask the public, their "customers," what they want, rather than presume to know what they want or what is "best".[23] Agencies have learned the hard way that dissatisfied citizens can stop their programs.[24]

New and innovative ways are needed to resolve these resource management disputes and allow for the development of management decisions that most of the public can accept and support. One of seven recommendations from a meeting of 135 of the nation's leading scientists and resource professionals in 1992 was that our country and its resources community "develop and implement mechanisms to improve the fair and open participation of all interested parties in decision-making on resources issues by incorporating techniques for conflict management and resolution."[25]

Increasingly, agencies are turning to consensus-building techniques to meet these new challenges.[26] These techniques[27] succeed where others[28] fail because, when properly done, they involve the stakeholders (those potentially affected by the outcome and who could successfully challenge it) in a fair process whereby public and agency representatives jointly prepare management decisions.[29,30,31] An agency cannot be perceived as using a public planning process as a way to justify a pre-determined result or program.[32] Agencies who have tried consensus-building approaches have found that reasonable people make reasonable recommendations, and that most people can be reasonable.[33]

Learning From Local Experiences

Locally, there have been several attempts by a sister agency, the Division of Wildlife Conservation (Department of Fish and Game), to use citizen consensus-building teams to attempt resolution of controversial issues (wolf management, management of Creamer's Refuge, and bison management in the Delta area). The citizen teams worked well, reaching consensus on many points which, in turn, provided the basis for the Department's planning efforts. Use of a citizen consensus-building team and subsequent efforts by Fairbanks staff to build consensus among local constituents were insufficient to resolve the wolf management conflict, but progress on the other two, more locally focused issues, has been rewarding. Many residents have expressed support for the process and appreciation of the agency for involving them in this manner. Much has been learned that will greatly reduce the chance of failure in future efforts,[34] whether they be by the Division of Wildlife Conservation or other agencies.

Another excellent source for information on environmental dispute resolution and consensus-building techniques is Ms. Susan Todd,[35] who studied the Alaska Wolf Management Planning Team[36] and two similar consensus-building teams in the Yukon and British Columbia. Ms. Todd, who is currently finishing her dissertation Designing Effective Negotiating Teams for Environmental Disputes: An Analysis of Three Wolf Management Plans, also teaches classes in resource planning and environmental dispute resolution at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks. Her dissertation evaluates the usefulness of citizen consensus-building teams as a technique for resolving natural resource controversies and provides recommendations for its use.[37]

Applying This Experience To The Forest Controversy

The scheduled revision of the management plan for the Tanana Valley State Forest could, if the process is properly designed, provide an opportunity for residents of the Tanana Basin to address and resolve concerns central to the current controversy. Recently proposed amendments[38] to the planning schedule will increase opportunities for public concerns to be heard, but neither the original schedule[39] nor the proposed amendments provide a clear means for these concerns to be fairly reflected in the agency's planning decisions.

With changes, the existing Citizens' Advisory Committee could serve this function. The changes envisioned would give the committee a consensus-building role in the revision process, similar to that used by the Division of Wildlife Conservation in resolving wildlife management issues. The public's largely favorable experiences with the Division of Wildlife Conservation's use of citizen consensus-building teams suggests that a similar approach, used in conjunction with an amended schedule of public workshops, forums, and other means of public participation, would be welcomed by the public and would greatly strengthen the public process.

Public dissatisfaction with the existing advisory committee[40] is based on the inadequacies of the committee. The Citizens' Advisory Committee is perceived by many as not having an effective role in the decision-making process and not adequately representing all community interests in the forest.

The TVSF Citizens' Advisory Committee should be revised to fairly represent the diverse public interests in the forest and to ensure that the individuals representing those interests are knowledgeable, willing to work with others to find common ground, and are able to involve and influence their constituents. Researchers stress that this is one of the most crucial aspects of building a successful consensus-building team, and requires substantial effort and time on the part of the agency striving to use consensus techniques.[41]

The role of the committee should change; it currently spends its time reacting to proposals by the Division of Forestry. The Division should empower the committee to identify key issues and seek compromise solutions to them by consensus among its membership. The Division should then honor those recommendations to the extent possible within legal, biological, and fiscal constraints.

Once these changes are made, the role of the Division of Forestry will change to one of supporting the Citizens' Advisory Committee's work, representing agency interests on the committee, and preparing a draft planning document based on the committee's recommendations. It will also be responsible for providing numerous opportunities for the advisory committee to hear public testimony and discussion, and for carrying the work of the committee to the public at regular intervals. The proposed amendments to the planning schedule were offered to strengthen this aspect of the process.

Conclusion

Public dissatisfaction with the Division of Forestry's public process stems from two concerns:
(a) insufficient opportunity for public involvement throughout the planning process; and (b) no vehicle to fairly incorporate public testimony into management decisions. Many techniques are available for improving communications between the professional managers and the public they serve, and recent proposed amendments to the planning schedule are designed to provide additional opportunities for this exchange of ideas to occur.

However, the facilitated consensus-building team approach appears to be the only technique capable of fairly melding diverse public opinions into compromise solutions that all interested parties can accept. Although the Division's time, staffing and financial constraints may make it difficult for local foresters to support and facilitate consensus-building efforts, it is hoped that the Division will give serious consideration to doing so. The consensus-building team approach, in combination with an expanded schedule of public education and involvement, holds the most promise for producing forest management strategies that residents of the Tanana Basin can support.

Appendix I - Excerpts From Ms. Susan Todd's Dissertation

Basic elements common to successful consensus-building efforts:

Representatives of all the potentially-affected interests are invited to participate.
Representatives are involved in more than a "reactive" capacity.
Representatives engage in face-to-face dialogue.
The agenda and protocols are jointly developed.
Data are acquired and analyzed with direct participation of the citizens' group.
Alternatives are developed and evaluated collaboratively.
Decisions are made on the basis of a consensus of all those involved.
The stakeholders continue to be involved in monitoring implementation.

Recommendations for using consensus-building teams:

Most teams require a neutral facilitator who has experience working with the issues in dispute and who is not afraid to press for resolution.
Team members should be influential, articulate people who work well with others and are dedicated to finding a compromise.
Team members can be chosen by the agency, but the process for doing so must be perceived as fair, those chosen must be committed to finding common ground, and the final team must be balanced. Other alternatives may be preferable if the public greatly distrusts the agency.
The agency need not be part of the team. Teams function better when given more autonomy. However, when an agency participates, it is more likely to feel some ownership in the result.
Team members should represent general interests and not organized groups.
There should be tight deadlines, with a possibility of extensions, and meetings should take place at least twice a month.
A team's success is directly proportional to the authority vested in it.
The team should remain together following agreement in a semi-formal way to monitor and advocate implementation of the agreement.

Appendix II

Division of Forestry Planning Schedule:
Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan Review

January 15, 1994 Distribute all agency review recommendations to planning team.

January 31, 1994 Complete interim forest inventory report on volumes and acreage.

February 10,1994 Rerun fiber yield models.

February 15,1994 Planning team consideration of agency reviews.

February 25,1994 Planning team recommendations on issues to be reviewed.

Feb. 28 - Mar. 30, 1994 Public review period and input on issues to be reviewed.

April 15, 1994 Decision on topic and scope of items to be updated.

April 15, 1994 Identify information and data needs (resource and economic).

May 1994 - Jun. 17, 1994 Collect and compile information.

July 15, 1994 Planning team draft of options and recommendations on amendments.

July 30, 1994 Draft preliminary management guidelines.

Aug. 15 - Sep. 16, 1994 Public hearings.

September 30, 1994 Planning team recommendations.

October 14, 1994 Commissioner decision on plan amendment.

October 30, 1994 Review by Board of Forestry.

November 15, 1994 Adopt revised plan.

Appendix III

Alaska Boreal Forest Council's Proposed Amendments to the Division of Forestry Planning Schedule for the Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan Review

January 15, 1994 Distribute all agency review recommendations to planning team and Advisory Committee.

Jan. 15 - Feb. 10, 1994 Hold workshops with public to identify issues and concerns before the planning team begins work. Solicit sources of information for issues identified. Record input and facilitate small group discussions.

February 15, 1994 Planning team and Advisory Committee review and decide on issues identified by public and agency reviews.

Feb. 28 - Mar 30, 1994 Public review period. Communicate results of above (2/15/94) to public through newspaper and facilitate public review through digest of issues in newsletter. Ask public, "what have we missed in issue identification?"

May 1994 - Jun. 17, 1994 Collect and compile information. Make data reports on issues available to public.

July 15, 1994 Planning team draft of options and recommendations on amendments. Consider options on each issue. Communicate them to public (use matrix model with issues vs. options diagrams) as a workbook that public completes and sends back.

Jul. 15 - Jul. 30, 1994 Hold workshops to have community look at these options and have subgroups attempt to develop preferred alternative. Give direction that community wants.

July 30, 1994 Draft preliminary management guidelines by planning committee, considering preferred alternative developed in workshops (see above).

Aug. 15 - Sep. 16, 1994 Public hearings and workshops on the draft.

October 1994 Advisory Committee meets to consider final plan.

Footnotes

[1] The forest resources of Alaska are among the most valuable natural resources of the state, and furnish timber and wood products, fish and wildlife, tourism, outdoor recreation, water, soil, air, minerals, and general health and welfare (AS 41.17.010(1)).

[2] Forest land shall be administered for the multiple use of the renewable and nonrenewable resources and for the sustained yield of the renewable resources of the land in the manner which best provides for the present needs and preserves the future options of the people of the state (AS 41.17.060(c.1)). The primary purpose in the establishment of state forests is the perpetuation of personal, commercial, and other beneficial uses of resources through multiple-use management (AS 41.17.200).

[3] To the extent its capacity permits, forest lands shall be administered so as to provide for the continuation of businesses, activities, and lifestyles which are dependent upon or derived from forest resources (AS 41.17.060(c.3)).

[4]Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. Draft 1994-98 Tanana Valley State Forest 5-year Operations Schedule. Summer 1993.

[5]Dawe, J. C. , McCaffrey, R. J. , Whitworth, A. N. , Yates, D. A. (eds). Issues and Opportunities Related to Land Use Management in Interior Alaska: I. Public Comment on the Draft 1994-98 Division of Forestry Tanana Valley State Forest Operations Schedule. Fairbanks: Alaska Boreal Forest Council, February 1994.

[6] Ward, Sylvia. "Residents Defend Boreal Forest Against Increased Logging," The Northern Line, September 16, 1993, p. 3.

[7]Northern Alaska Environmental Center. Summary of Public Comments on Large-Scale Timber Development in the Tanana Valley. dated October 14, 1993.

[8]Ripley, Kate. "State reworks plan for Tanana logging," Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, October 14, 1993.

[9]Letter from the Alaska Boreal Forest Council to Commissioner Harry Noah, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, dated October 19, 1993.

[10] Dawe, J. C. , Whitworth, A. N. , McCaffrey, R. J., (eds), op. cit.

[11] Hunter, Celia. "Chips are flying in this forestry debate," Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, October 7, 1993.

[12] Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan. June 1988.

[13] Memorandum from Dave Wallingford, Regional Forester, Anchorage, to Bob Dick, State Forester, Division of Forestry, dated July 7, 1992, regarding Fibreform Wood Products' proposal; specifically, see item 8: "We can't conduct this size sale on the TVSF without amending the plan."

[14] Letter from Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. to Commissioner Harry Noah, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, dated September 14, 1993.

[15] Letter from Larry Mayo, Arctic Audubon Society, Fairbanks, to Brock Evans, National Audubon Society, dated November 23, 1993.

[16] Davis, Norah (ed.) "Congress on Renewable Natural Resources: Critical Issues and Concepts for the Twenty-First Century," Renewable Resources Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, Autumn 1992, p. 15.

[17]Haggstrom, Dale, Anne Ruggles, Catherine Harms and Robert Stephenson. Citizen Participation in Developing a Wolf Management Plan for Alaska: An Attempt to Resolve Conflicting Human Values and Perceptions, in prep, p. 21.

[18]Wagner, Frederic. Changing Institutional Arrangements for Setting National-Resources Policy. Utah State University, Logan 84322-5205, p. 4.

[19]Wagner, p. 6.

[20] Ibid., p. 6.

[21]Davis, p. 8.

[22]Barnhart, G., Henshaw, R., Proud, J. "Values, Mission and Vision: A Recipe for Success in the Twenty-First Century," Department of Environmental Conservation, New York, p. 13, presented at: 58th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1993.

[23] Ibid, p. 7.

[24] Ibid, p . 2.

[25]Davis, p. 3.

[26]Todd, Susan. Designing Effective Negotiating Teams for Environmental Disputes (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan, in prep.), p. 1.

[27] Carpenter, Susan L. and W. J. D. Kennedy. Managing Public Disputes. Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1991, pp. 26-29.

[28] Ibid, pp. 18-25.

[29] Davis, pp. 3, 15-18.

[30]Todd, p. 2.

[31] Crowfoot, James and Julia Wondolleck. Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Island Press, p. 20.

[32] Haggstrom et al., p. 16.

[33]Nelson, David. "Citizen Task Forces on Deer Management: A Case Study," Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, New York, presented at: 58th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1993.

[34] Haggstrom et al., pp. 16-19.

[35]301 O'Neill Building., University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775; Telephone 907-474-6930.

[36] Facilitated by Ms. Connie Lewis, Senior Associate, Science and Public Policy Program, Keystone Center,
P. O. Box 606, Keystone, CO 80435; Telephone 303-468-5822.

[37] See Appendix I: Excerpts from Ms. Susan Todd's dissertation.

[38] Letter from the Alaska Boreal Forest Council, Public Process Subcommittee, to members of the TVSF Citizens' Advisory Committee, dated January 11, 1994 (see Appendix III).

[39] Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. Planning Schedule: Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan Review. December 5, 1993 (see Appendix II).

[40] Tom Webster, Assistant Ombudsman, letter to Jan Dawe dated November 17, 1993, regarding complaint #F093-2189.

[41] Todd, pp. 52, 179-182.

This page last modified on June 4, 2002 .