CASE BRIEFING ~ COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANNING FORUMS FOR THE DINKEY NORTH AND SOUTH AREAS OF THE SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST
Background
Protracted and costly litigation and project delays have plagued management plans for the Sierra National
Forest in California, and many national forests nationwide. In the last decade, controversy surrounding the
Sierra National Forest has focused on timber and vegetation management, and the implications for threatened
and endangered species, old-growth forest stands, fire mitigation, and ecosystem health.
In an effort to address these challenges the Sierra National Forest teamed with the U.S. Forest Service's
Pacific Southwest Research Station to undertake an adaptive management study. This effort, part of the Kings
River Project, spawned challenges from conservation groups concerned about the study's scale, reach, and
impacts.
In 2009, the Sierra National Forest, with the assistance of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution, launched a 5000-acre project focused on the Dinkey North and South areas of the forest. The
purpose of the collaborative project, known as the Dinkey Planning Forum, was to design and implement
vegetative treatments to help restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resilient forest and a more naturally
functioning ecosystem, in addition to addressing other issues identified by affected interests. The
smaller-scale of the Dinkey project and other lessons learned from the Kings River Project helped set the
stage for a productive collaborative process.
After more than a decade of litigation and stalled actions, regional and national Forest Service staff and
other affected stakeholders were ready and committed to working collaboratively to find a mutual-gains
solution to the conflicts that had divided them.
A third-party facilitator selected by the stakeholders was brought on board to guide the process. The presence
of a third-party helped normalize the conflict, broker representative participation of all affected interests,
and create a constructive forum for collaboration. Stakeholder participation included forestry and timber
industries, wildlife, habitat, and ecosystem interests, fire safety interests, and adjacent landowners.
During the process, stakeholders engaged in joint fact finding, made site visits, and vetted and approved a
group of independent scientists who served as technical advisors during deliberations. The integration of
credible independent science was pivotal to the success of the process.
Results and Accomplishments
As a result of the process, the participants reached a collaborative agreement on a proposed action that
balanced the competing demands of public and firefighter safety, species and habitat management, and ecosystem
restoration. This agreement marks a significant shift from the contentious history of the Kings River Project.
In a post-process evaluation, participants (representing government, environmental, industry, community, and
special advocacy interests) indicated agreement was reached on all or most key issues. The majority of
respondents noted they are confident the agreement can be implemented, and that it will effectively solve the
conflict.
In the words of participants, an array of social, economic, recreational, natural resource and environmental
benefits will result from the process. These include:
"Stalemate between Forest Service and environmental groups resolved in this case. Possible model for
region-wide resolution."
"Protect wildlife habitat, California spotted owl, and the Pacific fisher. Ecological restoration, fire
resilient forest, reduce fire threat/fuel load."
"Fuel reduction work will occur in an area with high recreational use and other social/economic values.
This is very positive."
"Increase work for Forestry related business, including mills."
"Wildlife/scenic/threatened and endangered species of special values protected and enhanced."
Litigation was the likely alternative if the collaborative problem-solving was not initiated. In comparison,
most respondents reported the collaborative process was less expensive and the outcomes achieved represent a
more informed public action/decision. The proposed project will now undergo an environmental analysis under
NEPA.
Reflections on the Lessons Learned
This case reflects the generally accepted working principles of ECR, in that:
Critical process inputs (e.g., representative participants engaged, appropriate facilitator guides process,
relevant trusted information integrated into deliberations)...
combine to create desired process activities (e.g., participants collaborate to better understand each
other's issues, seek options and solutions that meet the common needs of all participants)...
to achieve collaborative outcomes and impacts (e.g., agreement on forest management, improved forest health,
reduced risk of fire, habitat and species protection, industry and other interests addressed).
This and other successful cases serve as a good reminder to public managers and those who convene and sponsor
ECR processes that having the generally accepted working principles of ECR in place helps maximize the
likelihood of success.
Credits
U.S. Institute Project Manager, Larry Fisher, Ph.D., Senior Program Manager, Public Lands and Natural
Resources Program, Phone 520- 901-8544, Email fisher@ecr.gov
Partner from National Roster of ECR Practitioners, Gina Bartlett, Senior Mediator, Center for
Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento, California
Staff Bio
Larry Fisher coordinates the Public Lands program for the U. S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution. Fisher's program responsibilities focus on planning and decision processes affecting the
management of federal lands. Prior to joining the U. S. Institute, he directed the Program on Environment and
Community, at Cornell University. He also has over 20 years experience working for community-based NGOs on
rural development, agriculture, forestry, and conservation programs. He holds a Masters degree in Agriculture
and a Ph.D. in Natural Resources Management.
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Public Lands Team.
Left to right: Kimberly Caringer, Larry Fisher, Maggie McCaffrey