____________________________________________________________ Environmental Conflict Resolution: An Introduction Dale Keyes, Senior Program Manager ASQ – 2006 Energy & Environmental Conference August 27-30, 2006 Tucson, AZ

____________________________________________________________ Objectives Note the promise and potential of ECR Introduce basic ECR characteristics & principles Discuss examples of ECR Provide an overview of the U.S. Institute and our services Describe Institute’s Evaluation initiatives Summarize Federal ECR policy initiatives

____________________________________________________________ Accomplishing natural resource and environmental protection goals requires … Balancing an array of public and private interests Balancing an array of public and private interests

____________________________________________________________ Conflicting interests, values, and perspectives are inevitable AND offer opportunities for creative problem solving

____________________________________________________________ But conflict poorly managed can lead to: Costly delays in implementing neededCostly delays in implementing needed environmental protection measures environmental protection measures Delayed project & resource planningDelayed project & resource planning processes processes Lower quality outcomes when plans &Lower quality outcomes when plans & decisions not fully informed decisions not fully informed

____________________________________________________________ And… Escalating hostility among affected Escalating hostility among affected groups and individuals groups and individuals Protracted & costly litigation Protracted & costly litigation

____________________________________________________________ Just what is E nvironmental C onflict R esolution ?

____________________________________________________________ ECR is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Applied to Environmental Conflicts

____________________________________________________________

But ECR is not just about settling disputes…

____________________________________________________________ ECR is about solving problems in a collaborative fashion Between individual parties over single issues, or Among many stakeholders over complex, multi- faceted issues

____________________________________________________________ The Problem X XX

____________________________________________________________ ECR can take place in … Ad hoc, collaborative settings Ad hoc, collaborative settings –work groups –advisory committees – task forces More formal problem solving forumsMore formal problem solving forums –negotiated rulemaking –court-referred mediation

____________________________________________________________ ECR Features… A focus on environmental, natural resources, or public lands issues and related economic and social concernsA focus on environmental, natural resources, or public lands issues and related economic and social concerns Direct (face-to-face) deliberation among representatives of multiple interests and affected communitiesDirect (face-to-face) deliberation among representatives of multiple interests and affected communities

____________________________________________________________ Essential ECR Characteristics Sharing relevant, broadly-based information and knowledgeSharing relevant, broadly-based information and knowledge Often with assistance of an impartial third party to mediate or facilitateOften with assistance of an impartial third party to mediate or facilitate

____________________________________________________________ ECR Characteristics (cont’d) Based on non-adversarial techniques of “principled or interest–based negotiation”Based on non-adversarial techniques of “principled or interest–based negotiation” Usually agreement-seekingUsually agreement-seeking

____________________________________________________________ UpstreamDownstream Agreement on Issues Provide Advice Develop Plans Develop or Locate a Facility or Project Rule-Making Agreement to Settle a Dispute Develop Policy Enforce Regulations Spectrum of ECR Processes (agreement-seeking processes with neutral assistance)

____________________________________________________________ ECR Approach Will Vary REACTIVE APPROACH A contentious issue has already developed into a dispute or impasseA contentious issue has already developed into a dispute or impasse Parties work to reach settlementParties work to reach settlement Parties already in litigation may be referred to mediationParties already in litigation may be referred to mediation PROACTIVE APPROACH Issues may be controversial but disputes haven’t developed yetIssues may be controversial but disputes haven’t developed yet Involve stakeholders early in the processInvolve stakeholders early in the process Anticipate and manage conflicts that will emergeAnticipate and manage conflicts that will emerge Narrow the range of disagreement; work toward consensusNarrow the range of disagreement; work toward consensus

____________________________________________________________ Why isn’t ECR used more often?

____________________________________________________________ Because… Lack of awareness of benefits & appropriate use of ECRLack of awareness of benefits & appropriate use of ECR Procedural complexity or misinformation – How do we do it?Procedural complexity or misinformation – How do we do it? Participant time and skills often lackingParticipant time and skills often lacking Funding is limitedFunding is limited

____________________________________________________________ U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Established by U.S. Congress to assist parties in resolving conflicts or building consensus on environmental, natural resource, and public lands issues Part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation  Independent federal agency of the executive branch  Board of Trustees appointed by the U.S. President  Direct Congressional funding and fees paid by users  Located in Tucson, Arizona

____________________________________________________________ Mission of the U.S. Institute To serve as an independent, non-partisan institution providing impartial professional expertise and servicesTo serve as an independent, non-partisan institution providing impartial professional expertise and services To assist parties seeking solutions to environmental, natural resource, and public land disputesTo assist parties seeking solutions to environmental, natural resource, and public land disputes Through mediation and other collaborative, non-adversarial meansThrough mediation and other collaborative, non-adversarial means

____________________________________________________________ Services Case Consultation Conflict Assessment/ Process Design National Referral Services Facilitation/ Mediation Convening Training Case/Project Management Dispute System Design/ Program Development Evaluation

____________________________________________________________ Focus Areas  Protected Areas & Natural Resources Management – Mike Eng  Public Lands & Natural Resources Management – Larry Fisher  Energy, Transportation & Environmental Quality – Dale Keyes  Litigation & Administrative Proceedings – Cherie Shanteau  Native American & Alaska Native Environmental Program – Sarah Palmer  Roster of ECR Practitioners – Joan Calcagno  Program Evaluation – Patricia Orr

____________________________________________________________

A Few Examples of Cases…

____________________________________________________________ Florida Everglades Ecosystem Interagency conflicts among USACE, FWS, NPS and So. Florida Water Management District Interagency conflicts among USACE, FWS, NPS and So. Florida Water Management District Ensure $7.8 billion restoration of Everglades ecosystem over next 35 yrs Ensure $7.8 billion restoration of Everglades ecosystem over next 35 yrs U.S. Institute helped agencies resolve highly technical disputes on two long- delayed projects U.S. Institute helped agencies resolve highly technical disputes on two long- delayed projects Photograph courtesy of the South Florida Water Management District

____________________________________________________________ Grand Canyon Overflight Noise Controversy In 1987, Congress directed NPS and FAA to reduce noise from air tour aircraft in Grand Canyon NP In 1987, Congress directed NPS and FAA to reduce noise from air tour aircraft in Grand Canyon NP Challenge to define & substantially restore “natural quiet” Challenge to define & substantially restore “natural quiet” Several attempts to negotiate & litigation ensued Several attempts to negotiate & litigation ensued Agencies now engaged in a multi- stakeholder process with assistance from U.S. Institute Agencies now engaged in a multi- stakeholder process with assistance from U.S. Institute

____________________________________________________________ St. Croix River Crossing Dispute re: new bridge & use of historic lift bridge over the “Wild & Scenic” St. Croix River near Stillwater, MN. Under active discussion for 25 years; reached impasse in 2001 Conflict assessment by U.S. Institute jumpstarted new negotiations Multi-stakeholder process reached consensus on preferred alternative

____________________________________________________________ A More Detailed Look at One Case

____________________________________________________________ Bankhead National Forest Health & Restoration Plan Bankhead NF in Alabama History of poor public support and trust U.S. Institute assisted USFS with integrating collaboration & planning process Conducted assessment and facilitated selection of facilitators

____________________________________________________________ Bankhead - Highlights Multi-stakeholder group involved Addressed restoration and 5-year plan Process is a model for planning in other national forests in Alabama and elsewhere

____________________________________________________________ Bankhead - Accomplishments Achieved goal of improving relationships between NF management and public Reached agreement on BFH&R Plan in 7/2004 On-the-ground improvements achieved

____________________________________________________________ Getting Started on a Case  Scope issuesScope issues e.g., complexity of issues, # of parties (agencies, affected communities, tribal governments), experience w/ similar issues and with same parties Consider alternativesConsider alternatives e.g., discuss with agency, lobby officials, appeal ruling Seek adviceSeek advice e.g., state or federal agency dispute resolution specialists, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, state or university ADR programs

____________________________________________________________ U.S. Institute Evaluation Initiatives Evaluate internal programsEvaluate internal programs at the Institute standardized evaluation system - Multi-Agency ECR Evaluation Study (MAES) Collaboratively develop a cross-agency standardized evaluation system - Multi-Agency ECR Evaluation Study (MAES) Performance analyzed using pooled case evaluation data from 6 programs Second round of MAES - Expand the network of data contributors Use findings to better understand factors most important to ECR success so that the practice of ECR can be improved institutionalizeHelp institutionalize the evaluation of ECR

____________________________________________________________ Multi-Agency ECR Evaluation Study (MAES II) Partnership with federal & state agencies and others Goal: 75 ECR cases Evaluate systematically with common instruments Report on performance Better understand factors that influence success to improve performance

Overview of Case Evaluation Framework Participants’ understand each other’s perspectives Participants narrow and clarify the issues Mediator/facilitator skills and practices add value Participants have the capacity to engage in the process Relevant, high quality and trusted information is incorporated Collaborative process is determined to be appropriate Appropriate participants are involved in the process Alternative forums are identified where appropriate Participants are effectively engaged Participants understand the issues Desired Process ConditionsExpected Process DynamicsOutcomes Other outcomes: Participants’ capacity to work together is improved Agreement is achieved Beneficial impacts occur Effective use of resources, endorsement of ECR, etc. Agreement is of high quality, is implemented, and durable Appropriate mediator/facilitator engaged to guide the process Impacts

____________________________________________________________ ADR/ECR Laws & Policy Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, amended 1996Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, amended 1996 Regulatory Negotiation Act of 1990Regulatory Negotiation Act of 1990 Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2003Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2003 Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation, 2004 and White House Conference, 2005Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation, 2004 and White House Conference, 2005 OMB/CEQ Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution, 2005OMB/CEQ Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution, 2005

____________________________________________________________ OMB/CEQ Statement on ECR (Policy Memo) Dear Secretary/Administrator: The President strongly supports constructive and timely approaches to resolving conflicts when they arise over the use, conservation and restoration of the environment, natural resources and public lands. ….the accompanying Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution… …directs agencies to increase the effective use of environmental conflict resolution and build institutional capacity for collaborative problem solving….. Joshua Bolten, Director OMB James Connaughton, Chairman CEQDate: 11/28/05 Full text:

____________________________________________________________ ECR Policy Memo Leadership – department and agency policy direction Incorporation of principles Mechanisms & strategies Accountability – performance evaluation & annual reporting

____________________________________________________________ Basic Principles” Federal department leaders are endorsing “Basic Principles” for engagement in ECR

____________________________________________________________ Basic Principles for Agency Engagement Informed CommitmentInformed Commitment Balanced RepresentationBalanced Representation Group AutonomyGroup Autonomy Informed ProcessInformed Process AccountabilityAccountability OpennessOpenness Timeliness Timeliness ImplementationImplementation

____________________________________________________________ For more information visit the U.S. Institute website:

____________________________________________________________ Questions & Comments