Framing Question
How can different actors work cohesively to manage a natural resource?
Focus/Research Question
What options does the state have to maintain the Elliott State Forest’s economic obligations to the Common School Fund and nearby communities while achieving conservation goals if the forest is to remain as publicly-owned land?
Background
Logging, mining, and other resource extraction-dependent communities across the globe have experienced fluctuations in their standards of living (Harris et al., 1998). Many of these communities, having lost their primary source of income and industry due to tightened harvesting restrictions and a general transition in the status quo for resource extraction industries, also have diminished resident population sizes. In some cases, otherwise vibrant and healthy towns and cities have all but disappeared. In other cases, communities have exploded from the establishment of a lucrative resource extraction industry, although recent examples of this are few compared to historical trends (Humphries, et al. 2012).
Communities where the primary industry and economy centers around resource extraction activities such as logging, mining, or subsistence have declined in recent decades (Harris et al., 1998). Within those communities, there is often a resentment towards the drivers of this change – often times external influences such as government regulations and non-profit organizations (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995). This resentment is particularly high in areas where a lucrative resource-extraction industry was diminished and not replaced by another similarly prominent industry, such as the area of southeastern U.S. known as “coal country” (Bell and York, 2010). Residents of this region overwhelmingly supported now president Donald Trump in large part because the candidate supported a return to the coal-dominated economy, and communities across the country representing an array of interests – mining, timber, cattle – are in line with this nostalgia-fueled movement.
In most of these extractive industries though, things have changed. Technological advances invalidate the need for labor-heavy resource extraction methods such as mining for coal by pick and axe. Modern specialized machinery harvest trees many tens of times faster than traditional sawyers, axemen, or even machinery developed in the mid-1900’s. Substitute goods like natural gas have all but outcompeted the more conventional coal power. Countless research shows that timber harvesting leads to habitat fragmentation and subsequently the declines in plant and animal populations like salmon, which represent significant economic contributions to fishing communities (Loomis, 1988). These and a multitude of other factors have contributed to the declines of coal and timber communities across the country, yet often times the residents blame the slew of 1970’s through present-era environmental legislation for regulating and restricting the industries out-of-business.
For most of their histories, the public lands management agencies of the state and federal governments have implemented a top-down approach to navigating the vast matrix of public and private lands in the United States. The land managers had clear goals: maintain resources for specific uses such as timber and resource extraction (national forests), ecological preservation (national wildlife refuges), visitor recreation and scenery (national parks), or a combination. In 1960, Congress passed the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, which paved the way for agencies to begin implementing management strategies with “multiple-use” objectives (Cain et al. 2014, 563-565). Today, each of the four public lands management agencies – the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service – has distinct use-objectives and missions while still emphasizing multiple-use at least in some form (Congressional Research Service, 2004).
Even with constant efforts to improve land management and cater to all interests, these agencies still encounter conflicts with the public. One of the most significant examples today of public outcry against a land management agency lies in the manifestation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 had halted timber harvesting on northwest forests and, in the absence of a substitute industry to fuel local economies, timber-dependent communities and companies protested en masse at Olympia, Washington’s state capital, in 1989. The tense topic held its relevancy and eventually caught the attention of President Bill Clinton, whose administration ordered the creation of what is today the Northwest Forest Plan – a daring public lands management plan that applied “fundamental principles of ecosystem management, conservation biology, and sustainable economics… on a scale never before witnessed in U.S history” (Dellasala and Williams, 2006). The NFP was applicable to lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM that hosted Northern Spotted Owl territory, an area of land that was roughly 10 million hectares.
In the example of the the NFP and others, the crux of the conflict is this question: what use should be most valued in a public land that is labeled as multiple use? In theory, the answer is that no single use is more important than another, but this is painfully idealistic. The NFP is an attempt to balance ecological and economical interests, and while the plan is a substantial improvement over previous single use-focused management strategies, there is mixed opinion on its efficacy to balance multiple interests (Moseley and Yolanda, 2008) (DellaSala et. al, 2013). In some cases, the plan has not led to better management of forests and resources, yet in others, there has been a marked improvement in both the ecological, social, and economic conditions of the forest and its nearby communities (Siuslaw documentary).
Situated Context
The Pacific Northwest is a colloquial term for the region of the United States that encompasses all of Oregon, Washington, and parts of Idaho and Montana. Thanks to its relatively intact landscape, this region contains habitat for many flagship species of interest – spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and salmon, to name a few. Much of this region is publicly owned, either by the state or federal governments, under varying degrees of management ranging from the preservation-minded National Park Service, to the multiple-use mindset of the Forest Service, and everything in between.
One of these publicly-owned tracts of land is the Elliott State Forest, established in 1930 and currently covering 93,003 acres (288 sq. miles) of contiguous forest. The area contains patches of forest at different levels of succession, from virgin old-growth to mature second-growth and recently logged. This link will take you to the forest’s fragmented and heterogeneous successional land cover. While other nearby forests place large emphasis on recreational use, the Elliott State Forest’s primary function was and is to generate revenue for Oregon’s public schools through harvesting and selling timber. According to the 2011 Elliott State Forest Management Plan (EMP), the Elliott has contributed over $900 million to the Common School Fund, which directly and indirectly funds Oregon’s public school education system.
Starting in 2013 though, the forest’s profits have plummeted to the point that the forest profits do not account for the costs of its ownership – Oregon is no longer making any profit from harvesting and selling timber on the Elliott. While academic literature is still skim on this topic due to its recency, many news outlets report that a slew of environmental regulations have been restricting or altered logging practices in the forest, and this change is causing the forest to lose money. In the face of continuing financial losses, the state created the Elliott State Forest Management Plan of 2011 to balance “…sustainable timber harvests and revenue, diverse habitat for native species, properly functioning stream systems, and recreational opportunities.” Despite this new plan, a trio of non-profit organizations sued the state government for violating the Endangered Species Act by logging known habitat for the marbled murrelet (Audubon Society of Portland, 2014). The state cancelled timber sales as a result, and overall timber harvest dropped from 40 million board ft/yr to 15 million board ft/yr.
In June 2016, the state announced its plans to sell the Elliott, with the most current bidders being the Lone Rock Timber Company and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Native Americans. However in May 2017, a last-minute effort spearheaded by Oregon governor Kate Brown and the state treasurer generated enough momentum to keep the forest public; the current plan is to temporarily relay $100 million to Oregon taxpayers to cover for the lost money and costs of the Elliott.
The future of the Elliott is still unclear, as those for and against selling the land vie in the age-old battle of private and public lands management. Court appeals to overturn the governor’s May 2017 decision, and no doubt this issue will test every Oregonian’s stance on public and private lands. The ultimate outcome of the Elliott will be an epitome example of the modern era of environmental issues and will likely affect the future political economy surrounding such issues.
Methods
- Economic Analysis: Research and understand the progression of forestry and logging activities in the Pacific Northwest as a whole and with a focus on the Elliott
- Highlight communities that have declined or disappeared: EX: Burns, OR
- Highlight communities that have survived or prospered: EX: Prineville, OR
- Compare and contrast the differences: does the existence of a substitute industry raise the resiliency of a rural community to survive after the decline of its original extractive industry?
- Economic Analysis: Quantify and assign value to the mushroom hunting industry across the Pacific Northwest as a whole and with a focus on the Elliott.
- This largely unregulated industry, once regulated, could help to fulfill the Financial obligations of the Elliott
- Restoration Ecology: Using publicly available spatial data on the forest succession and critical habitat for species of concern such as the Marbled Murrelet and salmonids in the Elliott
- Design a Core Natural Area within the Elliott along with buffer zones and finally areas for higher logging activities
- Core Natural Area: Areas where conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity take precedence over other values or uses
- Buffer Zone: Large areas with less stringent controls on land use, yet which are at least partially compatible with many species’ resource requirements
- Both definitions taken directly from Cain et al. 2014 pp. 559-560
- Design a Core Natural Area within the Elliott along with buffer zones and finally areas for higher logging activities
Citations
- Audubon Society of Portland. 2014. Elliott State Forest Backgrounder. Audubon Society of Portland. Informational Brochure.
- Bell, S E., and York, R. 2010. Community Economic Identity: The Coal Industry and Ideology Construction in West Virginia. Rural Sociology. Vol 75(1):111-143.
- Cain, M L., Bowman, W D., Hacker, S D. 2014. Ecology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
- Congressional Research Service. 2004. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management. CRS Report for Congress.
- Fiallo, E A., Jacobson, S K. 1995. Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitudes of Rural Residents Towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation. Vol 22(3):241-249. doi:10.1017/S037689290001064X
- Harris, C C., McLaughlin, W J., Brown, G. 1998. Rural Communities in the Interior Columbia Basin: How Resilient Are They? Journal of Forestry. Vol 96(3):11-15(5).
- Humphries S., Holmes, T P., Kainer, K., Koury, C G C., Cruz, E., Rocha R de M. 2012. Are community-based forest enterprises in the tropics financially viable? Case studies from the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics. Vol 77:62-73.
- Loomis, John B. 1988. The Bioeconomic Effects of Timber Harvesting on Recreational and Commercial Salmon and Steelhead Fishing: A Case Study of the Siuslaw National Forest. Marine Resources Economics. Vol 5:43-60.
- Moseley, C. and Yolanda, E R. 2008. Forest Restoration and Forest Communities: Have Local Communities Benefited from Forest Service Contracting of Ecosystem Management? Environmental Management. Vol 42:327-343. DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9116-4
- Oregon Department of Forestry, State Lands. 2011. Elliott State Forest Management Plan.
Leave a Reply