Federalism in the Forest Tomas M. Koontz

1
Federalism in the ForestTomas M. Koontz

2

• Federalism A system of government in which power
  is divided between a central authority and
  constituent political units.
• Choices among governmental jurisdictions lie at
  the very core of federalism.
• -T. Koontz

3
Functional Theory of Federalism

• This theory predicts that lower and higher levels
  of government tend to produce different outputs.
• These two outputs are developmental and
  redistributive
• Developmental refers to economic growth.
  Policies that emphasize this goal are favored by
  elected officials at low levels of government.
• Redistribution transfers money from wealthier
  parties to poorer ones. This output is not
  particularly attractive to large corporations,
  which in turn affects the local economy, so
  redistribution is not favored by local elected
  officials.

4
DevolutionDoes it Matter?

• The comparison of National versus State natural
  resource policy

5
It Does Matter!

• Devolution shifts responsibility from the federal
  government to the state government
• Helps match the economic efficiency by reducing
  the tendency of citizens to demand higher levels
  of success for which they do not pay for.
• There is a general lack of serious inquiry into
  natural resource policy at different levels of
  government.

6
Three points of focus

• Comparing policy processes and outputs
• what are the differences in natural resource
  policy between state and federal forests?
• Exploring differences in policy
• how do various factors shape these differences?
• Providing insight into the policy making process
• what can be done about changing policy and how is
  this possible?

7
Brief History of Forest Management

• Federal government used to own all the land
• Transfer in ownership of lands in the Midwest and
  the Northwest
• Creation of state and federal forests
• Contiguous forests with multiple jurisdictions
• Shape of forests varies between the two regions

8
Comparing Four Forests

• Ohio
• Ohio State Forest Wayne National Forest
• Indiana
• Indiana State Forest Hoosier National Forest
• Washington
• Washington State Forest Gifford Pinchot
  National Forest
• Oregon
• Oregon State Forest Siuslaw National Forest

Note test areas represent only a small portion
of not only federal and state forests, but States
in the union.
9
Background of Forests

• Midwest
• Most common forest type is deciduous hardwood
• Much lower lumber and wood product value
• Northwest
• Most common forest type is Douglas fir and
  associated conifers
• Higher timber production values which is shown in
  work force sizes.

10
Types of Forests
11
Forest Information
12
Strengths of the State Agency

• Timber
• Profits
• Revenue Sharing

13
Timber Sales Volume

• Employment and Development
• Community Interests
• Small environmental pitch
• Sales are thirteen times greater than National
  forests

14
Percent of Annual Growth Sold
15
Timber Sales Profitability

• Should this be the primary goal of public
  forests?
• Much more economic than National Forests
• Much more profitable than National forests

16
Operating Expenses
17
Revenue Sharing

• Public lands subject to giving money back to the
  jurisdiction which holds the state or national
  forest
• States forests send more money to local
  governments than do the national forests
• Gives reason to the state to be more concerned
  about state forests

18
Who is More Economical?
19
Overall

• The state forest agencies, overall, are very much
  more economical.
• Produce more lumber
• Sell more lumber
• Are more efficient with their sales
• Produce more revenue for their own jurisdictions

20
Federal Agency Strength

• Environmental Protection
• Rare Species Protection
• Research and Monitoring
• Non-Timber improvements

21
Eco- System Level Management
22
Rare Species Identification and Protection

• National Forests have a much more extensive
  identification and protection plan than State
  forests.
• Indiana only has a part time rare species
  identification employee ( the other half he works
  for timber management)

23

• For other rare species we have not yet found
  efficient methods and protocols, we have not
  focused efforts on identification or protection.
• -Stance from Oregon State Forest officials

24
Ecosystem Research and Monitoring

• Goal is to generate information to develop
  protection projects in the future
• In 1995 Oregon federal officials spent more than
  1.3 million in research efforts
• Compared that to if we tried to do more
  comprehensive surveys, the counties would be
  upset that were spending resources in this way

25

• In most cases you should be able to answer
  the questions from your own observations or
  project plans without the need to hire experts.
• Washington State Forest official

26
Citizen Participation

• Public Meetings
• Working Groups
• Mailings
• Who really participates?

27
Who Encourages Involvement and Participation
28
Public Meetings

• The quality of meetings of the state and national
  forest agencies differ
• National has organized, professional meetings
• State has loose, unorganized gatherings

29
Mailing

• Federal agencies have a knack for sending out
  lots of material while state officials lack this
  attribute.
• The mail federal agencies send out is much more
  informative.

30
Mailing quality
31
Who talked to whom?
32
Exploring Policy Differences

• Bureaucratic Behavior Theory Policymaking by
  agency officials can be explained by four
  dominant factors
• Rules Laws, Forest plans, and budget incentives
• Citizen pressure
• Agency officials beliefs
• Agency community

33
Laws

• Elected officials create laws to
• Constrain bureaucratic discretion
• Leave a legacy
• Federal laws seek non-economic goals while state
  laws seek economic goals.

34
National Forests

• Under federal acts like the NEPA and NFMA,
  federal forest officials must go through a lot of
  red tape to harvest timber, because the laws are
  environmentally-oriented
• Public must be involved, and the public has power
• Zoning requirements
• Formal assessment procedures
• Multiple-Use mandates
• Harvesting technique stipulations

35
State Forests

• State forest officials have a lot less red tape
  to go through because the laws are
  economically-oriented.
• Fewer and limited opportunities for citizen
  involvement
• State versions of the NEPA and the NFMA are more
  watered-down than their national counterparts
• Multiple use mandates regard timber harvesting as
  the primary use of the land
• Harvesting techniques are under the control of
  the state agencies
• Zoning laws are more flexible

36
Multiple-Use Mandates
37
Legislative Regulation
38
Forest Plans

• Forest plans are formal reports detailing the
  operations of a timber harvest before the project
  begins.
• Timber Stand Improvements (TSI)
• Leave Trees
• Riparian Areas
• Regeneration Harvesting
• Land-use Zoning Protection

39
Harvesting Techniques and Zoning Restrictions
40
Citizen Involvement (Pressure)

• Citizen Pressure involves the ability of the
  general populace to influence activities in the
  timber industry.
• Support for natural resource protection is
  stronger among people who live far from the
  resources than those who live near them.
• Spotted Owl example

41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Wrapping It All Up

• Federalism is good our current system of
  government works. Most everyones voice is heard
  somewhere in the process
• Performance is the key more research is needed
  to analyze policy processes and outputs.
  Progress (fiscal efficiency) is possible when we
  conduct and analyze empirical data rather than
  basing our policy decisions on simplistic
  opinions
• Citizen input myth
• Everyone can make a difference elected officials
  appoint non-elected agency bureaucrats, who in
  turn shape economic and environmental policy