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 we’re 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 official’s 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

43. Wrapping It All Up • Federalism is good; our current system of government works. Most everyone’s 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