Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2015
  • Online publication date: May 2015

19 - Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library Group in California, USA

from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts

Summary

Nearly 258 million ha (28%) of the United States is publicly owned land that is managed by federal government agencies. For example, the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manages over 77 million ha of national forests and grasslands for the benefit of the American public. Given its legal directive to manage multiple uses, it is not surprising that conflicts arise among stakeholders over how this land should be used (Lansky, 1992). The USFS has much discretion in how land is managed, yet must often balance conflicting values of public use and benefit (Nie, 2004). As national priorities, social preferences and public awareness of national forest goods, services and values have changed over time, USFS managers have faced increased pressure to balance consumptive uses with the need for environmental protection. Competing stakeholder demands coupled with increased environmental risks (wildfires, tree diseases and insect epidemics) have resulted in an escalating conservation conflict that is manifested in administrative appeals, lawsuits and a growing distrust of the agency.

Over time, the USFS has embraced new directions and management paradigms to reduce conflict. Some of these have been ecosystem management, adaptive management and now collaborative management (e.g. Holling, 1978; Maser, 1988; Franklin, 1992; Boyce and Haney, 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Brown et al., 2004). These approaches reflect changing societal values, political pressures and new scientific information.

A persistent conflict has been the logging of trees in national forests and related impacts on forest ecosystems (Lansky, 1992). The USFS’ timber sale programme has supported jobs and community stability through economic development. Logging has also been a mechanism to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing tree density (fuel for fires) and vertical stand diversity (‘ladder’ fuels; North et al., 2009). However, logging can also negatively affect forest integrity, watershed quality, wildlife, aesthetic and spiritual values of forests (Satterfield, 2002; North et al., 2009).

Bazerman, M. (1983). Negotiator judgment: a critical look at the rationality assumption. Am. Behav. Sci., 27, 211–228.
Blumberg, L. (1999). Preserving the public trust: public lands management must reflect both local and national priorities. Forum Appl. Res. Public Pol., 14.
Boyce, M. S. and Haney, A. (1997). Ecosystem Management. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, R. T., Agee, J. K. and Franklin, J. F. (2004). Forest restoration: principles in the place of context. Conserv. Biol., 18, 903–912.
Coggins, G. C. (1999). Regulating federal natural resources: a summary case against devolved collaboration. Ecol. Law Q., 25, 602–610.
Fitzsimmons, A. K. (2012). Reforming Federal Land Management: Cutting the Gordian Knot. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Franklin, J. F. (1992). Scientific bases for new perspectives in forests and streams. In Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change, ed. Naiman, R. J., pp. 25–72. New York, NY: Springer.
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lansky, M. (1992). Beyond the Beauty Strip: Saving What's Left of Our Forests. Gardiner, ME: Tilbury House.
Marston, E. (2001). The Quincy Library Group: a divisive attempt at peace. In Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West, eds. Brick, P., Snow, D. and Van de Wetering, S., pp. 79–90. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Maser, C. (1988). The Redesigned Forest. San Pedro, CA: R. & E. Miles.
McCloskey, M. (1999). Local communities and the management of public forests. Ecol. Law Q., 25, 624–629.
Nie, M. (2004). Statutory detail and administrative discretion in public lands governance: arguments and alternatives. J. Environ. Law Litig., 19, 223–291.
North, M. (2012). Managing Sierra Nevada Forests. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-237. Albany, CA:Pacific Southwest Station.
North, M., Stine, P., O'Hara, K., Zielinski, W. and Stephens, S. (2009). An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-conifer Forests. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-220. Albany, CA:Pacific Southwest Station.
Pinchot Institute. (2013). Independent Science Panel Report: Herger–Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. Washington, DC: Gifford Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
Ralph, S.C. and Poole, G. C. (2003). Putting monitoring first: designing accountable ecosystem restoration and management plans. In Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, eds. Montgomery, D. R., Bolton, S., Booth, D. B. and Wall, L., pp. 222–242. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Redpath, S. M., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28, 100–109.
Satterfield, T. (2002). Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in Old-Growth Forests. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Verner, J., McKelvey, K. S., Noon, B. R., Gutiérrez, R. J., Gould, Jr., G. I. and Beck, T. W. (1992). The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report. GTR-PSW-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Station.
Wondolleck, J. M., and Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Wyborn, C. and Bixler, R. P. (2013). Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J. Environ. Manage., 123, 58–67.