Sharon

Forest Management: The Words Matter- Guest Post by Sarah Hyden

by
Graphic: Jonathan Glass and Sarah Hyden

Until reasonably accurate and ecologically appropriate language is used by the Forest Service and their collaborators to describe their forest management strategies and activities, fundamental ecological issues will not be well understood, and the necessary paradigm shift to protect our forests and communities will not occur.

A range of misleading language and terms, picked up by many including the media, create confusion and miscommunication. For example, the term “forest restoration,” when used by the agency, often means aggressive cutting and too-frequent burning of large tracts of forest, sometimes removing as much as 90% of standing trees and most of the natural forest understory. Generally conservation organizations and members of the public do not consider such activities, with the resulting damage to soils and waterways, to be ecological restoration. Instead they consider restoration to be strategically improving the overall structure and function of forest ecosystems and processes while causing minimal impacts. Strategies to achieve this include replanting riparian areas, protecting soil microbiomes, promoting beaver habitation, fencing out cows, and decommissioning excessive forest roads. The goal is to create conditions that hold moisture in forest ecosystems, which makes landscapes naturally more fire resistant and bring them into a state of greater ecological integrity.

“Restoration” has become a euphemism the Forest Service uses, borrowed from the language of conservation, that makes what the agency actually does to our forests more palatable. Other misleading agency forest management terms are “thinning” (removing most of the vegetation from a forest is too heavy-handed to be considered thinning), “fuels treatments” (trees and understory are so much more than fuels), “forest health” (there are no clear parameters for forest health), and forest “resiliency.”

“Resiliency” means the capacity of an ecosystem to return to its previous condition after impacts, such as fire. Forests that have been impacted by having had large amounts of vegetation removed due to aggressive cutting and continued too-frequent prescribed fire do not tend to return to their previous condition, and perpetually remain in a degraded state. Untreated or very lightly-treated forests that are allowed to regenerate after a fire may return to their previous condition. So which is resiliency?

The Forest Service concludes analysis of the vast majority of its vegetation cutting and burning projects with a “Finding of No Significant Impact.” Such findings are based on criteria of significance although the findings are often challenged, but the actual words imply that the impacts are relatively minor and not substantive enough to be particularly concerned about – even though we can often plainly see otherwise. A Finding of No Significant Impact is routinely applied to highly damaging projects that leave forests ecologically broken for decades to come. The impacts of such projects cannot be reasonably called “not significant.”

Interested parties trying to obtain information about Forest Service landscape management often must rely on FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. However, substantive FOIA requests can now literally take years. When the requests are finally fulfilled, it’s often too late to be useful. To call this “Freedom of Information” from the Forest Service is yet another misnomer. It might be more accurately called the “Nearly Impossible to Obtain Information Act” at this point.

In 2022, three wildfires were ignited by the Forest Service in the Santa Fe National Forest during implementation of prescribed burns, which escaped and burned a total of 387,000 acres. There have been many articles and op-eds written locally and nationally about these fires that point to them as examples of why we need even more thinning and burning of our forests to moderate the effects of wildfire, without mentioning the fact that the fires were actually caused by escaped prescribed burns — or that fact was included, but as more or less a footnote. The Cerro Grande Fire, which was ignited in 2000 due to an escaped prescribed burn (by the US Park Service that time) has also been used as such an example. To do so, without acknowledging the importance of agency prescribed burns having precipitated these same wildfires, amounts to a kind of circular reasoning that suggests we need even more of what caused much of the wildfire we are trying to prevent  – albeit with some procedural changes and further safety measures. It’s a misuse of both language and logic, and clouds the underlying issues.

Articles and op-eds concerning the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire often make statements such as “the Forest Service accidentally triggered New Mexico’s largest wildfire.” This is not entirely false, as the fire was not started on purpose. But what is much more accurate to write is that the Forest Service recklessly or negligently ignited New Mexico’s largest wildfire. The agency had to know it was a substantial risk to ignite the Las Dispensas prescribed burn, which precipitated the Hermits Peak Fire, during a particularly intense high wind pattern, with red flag warnings nearby. The agency had to be clear that if the fire did escape, it would likely spread fast and be very difficult to extinguish until the monsoons came months later. Locals were warning those responsible for the burn not to light up a burn at that time, because it was obvious to them that it would be very dangerous. The Forest Service did not heed their warnings. The Chief’s review of the Hermits Peak Fire indicates that the Forest Service was feeling pressured to catch up on implementing prescribed burns, because they have committed to greatly increasing cutting and burning treatments in our forests, even though safer burn windows are decreasing due to the warming and drying climate.

Additionally, Forest Service personnel knew fire was spreading from the Calf Canyon burn piles 10 days before the Calf Canyon Fire officially broke out during a high wind event. They made efforts to contain the spreading pile burns. They also carried out aerial surveillance over the pile burn area during those days. It was predictable that in early April, the winds could rapidly spread any escaping fire. That the agency did not make a full out effort to address every pile, considering that they knew some of them had been smoldering and that high winds were coming, has at least the appearance of recklessness and/or negligence. Almost two years later, no analysis of this fire has been released by the Forest Service. To use the word “accidentally” in regards to the ignition of this destructive wildfire, which burned entire communities, does not provide any realistic understanding of what likely occurred. A realistic understanding could be a basis for making sure such a catastrophe never happens again.

During the weeks after the Calf Canyon Fire began, the Forest Service identified the cause of the fire as “under investigation,” even though they had been surveilling and attempting to contain the escaping pile burns from the beginning of the incident. Given this, “under investigation” cannot be construed as a reasonably accurate description of what the Forest Service knew about the cause of the Calf Canyon Fire. They surely knew the cause from the very beginning with an extremely high degree of probability. It took several weeks for the Forest Service to finally announce that the Calf Canyon Fire was also precipitated by their own actions. This lack of transparency created even more distrust and anger in an already traumatized community.

In a recent article about the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, the Forest Service was quoted as stating “Record-setting blazes have become common in the West, where risks have reached crisis proportions.” This statement is somewhat true, and yet highly misleading at the same time. It would be substantially more accurate to at least mention that much of the total “wildfire” burning in our forests is intentionally ignited by the agency.

In August of last year, I wrote an article titled “Forest Service Wildfire Management Policy Run Amok.” In it, I described three New Mexico wildfires in just over a year that were greatly expanded due to intentional ignitions by the US Forest Service. I provided evidence, based on thermal hot spot maps, that during the over 325,000 acre Black Fire, New Mexico’s second largest wildfire, up to half of the fire was likely intentionally ignited by the Forest Service.

Since that time, I met with some local Forest Service leadership along with other conservation organization representatives, and a Forest Service fire specialist confirmed that the agency did intentionally ignite much of the Black Fire, from approximately 10 miles to the south and 6 miles to the northwest of the main fire.

Of course, I asked why the Forest Service expanded and ignited the fire to this extent, burning most of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness, and with substantial collateral damage. We were told it was done for “resource management objectives.” That means the fire expansion was essentially a huge Forest Service intentional burn, similar to a prescribed burn, but with no prescription or advanced planning and/or NEPA  (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis. Yet the Forest Service has continued to call this a “wildfire.” with no mention of the role they played in the expansion of the fire. That is a misleading use of the word “wildfire,” since much of the fire was deliberately ignited by the agency. This perpetuates a cycle of even more cutting and burning, since the Forest Service is trying to moderate the effects of the seemingly increased amounts of wildfire.

So what actually is the wildfire “crisis” that the Forest Service is talking about? I believe it’s possible that overall, the Forest Service ignites or expands wildfires to an extent approaching a third to a half of what is counted as wildfire acres burned. No one should simply accept the Forest Service’s use of the term “wildfire crisis” when the agency is expanding and igniting such a major proportion of the fire on our landscapes. Such wildfire expansions have become policy — it’s referred to as applied wildfire. If we are experiencing a wildfire crisis, then it’s a crisis that can be quickly mitigated by the Forest Service simply refraining from igniting so much unplanned wildfire in our forests.

Fires of all intensities are natural and beneficial to fire-adapted forested landscapes. An open and honest process that defines clear parameters for managing wildfire is required in order to safely and effectively allow moderate amounts of naturally-ignited wildfire to burn in our forests. A revised wildfire management policy must be created through a transparent NEPA process. This means using language that is not loaded with unproven and controversial assumptions or agendas. Otherwise, what has happened to the residents so severely impacted by the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, and to our forests, many of which have become over-cut and over-burned, will happen again and again. We should not accept the agency’s statements about a wildfire crisis uncritically.

As long as the media, conservation organizations, and the public continue to accept euphemisms and double-speak to describe forest management strategies and activities, we will not collectively have the understanding to resolve the underlying issues. The issues must be publicly acknowledged with clear and direct language, even though there will always be substantial differences of opinion. The Forest Service and their collaborators should be thoroughly questioned on their use of misleading language. Somehow, the Forest Service and their collaborators, along with conservation organizations, conservation scientists, and the public, will have to come together with a mutual ecological language and understanding. Then, we can design ecologically beneficial projects that allow our forests to reset in a warming climate.

 

Graphic composite photos:
Top left – Santa Fe watershed, thinned in the early 1990’s and burned twice. Photo: Fred King.
Top right – Prescribed burn smoke over the Santa Fe ski basin. Photo: Satya Kirsch.
Bottom left – A USFWS firefighter watches a prescribed fire. Retweeted by Santa Fe National Forest. Photo by USFWS.
Bottom right – La Cueva Fuel Break, thinned in 2017 and burned once. Photo: Lyra Barron.

***************

Sarah Hyden is the co-founder and director of The Forest Advocate. The Forest Advocate is a not-for-profit organization that advocates for forests and publishes news and resources for forest protection, with a focus on the Santa Fe National Forest.

Is it A Time for Peace Yet? Chief Thomas Quotes our Old Friend Kohelet

by

 

PERC’s photo

Awhile back I attended a Western Governors conference, and Lesli Allison of Western Landowners Alliance asked the question “what if we think of ranchers as partners, rather than antagonists”? Could we actually make more progress toward conservation?”

I thought of her question when I recently read about PERC ‘s Brucellosis Compensation Fund.

PERC’s collaboration with—and listening to—area ranchers produced an innovative means to help them bear the burden of brucellosis risk. If successful, the fund will help lay the groundwork to address similar challenges throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and beyond.

Yes, I realize that PERC advocates free-market solutions, but if they work, at no cost to the taxpayer, what’s not to like?  They listened and respected the ranchers.  They found a way to resolve a conflict and improve conservation.

I think free-range “enemyism” can keep us from solutions, and needlessly subject groups to a position of “forever enemy-hood.”  And we all know who the bad guys are… the forest products industry, ranchers, miners,  oil and gas folks.. and OHV people.  “Enemyism” is particularly annoying (in my view), when it co-occurs with moralizing.   For forest products, oil and gas, and mining, it seems to me that there is a certain element of hypocrisy- some people use these things, and rich people use a lot of them.  For me, as a person with a Judaeo-Christian background, it’s bit like God saying in Deuteronomy  “it’s OK to eat camels but only if the Canaanites prepare them.”

Awhile back I posted this about an interview with Michael Webber, Prof at UT, who thinks we need an “all hands on deck” approach to decarbonization.

Is there a way to work with them, rather than against them, to promote a low-carbon future?

Unquestionably, many oil and gas companies have been bad actors. At best, the petroleum industry has ignored the problem while making a profit off the products that worsened the situation. At worst, it actively worked to delay action by funding misinformation campaigns or lobbying to delay policy action.

But blaming the industry leaves out our own culpability for our consumptive, impactful lifestyles. Oil consumption is as much about demand as supply.

Rather than finding someone to blame, let’s look for who can help.

Meanwhile, around the National Forests, collaborative groups are working together across different interests. But is there anyone whose job it is to find common ground at the national or regional level?  Bless their hearts, it seems that politicians are generally more interested in rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies than seeking long-term peace and expediting things everyone agrees on.  In fact, it could be in their parochial interests to prolong and intensify divisions.  At least some think that it is in their interests. So yes, that’s a difficulty under our current system.  What would it take to change this dynamic?

I’d like to go back to this 2001 interview of Chief Jack Ward Thomas (128 pages, lots of interesting history, recommended).

HKS: You’ve introduced a subject that I’d like you to talk a little bit about. I hadn’t heard the term “conflict industry”—eco-warriors and other things. You’ve been critical of the environmentalists. You have said that they have won the war and now they’re wandering the battlefield bayoneting the wounded.  They’re not helping anything. They’re only opposing. Do you think it’s because these guys are making three hundred thousand dollars a year, that that’s part of why they are not doing something?

JWT: Let’s not go too far with that. For everybody in the environmental industry that’s making several hundred thousand dollars a year there are probably some number of hundreds working for minimum wage, if that, working for what they think is right. But it matters not what the reason is, people are dedicated to the fight for the environment. There is a time to fight. There is a time for all things under the sun. There is a time to make peace. I think the general environmental war related to the Forest Service is over. In reality, industry needs to abandon sponsoring “ghost dances” to bring back the buffalo—i.e., the good old days. Those days aren’t coming back. It is time for the environmentalists to ease up. They are not going to finish off those who extract natural resources. Now we’ve come to where we stand today. And it is time to ask, “What are some of the things that we could agree upon?” Certainly
an appropriate, well-maintained road system should be one, and there may be others. If one performed an analysis of public opinion related to the management of the national forests considering protection and extraction of resources, you would be looking at a standard U-shaped curve. You might surmise that there was no room for agreement there, but I suspect if you conducted a public opinion poll you would find that the results yield a curve that resembles a bell. This leads me to the conclusion that in a democracy decisions are made by the majority of the minority that cares about the issue. Those that care enough about national forests to participate in planning efforts seem to be split in their opinions. I don’t know how we get them to middle ground, but the general public is much more inclined to accept some middle ground.

HKS: Did you ever discuss this directly, one to one, informally over a cup of coffee with the head of one of these organizations? Why don’t you guys help us?

JWT: Yes I tried that, and most of those from the “industry” believed me to be prone to accept the environmentalists’ view, and most of the environmentalists believed me to favor the industry position. So I guess I did not do so well as a moderator and a broker for the “middle ground.” I think the American people are wearing out with this unrelenting battle, and sooner or later they will insist on some middle ground approach to management. There are management actions by the Forest Service upon which both sides ought to be able to agree. Things such as dealing with issues of forest health. Extreme environmentalists might say, “That’s just another Forest Service excuse to whack down trees.” I’ve even been told that if the trees removed were decked and burned, support for restoration activities might be forthcoming. In other words, there should be no commercial use of trees removed. Well, I think that is a bit goofy.

Here in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana you would think from reading the newspaper reports that the Forest Service is moving ahead with salvage and that dealing with forest health issues in burned areas is overwhelmingly opposed by local people. Yet public opinion polls indicate the vast majority want to move ahead with such activities. They might argue about what “something” is but the vast majority of those polled, at least at this point, are adamant that active management is required. But that is not what you would think after attending public hearings or reading the newspaper.

(my bold)

What do you think? Could we have gotten further down the “national or regional” peace path since 2001?  What opportunities have we had that may have been missed?  Do you think the NWFP revision/amendment has the ability to lead to a lasting peace? What would you recommend to lead to peace?  Do you think real collaboration is only possible at the local level?  Why?

Some Timber-y Followups to Last Week

by

We had some interesting discussions last week. I am going to do more research on some topics, so I will list the ones I’m working on here.  Please see if I missed any that would be worthy of more discussion or digging for more info, and please add in the comments.

1. Why did BLM volume numbers go down in Oregon?

2. Diameter limit on East Side

a. what does the EA say about alternatives?

b. the mechanics of the “dripline” idea

3. What diameter and length of logs can mills use nowadays?

4. Paper submitted  by TSW commenter on no-bid timber sales.

5.  More background on Amicus briefs; what are they generally used for and why.

(for this one it would be helpful if someone could find what they think is a good explanation and send me some links).

Others?

Question About Forest Service Budget and R&D

by

A reader asked:

I had a question about the FY 2024 budget (which is recently approved) and the impacts on USFS Research Stations and R&D. It seems like there is a hiring freeze in at least some (if not all) research stations, and it seems like the discussion is that this is a result of some combination of budget shortfalls in the budget (a small cut) as well as some allocation issues within the Budget Modernization efforts. Does anyone know what is happening here, and if hiring will be starting again anytime soon?

I was also wondering, in a possibly related question, because the Trout Unlimited Keystone Agreement included that TU could be paid to:

• Developing the science and tools to address high priority concerns such as climate change, impacts of energy development, restoration of degraded habitats and populations, and control of aquatic invasive species,

It used to be that R&D dollars were said to be necessary for “the science” but I’ve been assured that NFS funds are fine to use for this nowadays.

People with information can post here or contact me directly. I will respect your anonymity.

Further Information on Oregon Mills and Region 6 Timber Production

by

Digging deeper on the topics of yesterday, I reached out to AFRC, who generously supplied further information, plus some FS contacts.

***********

The primary source for Forest Service timber accomplishments are the PTSAR reports.  You can find those here: Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Reports (PTSAR) (usda.gov)

 

The chart below for Region 6 is based on this PTSAR data.  You’ll see that the Region saw an uptick from 2022 to 2023; however, our assertions of flat/declining outputs are based on comparisons of 2023 to 2019/2020.  The raw data that populated this chart is also copied below.  We saw a decline by over a third from 2020 to 2022.  The program remains about 18% below its 2020 levels.

 

Region 6201520162017201820192020202120222023
Timber Sold585595581635607724545460589
          

You’re correct in that timber trends are not the same across every National Forest in Region 6.  In fact, local trends are more relevant to the recent mill closures that we cite in our letter than total Region 6 trends.  The mills that closed over the past few months are all located in northwest Oregon.  So, the trends in western (specifically northwestern) Oregon are important to highlight.  The Regional uptick in 2023 shown in the graph above has mainly been a function of growth on eastside Forests, which don’t support westside mills, which are the ones that have closed over the past few months. The graph below shows timber trends for the Mt Hood, Willamette, and Siuslaw National Forests (and totals), which were all within the purchasing circle of the closed mills.  We saw nearly a 100 Million board foot drop from 2019 to 2022.  Even with a slight bump in 2023, these programs are still down by over a third from 2019 levels.

Finally, the BLM program in western Oregon cannot be ignored.  The three Districts below are in the purchasing circle of the closed mills.  Collectively, we’re seeing a 43% reduction from 2021 to 2024.  Note that the 2024 numbers reflect the assigned targets, not actual sold volume.

BLM timber data is not as formally organized as the Forest Service.  This site summarizes sold volume: Oregon Timber Sales Oregon/Washington BLM.  However, the BLM has additional volume every year not accounted for in these reports.  AFRC  acquires that “add-on” volume directly from the Oregon State office every year.

*****************

So, we might ask, what explains these patterns?  Here is what I heard from my FS sources, currently checking with BLM ones.  The Siuslaw is “steady Eddy.”

The Mt. Hood and Williamette notably suffered from the 2020 wildfires. In the second chart, it looks like the Mt. Hood worked its way back to 2019 levels but the Williamette not.  You might think “all those hazard trees” but that was held up by litigation, covered here at TSW, to the extent that the logs deteriorated and now the hazard trees that industry would have paid to remove, are being removed at taxpayer expense via service contracts.

There are two other issues I heard.. that timber attention ($, targets, people (not clear)) has been focused on the East Side in terms of moving things along in the Ten-Year Strategy.  And a generalized inability to fill positions.  I’d appreciate hearing from anyone, either via email or in the comments, who has additional ideas or experiences to add.

**************

What to make of all this?  I was thinking about Seral on the Stanislaus and how they proactively did NEPA for future hazard trees.  I also vaguely remember potential zones of agreement about hazard trees, even in Oregon.  Perhaps the Region is doing a hazard tree NEPA decision for all forests that they could use when wildfire come along? If we believe that climate change will lead to more wildfires then wouldn’t this be proactive? Maybe the group assembled for the NWFP revision could work out the bare bones of an NWFP area hazard tree agreement in a couple of days?

E&E News Roundup of Hearing; AFRC Letter; Imports and Exports

by

The above is from this OEC website. You can click on it to see the numbers better.  I can’t attest to the accuracy of these numbers.  They are relevant to the story at the end.

Interesting E&E News article, and  I was curious about some things mentioned, perhaps readers can help out with more information?

First of all, there’s an AFRC letter that says in western Oregon:

The trouble is largely due to state-level policies that restrict access to timber on privately owned land, as well as to past damage from wildfires, the group said, citing the recent closure of three mills in western Oregon. But the federal government could help fill the gap by boosting timber harvests in national forests, the AFRC said, and make healthier forests in the process. “A logical outcome of historic Congressional investments to accelerate forest health treatments on millions of acres of at-risk Federal forests would be additional log supply to support the local infrastructure and workforces required to do the work,” said the AFRC, based in Portland, Oregon, citing the bump in federal spending through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act that included funding for hazardous fuels reduction, fire breaks and similar forest work. “This has not occurred in the West,” the organization said. In some cases, according to the group, supplies available from federal lands have declined or flat-lined since the enactment of the two laws.

Although most logs headed to mills in the Pacific Northwest come from privately owned land, the group said, mills that closed recently in Oregon relied on timber from public lands and cited a supply shortage in their decisions to shut down.

Perhaps some Oregon readers could see if there are other reasons as well for the closures, perhaps like Pyramid Lumber?

And is that true, that supplies from federal land declined after the infusions of $ from BIL and IRA? Here’s what AFRC said in their letter.

In fact, log supply from Forest Service and BLM lands in the Pacific Northwest has remained flat or decreased since the passage of the BIL and IRA. In Western Oregon, for example, the BLM timber program for Fiscal Year 2024 has been arbitrarily reduced by more than 25% from the previous year. These cuts also represent a 25% shortfall from the timber levels directed in the BLM’s current Resource Management Plan.

I’m not inclined to study the Cut and Sold report (although I’d volunteer with the FS to give advice on, and test a more user-friendly version), so I wonder what the FS did or didn’t do? And why did the BLM reduce their timber program? I also wonder about variability and if some forests did reduce and others didn’t.

**********

Environmental groups, for instance, are pushing for a ban on most logging in old-growth forests, but the AFRC specifically cited those areas as needing a more active management approach that includes timber harvesting to make them less vulnerable to wildfire.

“No one is asking the Federal Government to ‘clearcut old growth’ to generate more timber supply,” the AFRC said, asking lawmakers to advocate for timber production with top officials at the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. “We are asking the Federal Government to responsibly manage and steward public lands.”

I didn’t actually see that (my) bolded section in the letter.  Maybe others spotted that? It doesn’t make much sense to me as there is plenty of non-old-growth out there. Could be an editing faux pas.

***********************

The ongoing debate played out in Senate committee hearings last week, as Republican lawmakers pressed for increased timber production and streamlined environmental reviews that would allow Forest Service projects to move faster.

I wonder what the proposals were in detail, if there were any?

*************************

 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) mentioned the opening of a new mill in Carson City, Nevada. That project, a collaboration between industry and the Forest Service, will greatly help the region find a market for wood salvaged from wildfire areas, among other uses, she said.

*************

In addition, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) reintroduced legislation — S. 3899 and H.R. 7609 — last week to let facilities generating electricity from forest biomass — such as forest thinnings — participate in the federal renewable fuel standard program. Their legislation, called the “Biomass for Transportation Fuel Act,” would also expand the program by allowing RFS credits for biomass taken off federal, as well as privately owned, lands. “Finding creative new incentives to keep this biomass off our forests’ floors is integral to the success of our state’s forest products industry and economy,” King said in a news release.

***************

I wouldn’t have thought that that would be as much of an issue in Maine. I checked on Garamendi’s district and it is in the SF bay area, so not a place as worried about excess biomass, as say, the Sierra.  Anyone who knows more about this, please link more info in the comments.

***************

King and other lawmakers also warned last week about the potential effects of anti-deforestation policy by the European Union, telling U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai that the regulations as written could hurt U.S. wood product companies. The policy, due to be enforced beginning in 2025 and requiring traceability to plots of land where trees were cut, could limit market access for U.S. producers, they said.

***************

I was curious about where US exports wood products, so found the graphic above.  It’s interesting to me that Enviva, who actually did have tracing to specific plots of land,  just went bankrupt. 

Any forest economists out there who could explain more about this?

 

Some Stories About Housing and Some Reflections: III. The Concept of Rural Gentrification

by

I’m sure that US social scientists have examined rural gentrification, but I’m not up on current literature, so please link in the comments to any studies.

I did run across this Chinese paper  (2022) by Lu, Rao and Duan, that had a brief literature review from the worldwide perspective.

British scholar Parsons first observed the phenomenon of rural gentrification in a study about British residents’ classes in rural areas. The rural gentrification mainly refers to the urban middle class migrating to rural settlements, for living and recreational space, thus causing the change in the rural social class structure, and leading to the shortage of rural housing and the relocation of indigenous people [15]. Gentrification is a gradual process mainly initiated and maintained by immigrants. These gentrifiers may be urban middle- and upper-class residents with rich capital, such as retirees and “urban elites” (national economic elites and cultural elites), who pursue rural pastoral life in order to “escape” from the city [16,17]. They may be artists looking for cheap accommodation near the countryside and are described as well-educated low-income people [6,11]. The motivations of these migrants in rural areas are different from those in urban centers, where, for example, the middle class is attracted by employment and undervalued housing, whereas rural migrants are attracted by specific rural amenities, especially those related to the natural environment. Parsons and other British scholars have shown that the “gentry” in rural gentrification is not limited to some specific middle-class people with high economic level and social class, and economic level and class composition are not the only criteria to identify the gentry group in rural areas. Diversified social groups with different purposes are likely to become the subjects of rural gentrification. As long as the cultural capital and economic levels of immigrants are higher than that of local residents, rural gentrification may occur [17].
Rural gentrification is a complex process involving the migration of the urban middle class from cities to rural areas [18]. It has brought about four major changes: the transformation of rural class structure, the post-productive process of rural capital accumulation, changes in rural housing structure and the motivation of rural reform [19]. In the study of rural gentrification in Quebec, Guimond and Myriam also emphasized the complexity of rural gentrification at various levels, including social population, housing and economic impact, community and culture, material, environmental and political aspects [20]. Davidson and Lees point out that any form of contemporary gentrification should include: capital dominating the restructuring of the architectural environment, a large number of high- and middle-income newcomers, local residents’ displacement and landscape change. The restructuring of the architectural environment means that the built environment in rural areas is changed by the capital “reinvestment” of land owners, housing owners, investors, developers, etc., emphasizing ecological aesthetics and environmental governance [21]. The structure change of the rural population is the most outstanding impact of rural gentrification, involving the characteristics of the population moving from the city to the countryside. The aging of post-war baby boomers in the United States shows a strong willingness to move to rural life. It is estimated that 2.7 million baby boomers moved from cities to villages in the first 10 years of the 21st century [16]. Landscape can most intuitively describe the great changes in rural gentrification areas, such as the transformation of rural areas from primary production to consumption LED landscape, the changing housing tastes in rural areas and the rising real estate prices [22,23]. Displacement has always been an important result of gentrification, including population displacement, housing displacement and space displacement in rural areas [24]. In addition, rural gentrification also means injecting new classes and social structures into the destination, not only bringing better social capital and networks to the local community, but also triggering discussions on rural governance issues, such as local land use planning, environmental aesthetics and resource management [16,25].
The cause and influence of gentrification in rural areas can be interpreted from the perspectives of consumption and production [26]. From the perspective of consumption, rural gentrification highlights the existence of a “new cultural class” in rural space consumption. It suggests that the core of the economic form in the process of rural gentrification is an experience economy and an aesthetic consumption. In the process it also emphasizes the experience of rural cultural connotation and the formation of specific cultural taste. [17,27]. The “idyll” in rural Britain and the soothing “Rocky Mountain” lifestyle in rural western America have attracted highly skilled urban labor, entrepreneurs and retirees [16,22,28]. From the perspective of production, it emphasizes the redistribution of capital and profits to interpret rural gentrification, not from the perspective of people. N. Smith put forward the theory of the “rent gap” (the difference between the potential value of land and the actual value of land) to explain gentrification [29]. With the decline of rural traditional agricultural productivity and the weakening of agricultural policy protection, rural landscape, rural space and rural built environment become less attractive to capital, and the potential value cannot be realized as actual monetary value, which objectively requires the emergence of more diversified rural economy and investment models [30]. Globalization is seen as one of the main drivers of rural gentrification because the middle and upper classes, the main components of urban-to-rural mobility, benefit from globalized capital accumulation and appreciation of land or property values. They allocate their assets to highly comfortable rural destinations. For example, the rural gentrification in remote and comfortable areas in the United States reflects the spatial positioning of surplus capital accumulated by high-wage urban occupations in the globalized service industry [31,32]. Clark believes that the two explanations are complementary [33].

********

I’d also point out that both gentrification and tourism leads to a combined need for low-income workers.  So there is a correlated need for new lower income workers to move in to meet that need. At the same time, housing prices go up.  When you think about it, it’s surprising that communities are doing as well as they are.

 

Pyramid Mill Closure- Seeley Lake Montana and Rural Gentrification

by

Thanks to a TSW reader for this story. This fits into our ongoing theme of housing difficulties and the exodus of the working class in some Western communities. And if the economy is based on tourism, which doesn’t have high-paying jobs in general, it seems like these communities may be moving to a two-tier society. Perhaps with lower-end retirees and work-from-homers in the middle.  Also there is the idea that at some point, with these kinds of pressures, the timber industry could go belly-up just when people are coming around to it being helpful in keeping fuel treatment material from being burned into the atmosphere.  Meanwhile we have a housing crisis in many areas, more people are moving to these places (both migrants from other states and other countries), and wood is needed as a building material.  And we don’t want new communities to “sprawl,” (get larger), so densification is cool,  and yet ideas like Accessory Development Units don’t allow people to build equity via ownership.  And many increases in density come with decreases in urban trees.  Reminds me that old Thomas Sowell quote “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.” But is anyone looking at the big picture here?

It seems like a tangled ball of policy yarn, with no clear loose end to begin to unravel it.

Over the last five years, a “Now Hiring” sign has been posted along U.S. Highway 83, and the starting wage at Pyramid has been creeping up, Browder said.

He said other workers will be affected as well, such as loggers who are independent contractors and brought raw mateerial to Pyramid.

But he said getting mill employees and finding them places to live is difficult.

Housing creates costly employee attrition, because the company might train a worker who only stays six or eight months, Browder said: “That person leaves because they’re living in some crappy little trailer.”

He said it’s a problem for smaller merchants and retailers, too.

“We just have a serious housing problem in Seeley Lake, and it doesn’t just affect them,” Browder said of Pyramid.

The “blue collar demographic” will take a hit as a result, and Browder said he isn’t sure what young mill workers or couples will do instead because there’s little else in western Montana for them.

“All the working class people are being squeezed out,” he said.

Tourism has become a larger part of the economy, and more retirees who don’t rely on a local job for their income are part of the change in Seeley Lake, Browder said. But he volunteers at the food bank, and he said he anticipates a spike in demand there.

Generally, he said, attendance at community council meetings is low, and he hopes the news will at least bring more people with new ideas to the discussions.

**********

Kier, with the Missoula Economic Partnership, said if the mill closes, it will have ripple effects on the wood products and forest industry. He said he believes the Seeley Lake mill is one of the few that takes Ponderosa logs, which are plentiful in the region.

A couple of other businesses in Montana depend on byproducts from the mill, he said, including Roseburg in Missoula, which produces particleboard, and Weyerhaeuser in Kalispell, which offers plywood panels, among other products.

“Having adequate supply is important for those large manufacturers in terms of a regional system,” Kier said. “So it’s a really fragile system right now.”

He said it’s clear Pyramid intends to shut down, but a lot of people are emerging “by the hour” and talking about whether options exist for others to keep the facility open given it’s an important part of managing healthy forests. But Kier said it’s “premature to suggest there’s any real solution.”

“I hope that the folks who are in Seeley and the folks who are working at the mill know a lot of people care about what is happening to them,” Kier said.

In their closure announcement, Pyramid said “there’s no better solution” for the owners than to shut down the mill permanently. They were advised to close it in 2007 and didn’t, but this time, they said, the financial crisis is worse.

“The owners would like to thank our employees, both past and present, for their hard work and professionalism over the years,” Pyramid said.

“Their dedication has truly been the difference between Pyramid and its competitors. The owners would also like to thank Seeley Lake and the surrounding communities for their support over the years.”

Deschutes National Forest Annual Report 2023

by

 

Thanks to the Old Smokeys’ mailing list for this.  I’m up for posting any Forest annual reports that folks send.  We’re always talking about things people disagree about, controversies and difficulties.   I can’t even get journalists interested in the Stanislaus success story.  I think it’s important to try to highlight all the great work that Forest Service employees are doing.

Here’s the link.  Lots of great work and great photos.  Thanks Deschutes (and for this publication)!

Some Stories About Housing and Some Reflections: II. Denver Post Article on Mountain Towns’ Efforts, Including Building it Themselves

by

I’m posting these so that others can share if housing is or is not a problem in communities nearby to federal land, and if so, what are the communities doing about it?

The Denver Post has an excellent series, including one article on resort town efforts with inclusionary zoning.

Redefining affordable

At the core, inclusionary ordinances represent a realization that the free market, left to its own devices, won’t supply enough affordable housing to lower and even middle-income workers in expensive real estate markets.

“Housing is inextricably tied to economic success and our community can’t exist without a strong housing program,” said Betsy Crum, housing director for Snowmass Village. “People need to be able to live close enough to where they work, or the town will face an existential crisis.”

Click to enlarge

An influx of high-earning remote workers during the pandemic caused housing costs, already high, to surge even more in desirable places to live.

About 75% of remote workers in Colorado’s mountain resort areas in 2021 were making $150,000 or more a year, while only 30% of locals were making that much, according to the Mountain Migration Report from the NWCCOG.

In a fight for housing, locals were the ones who lost out to newcomers. In Snowmass Village, home prices have risen 81.5% in the last four years, in Steamboat Springs, they are up 81.5% and in Basalt, they are up 76.3%, according to Zillow.

Although it isn’t the norm, Aspen has a deed-restricted home valued at $2.5 million, in part so it can attract doctors to work in the city, Anderson said.

Along the Front Range, and across most of the U.S., affordable units target those earning between 30% to 80% of the area median income or AMI, with 60% as a common definition.

That range reflects federal rules for using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and Denver adopted that definition in its inclusionary ordinance. But in resort areas, 80% up to 200% is more typical in inclusionary ordinances.

“You can be in the workforce earning 150% of the AMI and be nowhere close to being able to afford a home,” lamented Hannah Klausman, director of economic and community development for Glenwood Springs.

That 150% number works out to an income of $104,250 a year for a single person and $148,800 for a family of four in Garfield County. The median price of a home in Glenwood Springs is $862,500, according to the Zillow Home Price Index.

And things only get more expensive the further up the Roaring Fork Valley someone goes. In Carbondale and Basalt, someone making double the area median income will struggle to find a home or apartment, she said.

************

In 2019, Glenwood Springs tightened the rules on short-term rentals and a year later it loosened rules on accessory dwelling units, which had been in place since 2013. Last year, the city created rules that made it easier for hotels to convert to residential units in exchange for deed restrictions, and this year it is considering rules to make it easier to add density.

But Glenwood also faces a balancing act. If it makes things too difficult, development could flow to areas with lower requirements and costs like New Castle, Silt and Rifle.

A criticism of inclusionary zoning is that it can make private development too costly or push it toward areas without requirements, an issue Denver will likely have to deal with. And like a big champagne powder day, the conditions have to be right.

“Whenever you introduce a subsidized component to a development project, it puts pressure on the upper price point to carry that,” acknowledged Tim Belinski, president of IND Ventures and a developer in Basalt.

************

But Belinski said inclusionary rules have been part of the equation for so long in the mountains, and the math mostly works, assuming land is available. Resort residents also are acutely aware that the economy needs to have enough workers to function, and housing is a key part of that happening.

Several communities, facing critical shortages, have put on their hard hats and started building housing themselves from dedicated revenue sources, like a portion of sales taxes, fees on deed transfers and short-term rentals. Colorado is also setting aside a share of state income tax revenues for housing.

“Local governments getting involved in building housing has increased since the pandemic. The need is very great, to what some communities were calling crisis proportions,” said Rachel Tuyn, director of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.

The city of Aspen recently completed 79 units in the third phase of its Burlingame Ranch project and up next is Lumberyard, which will provide 277 deed-restricted units on an 11.3-acre parcel near the Aspen Airport Business Center.

Avon is looking to annex 100 acres of state land to build 700 deed-restricted units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space. Winter Park Resort, with the support of the Town of Winter Park, is looking to build dorm-style housing with 330 beds. The Yampa Valley Housing Authority has a 10-year plan to build 1,100 housing units for those earning the median income in the Steamboat Springs area.