Social-Ecological Change, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity in the Mckenzie River Valley, Oregon

Social-Ecological Change, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity in the McKenzie River Valley, Oregon

Timothy B. Inman, Oregon State University Hannah Gosnell, Oregon State University Denise H. Lach, Oregon State University Kailey Kornhauser, Oregon State University

This study explores perceptions of long-term residents regarding links between governance, landscape, and community change in the McKenzie River Valley (MRV) in western Oregon and provides a general assessment of factors affecting resilience and adaptive capacity. Residents interviewed indicated that dramatic changes driven by market competition, timber industry changes, increased regulation, and rural restructuring have occurred in both the landscape and community. The changes that have transpired have redefined the relationship between the community and the landscape, moving away from local dependence on timber harvests to an economy focused on tourism and other ecosystem services. In doing so the community has transitioned from one with a logging community identity to one that has begrudgingly become a retirement and vacation community. We found that the social-ecological system (SES) in the MRV is still in the midst of reorganization in the wake of the 1990s Timber Wars. As a result of low institutional capacity, the system is vulnerable to exogenous drivers of change. Using a modified version of Ostrom’s (2009) framework for SES analysis, this study recommends policymakers and policy entrepreneurs take three key steps to facilitate enhanced resilience and adaptive capacity: 1) support transboundary management strategies that transcend landownership classifications; 2) tighten system feedbacks to include more local influence; and 3) develop local multilayered institutions organized vertically and horizontally. Future research should explore the potential for collaborative forestry and stewardship contracting to enhance social-ecological resilience in this valley.

Keywords: Amenity migration, community resilience, collaborative conservation, governance, industrial forestry, Northwest Forest Plan, restoration, rural restructuring, stewardship forestry, timber wars, transboundary management, U.S. Forest Service

ural landscapes throughout into retirement and recreation-based commu- the American West are ex- nities. Driven by social, regulatory, political, periencing tremendous economic, and technological changes this change. Over the course of process of rural restructuring (Gosnell and the 20th century many for- Abrams 2009; Nelson 2001) is spurring ques- est ecosystems once filled tions regarding the short and long-term sus- withR diverse stands of timber became frag- tainability and identity of rural America. As mented and were replaced with relatively ho- Stauber (2001:33) contends, “For some parts mogenous even-aged harvest units. Commu- of rural America, the slow slide to no longer nities once supported by sawmill operations being viable – economically, socially, or po- and filled with young families have transi- litically – is within sight.” In some places, tioned, or are in the process of transitioning, however, communities have found ways to 69 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

innovate and adapt with changing structures this approach has been difficult to implement in order to remain viable (Kelly and Bliss as rural communities experiment with new 2009; Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). ways to remain economically viable in a re- Central to rural restructuring is a shift source-constrained environment. in the definition of the relationship between This paper uses a resilience perspec- humans and the environment, a process that tive to analyze local perceptions of social- has occurred several times in the relatively ecological relationships in transition in the short history of habitation of the western McKenzie River Valley (MRV) in the west American landscape. Past relationships in- central Cascades of Oregon and identify pol- cluded a boom and bust period of rapid ex- icy implications. In subsequent sections we ploitation and settlement during the 19th cen- review literature on SES resilience and pre- tury; stability and conservation efforts that sent a framework for analysis along with a stretched from the beginning of the 20th cen- description of methods. Next, local percep- tury well into the 1960s and 70s; and efforts tions regarding governance, landscape, and at preservation and resilience that began in community change in the MRV are cata- the latter quarter of the 20th century (Kelly loged. We conclude with a discussion of find- and Bliss 2009; Nelson and Dueker 1990). ings and provide several policy recommenda- Most recently, the relationship between hu- tions. mans and rural landscapes can be seen as What this study reveals is a discon- marked by uncertainty as policy makers nect in the trajectories of social and ecologi- struggle to implement a complex systems ap- cal systems and a corresponding need for bet- proach that fully recognizes both the ecolog- ter institutional support for navigating new ical and human elements of the landscape. relationships between communities and the A growing body of scholarship con- forest to help cultivate a restoration economy. siders the relationship between human and ecological systems in rural, resource-depend- Conceptualizing Social-Ecological Resili- ent communities in terms of resilience and ence in Rural, Resource-Dependent Com- adaptive management (Benson and Garme- munities stani 2011; Bone et al. 2016; Chaffin, Craig and Gosnell 2015; Gosnell et al. 2017). A re- Resilience scholarship offers a framework for silience approach recognizes the coupled na- analysis that helps explain forces that aid in ture of the natural and human environments facing change and adversity. Here we explore and their linked dependency and looks at var- the literature as it pertains to resilience in iables that affect the ability of a system to SESs and specifically in rural, traditionally adapt to change. From a resilience perspec- resource-dependent communities. tive, social-ecological systems (SESs) are complex adaptive systems that may be best Social-Ecological Systems managed in ways that promote adaptability and the ability to absorb disturbances. Eco- Anderies, Janssen and Ostrom (2004:18) de- logically this suggests an ecosystem manage- fine a social-ecological system (SES) as “an ment regime that aims for overall health of ecological system intricately linked with and ecosystem function as the end goal of man- affected by one or more social systems.” In- agement policies, which has the potential to herent in the concept is the recognition that limit resource extraction opportunities and the health and well-being of ecological sys- harm resource-dependent human communi- tems are innately linked to the external forces ties. From a social sustainability perspective, influencing and attempting to manage their HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 70 function (Berkes and Folke 1998). This more appropriately allows for the dis- Ostrom (2009) proposed a multi-level cussion of community changes in contexts nested framework for SES analysis com- not directly tied to its role in resource man- prised of four subsystems: resource system, agement. resource unit, governance system, and users. Community has multiple definitions Each of these subsystems is nested within that represent various dimensions of human other social, economic, political, and ecolog- relationships encompassed by the term. As ical systems and is comprised of a variety of Magis (2010) notes, communities include variables found in the literature to affect re- both place-based and relationship-based ele- silience (discussed below). The interactions ments. Included in the geographic element of that occur between the relevant subsystems community are local institutions present in produce outcomes that in turn shape the sus- the area. The relationship element focuses on tainability of the SES in question and reshape interactions and common beliefs held among the subsystems and their subsequent interac- local residents. Lee and Field (2005) expand tions. By isolating each subsystem and its key the conceptualization of community to in- variables researchers and policymakers are clude communities that share common feel- better able to assess and improve manage- ings and beliefs but are not necessarily pre- ment by targeting efforts at key variables and sent in the same geographic location. As Do- interactions. noghue and Sutton (2006) emphasize, this is We adapted Ostrom’s framework for important for many unincorporated rural ar- our analysis of the McKenzie River Valley eas that nonetheless share a sense of commu- SES (Figure 1). nity. We use this latter definition of community to describe the small towns within the MRV, an area that is unincorporated but shares a school, a common history, and relationships with government and social organizations. The governance subsystem is discussed in terms of the formal and informal institutional structures that influence decision making regarding both the resource and social systems. In the MRV this includes government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the timber industry, market influences, and cultural norms. The landscape subsystem includes ecological aspects as well as the built environment. We use this model in conjunction with variables found in the literature for each appropriate subsystem Figure 1. Adapted model for the analysis of to guide our assessment of the relative resili- social-ecological systems ence of the MRV SES.

This model maintains Ostrom’s core subsys- SES Resilience tems but combines the elements of the two resource systems into the subsystem land- Resilience as a framework for analysis has its scape and expands users to include the roots in the field of ecology and has been de- broader community present in the system. 71 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV fined as a “measure of the persistence of sys- adaptive capacity in the MRV today. tems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same rela- Analyzing SES Resilience tionships between populations or state variables” (Holling 1973:14). As such, resilience Assessing SES resilience is an emerging field thinking is a way to explain a complex sys- and currently no commonly used methodol- tem’s ability to confront change. Resilience ogy exists. SESs contain both designed and has four key properties: 1) systems exist in self-organized components and are not easily multiple basins of attraction and are nested in described by indexes used to capture defined numerous temporal and spatial scales; 2) re- and static objects or processes (Anderies, silience is measured by the amount of dis- Janssen and Ostrom 2004). Approaches to turbance a system can absorb without cross- analyzing the resilience of an SES have in- ing a threshold into a new type of system with corporated assessments of variables and feed- a different function and structure; 3) the pro- backs such as institutional capacity, ecologi- cess of change is controlled by the system’s cal diversity, and social capital (Resilience ability to self-organize; and 4) the ability of Alliance 2015). Quinlan et al. (2015) summa- the system to build and increase capacity for rize multi-disciplinary approaches and cate- learning and adaptation is achieved through gorize the types of metrics researchers have adaptive management (Gunderson 2000; used in their assessment of resilience. Gunderson and Holling 2002; Holling 1973; Gunderson (2000) highlights the im- Walker and Salt 2006). Actors can manage portance of institutions in managing SESs for for increased resilience in a desired state resilience, defining them as the rules and through incremental changes within the exist- structures that allow people to organize for ing SES, or they can seek to deliberately collective action. For governance institutions transform the system by pushing it into a new to be successful (and resilient) he suggests state (Chaffin et al. 2016; Moore et al. 2014). that they incorporate capacities to learn, en- As Nelson, Adger and Brown (2007) gage, and promote trust, using local argue, managing for resilience is more likely knowledge and common property systems to to produce outcomes that provide for social link people and the environment. Chaffin, well-being. Folke (2006:260) summarizes the Gosnell and Cosens (2014) review the tenets essence of the concept well: “The resilience of adaptive governance, noting the im- approach is concerned with how to persist portance of a community agreeing upon a through continuous development in the face ‘desired state’ for the SES. Butler and Gold- of change and how to innovate and transform stein (2010) characterize the potential for ru- into new more desirable configurations.” ral, timber-dependent communities to be par- This orientation shifts the management of alyzed by conflict, landing in ‘rigidity traps,’ linked SESs toward policies that manage for which stop systems from innovating or adapt- change while accounting for the health of ing, thus decreasing resilience. They analyze ecosystem and the social communities de- the emergence of recent forest collaboration pendent on these systems. At the heart of re- as a way to spring rigidity traps and move to- silience thinking is an acknowledgement that wards more resilient multi-scalar govern- change and evolution occur as part of com- ance. Benson and Garmestani (2011) argue plex processes that manifest at and across dif- that there are a number of institutional barri- ferent temporal and spatial scales (Gunderson ers to managing for resilience associated with and Holling 2002). These cross-scale dynam- the U.S. Forest Service; however Maier and ics are key to understanding resilience and Abrams (2018) observe that in some places, HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 72

federal forest governance seems to be shift- tive action. Similar to Donoghue and Sturte- ing towards a social forestry model involving vant’s (2007) distinction between assets as greater participation by local actors, which in foundational and mobilizing capital, Magis some cases may facilitate the emergence of (2010) distinguishes assets by their active adaptive governance and enhance social-eco- and inactive or latent capacity. Resilience is logical resilience. distinguished by the community’s ability to Timberlake, Schultz and Abrams develop and engage resources in a collective (2017) describe some of the variables that na- manner to respond and adapt to change. In tional forests have considered in building re- addition to social capital, scholars observe silient landscapes, including defining ecosys- the importance of strong social networks and tem boundaries, defining geographic scale of multiple scales in building and maintaining landscapes, identifying relevant stressors to resilience (Davis et al. 2017). In our analysis the system, and understanding future uncer- of the MRV, we draw on these themes and tainties of the system. Resilience of land- indicators of governance, landscape, and scapes and ecosystems is often categorized community level resilience. by diversity and overlapping function within a given scale (Peterson, Allen and Holling The McKenzie River Valley: A Region in 1998). Empirical evidence promotes the idea Transition that humans have decreased landscape resilience by removing redundancy from ecosys- The McKenzie River Valley (MRV) runs tems and managing for optimization of re- from east to west, stretching from the crest of source production (Folke et al. 2004). the Cascade mountain range to the Eu- There have been a number of efforts gene/Springfield metropolitan area at the to assess the resilience of forest dependent southern end of the Willamette Valley (Fig- communities. The Interior Columbia Basin ure 2). Overall land ownership in the valley Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) is dominated by the federal government, used a community resilience framework for which manages 69% of the watershed its assessment, defining resiliency as “the (McKenzie Watershed Council 2016). In the community’s ability to respond and adapt to upper portions of the valley, land ownership change in the most positive constructive is largely controlled by the Willamette Na- ways possible for mitigating the impacts of tional Forest (WNF), part of the USDA For- change on the community” (Harris et al. est Service (USFS). The lower and middle 2000:7). Its resiliency index included rank- portions of the valley include a checkerboard ings in civic leadership, social organization, pattern of mixed federal/private ownership economic structure, and physical amenities. dominated by the Bureau of Land Manage- Donoghue and Sturtevant (2007) classified ment (BLM) and an array of large timber the factors contributing to resiliency in forest companies. The lower floodplain portion of dependent communities as assets, or types of the basin is almost all private land, much of it capital, including both foundational and mo- in small farms. The structure of land owner- bilizing capital. Foundational capital consists ship and management significantly affects of the assets that exist in the community such landscape management strategies throughout as infrastructure, natural resources, and eco- the basin (McKenzie Watershed Council nomic capital. Mobilizing capital entails or- 2016). ganizing human, social, and political capital through social processes that lead to collec- 73 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

Figure 2. McKenzie River Watershed and Associated Land Ownership

As of 2010 the MRV had a total population plorer 2018). MRV communities are all in of 5,187 (Oregon Communities Explorer unincorporated portions of Lane County and 2018). Residents of the upper portion of the lack any local general-purpose governments. valley are employed in resource extraction or Residents have access to county and state resource management and recreation-based support services but those services are lo- economies, retired, or commute to the nearby cated outside of the MRV. Within the MRV, metropolitan area for employment (Oregon key government organizations include the Communities Explorer 2018; Shindler, Steel McKenzie River Fire Department, the and List 1996). In 2016, MRV residents’ me- McKenzie School District, the McKenzie dian age was 56.3, much older than the 39.1 River Watershed Council, and the USFS. median age in Oregon (Oregon Communities Outside of government organizations, resi- Explorer 2018). In 2000, agricultural, forest, dents rely on an array of local support net- fishing, hunting, and mining industry em- works including the local Chamber of Com- ployment accounted for 10.9% of the popula- merce and EASE, a locally supported pro- tion in the MRV, while today that number has vider of ambulance and emergency medical dropped to 3.8% (Oregon Communities Ex- services (Preister et al. 2002). HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 74

The MRV landscape has long pro- (Machlis and Force 1988). Adding to these vided a range of ecosystem services that sup- industry challenges, regulatory constraints port local communities, including clean wa- came to a head in 1991 when a lawsuit was ter for the communities of Eugene/Spring- filed in federal court to protect the old-growth field, as well as many other communities habitat of the northern spotted owl, listed as along the Willamette River. For much of the threatened under the federal Endangered Spe- 20th century residents were able to rely on cies Act in 1990. The legal battles initiated by logging and the building of dams on local riv- the spotted owl case eventually led to an in- ers to provide living wage jobs. Recreation junction on harvests from federal lands. Be- and tourism have also become key compo- tween 1987 and 2000 timber harvests in nents of the local economy. USFS Region 6, comprised of Oregon and Numerous studies have been con- Washington, were reduced from 6 billion ducted on the hydrologic, ecological, and bi- board feet to .5 billion board feet and forest ological health of the MRV (Risley et al. related employment declined dramatically as 2010), citing a range of concerns. Several lo- well (Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). In cal species have been listed as endangered or 1994 the USFS implemented the Northwest threatened under the federal Endangered Spe- Forest Plan (NWFP) in an attempt to find a cies Act, including the spring Chinook balance between timber harvesting and eco- salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), bull system restoration, initiating a period of reor- trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Oregon chub ganization in the MRV involving new insti- (Oregonichthys crameri), and northern spot- tutional and social dynamics (Maier and ted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Other Abrams 2018). species such as the western pond turtle are in Over the last two decades the USFS decline. Some streams that feed into the has suffered from decreasing legitimacy and McKenzie River have water quality issues. capacity (Maier and Abrams 2018), though in Lower portions of the valley face continuing recent years the agency has attempted to em- development pressure from the Eu- ploy a resilience-based approach to ecosys- gene/Springfield metropolitan area (McKen- tem management and improve its ability to zie Watershed Council 2016). Despite these engage with local communities in forest plan- concerns many local residents and research- ning (Benson and Garmestani 2011; Bone et ers have emphasized the general health of the al. 2016). Socially and economically, for- MRV (Doppelt et al. 2009; McKenzie Water- merly timber dependent communities like the shed Council 2016; Shindler and Mallon MRV have been subject to “the triad of eco- 2006). nomic, demographic, and environmental Three paradigms have shaped the for- forces combining to reshape the western est-community relationship over the last cen- landscape” in a process of rural restructuring tury and a half: exploitation and boom and (Nelson 2001:395). Over the past two dec- bust settlement; growth and dominance of the ades residents of the MRV have been navi- timber industry; and forced reorganization re- gating this reorganizing and restructuring lated to market forces, technology shifts, and transition, with mixed results for social-eco- increased regulation that drastically limited logical resilience. This study documents local timber harvest beginning in the 1980s. In re- perceptions regarding the ongoing process of gard to the latter, Pacific Northwest timber system reorganization. interests had to adjust to industry migrating to the southeastern United States and increasing competition from Canadian exports 75 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

Methods Results

The purpose of this study was to explore and Results from the analysis of the interviews understand perceptions of long-time resi- are discussed as they relate to changes in gov- dents in the MRV regarding change in local ernance, the landscape, the community, and landscapes and communities. We utilized a their interactions, the elements contributing flexible design approach that relied primarily to SES resilience (see Figure 1). Since our fo- on qualitative data gathered through semi- cus is on resilience of the MRV in the after- structured interviews with 21 long-time resi- math of the so-called Timber Wars, we begin dents of the McKenzie River Valley (MRV). with perceptions of change in governance, Study participants were chosen using a non- specifically how the NWFP has played out in probability purposive sampling technique the MRV. We then document perceptions of (Robson 2002) aimed at recruiting individu- social and ecological changes associated with als who had a significant history living or the transformation in governance and how working in the MRV, and who have the subsystems have interacted with one an- knowledge of landscape conditions and how other to produce current and future condi- those conditions may have changed over tions. Each interviewee is given a label to time. Participants included timber industry protect their identity. No label is used for employees, USFS employees, local landown- more than one individual. ers and land managers, and long-time residents of the community. They were not se- Perceptions of Change in Governance Struc- lected based on inclusion in any demo- ture graphic, social, or economic group. The de- sire to acquire information about changes Governance structure refers to the social and over time led to a focus on residents who had institutional arrangements that influence sys- been of working age at the time the spotted tem rules, practices, and processes. This in- owl was listed under the Endangered Species cludes both governmental and non-govern- Act in 1991, transforming forest management mental organizations, regulatory regimes, practices in the MRV. Interview questions fo- and market and industry structures. In the de- cused on locals’ personal histories in the scription below residents describe both gov- MRV, their relationship to the natural envi- ernance structures that reside within the ronment (e.g. work in natural resource man- MRV and those that are external to the sys- agement, recreation in the national forest, tem. Internal system structures include the etc.), and perceptions of governance, land- various local land management entities that scape and community change over time. In- influence landscape conditions. External terviews were transcribed, recorded, and forces of change in the MRV include market coded to identify recurring themes and con- forces influencing the timber industry and top cepts. Data gathered through interviews were down USFS regulation of the timber industry. supplemented with a thorough review of the literature on key thematic topics, quantitative Changes in the Timber Industry data received from the U.S. Census Bureau and Oregon Department of Education, and An external force consistently mentioned by key studies conducted by past researchers in interviewees is the influence the timber mar- the MRV. ket has had on management decisions and practices. This is tied to changes in the timber industry that both adapt to and drive changes HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 76 in market conditions. became more difficult for small companies to Interviewees described market forces stay afloat. Several of the interviewees who as non-linear, with markets for timber prod- were loggers have left the timber industry ucts constantly ebbing and flowing as prices while those still logging have experienced a and values change. These dynamics influence severe reduction in amount of work. One lo- decisions on when to harvest, how much to cal truck driver noted how, “It diversified harvest, and what species to harvest. When into big companies eating up small compa- prices are up, people log; when prices are nies. Small companies had no way to com- down, the decisions become more compli- pete; they were just gobbled up or ran out of cated and depend on who owns the land. One business.” local environmental activist described indus- Most of those interviewed spoke of try thinking: “When the dollar is driving they the technological transformation that altered don’t seem to have enough brains to look at the logging process, making timber harvest- the big picture.” Almost every interviewee ing more efficient, less damaging to the land- cited the price of timber as a critical factor scape, and reducing the number of workers driving logging decisions. needed in the field. These technological inno- Many of those interviewed spoke of vations also posed challenges for small com- how changes in the timber industry have in- panies trying to stay competitive. One gyppo fluenced landscape management. Changes outfit operator1 spoke of the difficulty staying include the conversion of mills, loss of small afloat: timber companies, and changes in technology. One local noted, “There are only nine It was hard with all this new logging dinosaur mills [for old growth] left in Ore- equipment and everything went to gon” (Environmental activist). With fewer mechanized logging. We didn’t want mills capable of handling large timber, fur- to take that chance to spend a couple of ther pressure was added to harvest small di- million on logging equipment and not ameter timber capable of being processed in know if we had a job in a few years. the new mills. A timber land owner commented: Change in Federal Forest Governance

In the [late 80s and] 90s, the whole Virtually all interviewees discussed changes spotted owl thing … I remember think- in the USFS which is seen as an external ing as a private land owner that if they force controlling much of the land in the up- lock up all the federal wood, what’s per portion of the valley. As one landowner that going to do to us. I thought that described, in its early years, the USFS “was might be good. Without a lot of wood, basically a timber salesman. They were try- would it drive up the price for the pri- ing to sell all the timber they could sell be- vate sector, or would it hurt us? Well it cause that was bringing lots of money into the has hurt us because there are no mills. coffer.” In addition to selling timber, the There is nowhere to sell old growth an- USFS was focused on building or overseeing ymore. roads that facilitated timber harvesting and fire protection on federal lands. But as most A few interviewees also highlighted the fact interviewees agreed, the role and function of that as access to federal timber declined and the USFS has changed dramatically as politi- competition for available timber increased, it cal and environmental conditions have

1 A gyppo logger runs or works an independent small-scale logging operation. 77 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV changed. What residents began to see due to one or the other is going to dominate. pressure by environmental groups and Perhaps that is the best way we are go- through changes in regulation was an in- ing to collaborate. (Former old growth creased focus on active management aimed at timber faller) landscape restoration and on forest aesthet- ics, i.e. how the landscape appeared to visi- Since these interviews were conducted, the tors. McKenzie Watershed Stewardship Group (MWSG) has been established and has com- Their [USFS] biggest area now is rec- pleted one successful stewardship contract reation and fish and wildlife. . .Sale ad- with the Willamette National Forest (Cascade ministration is down pretty low. (Re- Pacific 2018) with others in the works. Plan- tired USFS employee) ning for this type of timber sale and subsequent expenditures of retained receipts on I think we’re trying to do some differ- restoration brings community members to- ent things with our management activ- gether in a governance process aimed at iden- ities that we didn’t do in ‘91 because tifying a desired state for the SES and a ‘zone we were so busy logging. We’re doing of agreement’ for how to manage the land- some wildlife activities on a small scape, theoretically increasing social and scale, trying to restore meadows by ecological resilience at the local scale. cutting trees along meadows. (USFS All interviewees agreed that govern- biologist) ance change has had a significant impact on landscape and community change. Emergence of Local Forest Governance Perceptions of Landscape Change A few individuals interviewed discussed their belief in the need for consistent and sustained When asked about changes witnessed in for- efforts to bring all MRV interests together to ests, interviewees discussed several catego- discuss management issues. Several individ- ries of change that have been observed in the uals described failed attempts by the USFS to MRV, notably: timber density, timber age establish a local stewardship contracting pro- and species, and threats to the landscape. Lo- gram like the one on the nearby Siuslaw Na- cal residents were very conscious of who tional Forest, which has seen great success in owned what land and were quite clear in de- engaging the local community in ecosystem lineating landscape conditions based on the restoration involving sustainable forestry. ownership characteristics of that land. Despite this setback, everyone suggested that Comments about timber density re- the USFS continue efforts to work with the ferred both to the overall quantity of timber local population and continue discussing in the MRV and how timber is distributed shared problems and challenges. across the landscape. For most individuals, changes in timber density are the most dra- We’ve tried some stewardship stuff matic and persistent observed change. As that hasn’t worked out. Well, we need timber harvests began to decline in the late to make it work out and bring all the 1980s and were essentially halted on federal different parties to the table and have land in 1991 to protect the northern spotted those opinions shared and work owl, the landscape began to change. As was through compromise in some fashion required by law, all clear-cut forested areas to come up with some sort of plan. Not were replanted for future harvesting. When HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 78 logging was halted on federal lands the re- landscape is to increase the amount of planted timber was left to grow, resulting in a land that is logged, but to do so with a landscape filling in with larger and older trees range of techniques that includes thin- and increased vegetation in the understory. ning. Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I like Almost every individual emphasized the to see more woods than less. I hated point that there is more timber growing now seeing a bunch of clear cuts around but than they have ever seen before and that if we’re talking about thinning, if much of it is very tightly spaced. we’re talking about managing our forest to keep it from being so combus- A lot of those old clear cuts are 40 tible and at the same time having some years old and are in pretty bad shape, sort of industry up here then I think that heavy density, and need thinning would be great. (Ex-logger and USFS badly. (Environmental activist) employee)

One side effect of changing forest landscape There’s lots of thinning opportunities. patterns on federal land is a loss of early seral There’s lots of old plantations that habitat, including open prairies or meadows. need fixing. (Environmental activist) As described by this resident, a former logger, A few interviewees expressed beliefs that for healthy forests, clear cuts needed to be in- There’s a huge difference on that prai- cluded in management practices: rie land from when I was a kid. Those big open meadows are declining like The other thing with Douglas fir is it crazy. The trees come in from outside, does real well in the open areas so it the seedlings start populating and either has to be logged clean or burnt pretty soon the whole prairie is gone. clean. Then it grows back really well. If you don’t do that and let it stand and Almost regardless of opinion of past and cur- get old, die of disease and die slowly, rent management practices, interviewees said you end up with a hemlock forest. (Ex- management needs to be changed to move logger) forward. Beliefs regarding future management practices involved two key changes: in- Speaking specifically of USFS practices and creasing logging on federal lands using a the reliance on thinning, one logging industry mixture of methods and cutting older timber. employee stated: Most interviewees expressed the need to increase management intensity on federal Forest Service has a problem because lands while recognizing that strategies need all they do is thin. They can’t take an- to be more holistic than they have been ything 80 years or older . . . They’ve through managing for sustainability and the got a problem; they’re thinning them- specific needs of the area. Speaking of what selves out. What are they thinning for? needs to be done differently in landscape They’re thinning because they can get management a former gyppo logger and an timber sales through and can get some environmental activist seemed to be in agree- money back in there, but I know they ment: want a diversified forest but they’re thinning and not clear cutting any- Part of what that means to manage the more. When they’re done thinning 79 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

then what? there’s a “huge difference in the land moving from federal to private land [in terms of fire Several interviewees shared the belief that conditions]” (Biologist). old trees, not young trees, need to be logged. Other environmental threats men- Old growth is seen as having value for a va- tioned included impacts to water quality as- riety of reasons including ecosystem health sociated with ongoing clearcutting on private and for its existence value but is also seen as lands; for example, streams near logging sites ‘dead and dying timber’ with the greatest running thick with mud during rainstorms, commodity value. and residential development in riparian areas. Interviewees consistently noted that My way of thinking is that the old differential environmental changes on the growth is what you need to be logging. landscape were primarily related to different It’s good timber, makes good boards, regulations affecting different types of land boards without knots . . . When you owners. start logging six to eight- inch stuff you are actually logging your next genera- Perceptions of Community Change tion of trees . . . Not to say it needs to be clear cut but it needs to be selec- Perceptions about changes in the local com- tively logged so it looks nice and is munity are interwoven with changes in envi- healthy and you’re going to get much ronmental governance and associated land- more benefit out of the trees then you scape change in the MRV. Ostrom’s model are a six-inch pole. (Truck driver) describes the community element of the SES as a set of characteristics directly linked to the The thing about the old growth is it is resource system. The adapted model used for just going to stand there and rot and this analysis incorporates community ele- die. It would be better to cut it and get ments which may be evolving in a manner nice new little trees than to let it sit that makes the link with the resource system there and rot and waste. (Landowner) more indirect than it once was. Interviewees’ comments about the It is important to note that not all interview- community can be grouped into three types ees mentioned the need to log old growth tim- of change: employment opportunities, demo- ber. But most did at least express sadness that graphic shifts, and community social institu- what is being logged tends to be the young, tion disappearances. All respondents echoed small trees. a similar story of community change in the Most interviewees discussed the de- MRV that emphasized a loss of young fami- veloping threat posed by fire as forests on lies and an increase of retirees as the timber federally managed land continue to increase and resource infrastructure building sectors in density. “Those lands are overstocked and decline and are slowly replaced by an envi- going to need some attention both from dis- ronment managed for different outcomes. ease and fire protection” (Former old growth timber faller). That same concern is not nec- Changes in Employment essarily shared for lands lower in the basin that are subject to continued timber harvests Employment opportunities in the MRV have and where the weather tends to be moister undergone a dramatic shift. When almost all and cooler. “Up at the pass that’s known, of those interviewed began working there there’s lots of dead trees, a high fire risk” but was an abundance of work opportunities. HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 80

One local truck driver recalled, “Before in the moved to the area to work on dam construc- 50s and 60s it was work work work, all kinds tion. As one retired USFS employee stated of work. You could get fired here today and every family had a “husband and a wife with go to work there tomorrow.” Most of the jobs 2.4 kids and a husband in the woods.” people found were in some way connected to As working-class families left the the timber industry or dam building on the lo- area, local residents witnessed an influx of re- cal river. As one retired USFS employee retirees and vacation homeowners. The transi- called, “At one time you had six or seven tion has been so dramatic that almost every- mills between here [Blue River] and McKen- one interviewed commented on how the com- zie Bridge. Some of them very small . . . munity can now be seen as a retirement com- Those are all gone.” munity: A former logger echoed these concerns about changing economic opportuni- There’s virtually no logging families ties: on the river now and there’s an awful lot of retired folks. It’s become kind of It used to be we were a more econom- a retirement community. (Logger) ically vibrant community. With the re- strictions on the national forest and Changes in Social Capital and Network Ca- with the change in the market and with pacity the changes in demand for wood prod- ucts this community has gone through Two main themes emerged about transfor- quite a transition. mations of community institutions: changes in the local school and, especially, a loss of What many described as the new economy in social venues to interact with others in the the MRV is based in recreation and tourism. community. Respondents often reported that When asked about local employment, one everyone used to know everyone else. One resident community member stated “Well truck driver who lived in the MRV since the tourism, that’s the business up here now; you 1940s commented on how it “used to be I know guides and rafters, lots more on the knew everybody from McKenzie Bridge to river.” The problem with the recreation and Vida. Now I’m lucky if I know three people. tourism industry raised by several interview- The local family type things that were here ees is that those sectors do not provide a lot for ages and ages have dwindled.” of family wage jobs. Typically, they provide Throughout the interviews, residents employment or income for a couple of mentioned the loss or gain of different venues months during the summer but then income or events that created a center for community drops dramatically in the winter. gatherings. Interviewees spent little time talking about current venues and more about Demographic Change the number of places that have been lost to the community. Many focused on the town of Every interviewee described the MRV as his- Blue River, which once was seen as thriving torically settled by working class families. In- with a hotel, multiple filling stations, and sev- itially the area was populated with logging eral restaurants and bars, now perceived as families and families of USFS employees. “going backwards” (Land owner and former When Cougar and Blue River Dams were be- logger). Another interviewee said somewhat ing built in the 1960s, the logging community sarcastically, “We’ll drink at home alone” saw a significant influx of families who (Ex-logger and USFS employee). 81 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

Responses provide a glimpse into res- changes appear to have resulted in decreased idents’ beliefs regarding the ability for the sit- social capital and network capacity, which uation to change in the MRV, with three main will take strategic efforts to restore. ideas emerging: 1) these changes are here to stay; 2) some individuals are interested in be- Discussion ing active change agents; and 3) a few organizations exist in the MRV that can facilitate Results of this research suggest that structural the development of local capacity to adapt to issues are contributing to low community re- the myriad of challenges facing the valley. silience in the MRV. A primary concern is Taken together these comments hint at an ac- the limited ability of the system to self-organ- ceptance of the current loss of social capital ize given the lack of existing local govern- and some local capacity to adapt. ance structures. Resilience is fostered by the Almost all interviewees expressed ac- existence of multi-layered governance ar- ceptance of the impossibility of returning to rangements that support local decision-mak- the days when the community was booming ing and have the flexibility and capacity to and timber was king. For some, this was seen navigate local challenges. Governance in the as a good thing. One former old growth tim- MRV, an unincorporated area, is for the most ber faller continually emphasized the need part overseen by distant county, state, or fed- for the community to change; speaking of old eral offices. One of the few local governance days he said: institutions at the time of our interviews is the McKenzie River Watershed Council, funded Those days are gone; at least right now in part by the state to develop place-based and probably for a good reason cause we restoration projects. were probably not managing the re- The USFS, private land managers, the source as we should back then . . . You BLM, and the Oregon Department of For- have to constantly change to some de- estry oversee local land management. This gree. Take the best thing and work with multi-level/multi-sector arrangement limits that. Don’t be unwilling to admit you the ability of the SES to self-organize be- make mistakes. cause, as stressed by interviewees, management decisions are largely influenced by state Several of those interviewed discussed their and national politics on federal land and by past participation and willingness to partici- corporate interests on commercially owned pate in land management discussions with the timber land. Without the ability to influence USFS or other groups. management decisions locally, the diverse In sum, resource dependency in the land ownership interests lead to management MRV has been replaced by a mix of activities strategies without a system-wide focus. The that include traditional work – logging, guid- lack of local capacity to influence the man- ing, and USFS work – with new recreation agement of the system limits the system’s and service work, as well as an increase in overall resilience and ability to adapt to fu- commuting to nearby metropolitan areas that ture management problems or those induced can provide jobs. Young families who were by forces such as climate change. part of a blue-collar logging culture have Managing for resilience requires fo- mostly left the valley and been replaced by cusing on slow moving variables such as in- retirees and vacation homeowners, shifting stitutional structures and processes (Gunder- the MRV from a logging community to a re- son 2000). A key part of this is enhancing tirement community. These community flexibility and adaptability of institutions and HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 82

the ability to self-organize (Carpenter et al. decisions that have failed to fully account for 2001). Interviews with long-time residents the fact that the different pieces of land in the indicate the MRV SES has been increasingly MRV function as a linked system and ensure subject to external forces such as changes in that biophysical, social, and economic por- timber market conditions, industry reorgani- tions of the system are coordinated. The most zation and mechanization, federal logging salient example of this came when decisions regulation, and pressures from rural restruc- were made to reduce timber harvests on pub- turing and amenity migration. By enhancing lic land. As most residents interviewed attest, the system’s ability to self-organize and de- reductions on federal land simply shifted har- velop internal capacity to address problems, vests to adjacent private lands, shortening the residents may be better equipped to adapt harvest rotations and, in some cases, leading to changing ecological and social conditions. to permanent loss of forest and farmland in While multiple factors exist that favor of increased human development. could enhance the resilience of the MRV, Oregon has a rich tradition of build- perceptions of long-time residents indicate ing transboundary management institutions. three key issues that may improve the adap- In 1995, for example, Oregon passed legisla- tive capacity of the local SES: 1) enhance tion allowing local government entities to transboundary land management in the create local watershed councils. Oregon now MRV; 2) tighten feedbacks between policy has 88 watershed councils composed of local makers and the system; and 3) develop mul- community members who work across juris- tilayered institutions for system management. dictional boundaries to focus on the health of Each is discussed below. their watershed. Several of the residents interviewed highlighted the role the McKenzie Enhance Transboundary Management Watershed Council has played in developing strategies and solutions to protect the health Resilience thinking requires that the biophys- of the MRV watershed. ical, social, and economic components of a While Oregon’s watershed councils region be treated as a single SES (Walker et have functioned with varying levels of suc- al. 2009). As shown in the map (Figure 2), the cess, their structure serves as a model for MRV has a variety of landownership types practices that can help facilitate transbound- and sits within and adjacent to large sections ary management within a SES. They include of public land. Consequently, land manage- utilizing local knowledge and broad stake- ment in the basin is divided among several holder engagement, fostering capacities for a land management organizations that include system to self-organize, and creating a venue government agencies like the USFS, BLM, for local decision-making, all key compo- Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon De- nents to a resilient SES. As previously men- partment of Land Conservation and Develop- tioned, the McKenzie Watershed Steward- ment, Oregon Watershed Enhancement ship Group (MWSG) is a forest collaborative Board, Lane County, and the McKenzie that seeks to support stewardship contracting River Watershed Council; private entities on USFS lands. This relatively new govern- such as commercial timber companies and ance mechanism serves a dual purpose: it pri- residential homeowners; and non-govern- oritizes restoration activities involving treat- mental organizations like the McKenzie ment of overstocked stands for the purposes River Trust. of forest health and resiliency and provides As residents indicated, this land own- income to local logging operators. It also ership arrangement has led to management strengthens local capacity to self-govern and 83 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

collaboratively work across jurisdictional context of the MRV, feedback includes boundaries toward desired social-ecological changes in timber industry employment, futures. spotted owl numbers, the size of salmon runs, The MWSG was most recently con- or a variety of impacts resulting from the in- vened by the Eugene Water and Electric teraction of variables in the system. A resili- Board (EWEB), which relies on the McKen- ence approach focuses on tightness of feed- zie River for both power and water resources, backs, which refers to how quickly or to work with the USFS Willamette National strongly the consequences of a change in one Forest. This partnership allows the USFS to part of the system are felt and responded to in enter into long-term contracts that allow another part of the system (Walker and Salt funds generated by timber sales to remain in 2006). As the resilience literature indicates, if the watershed to be used for other restoration feedback is not tightly linked, the impacts of work (instead of going back to the USFS changes occurring within a SES can be de- and/or the U.S. Treasury). A pilot steward- layed, thus slowing potential management re- ship sale in the MRV generated over sponses. $100,000 in retained receipts to be used on In the early 1990s, public land man- restoration projects on both public and pri- agers and organizations shifted their focus to vate lands in the valley. Current partners in- an inclusive set of ecosystem variables, and clude state and federal agencies (e.g. Oregon have made efforts to incorporate the princi- Department of Forestry), private timber com- ples of adaptive management. Despite this, panies (e.g. Whitewater Forests LLC), and there still appears to be considerable distance non-governmental organizations (e.g. between policy makers and local circum- McKenzie Watershed Council, Oregon stances such as declining populations and Wild). A brief review of MWSG meeting changing forest conditions that increase local notes supports the idea that community mem- risks. One way to improve resilience of the bers are making and evaluating decisions MRV SES is to build collaboration among about stewardship contracts, networking with the organizations making policies affecting other organizations in the community, and the MRV; there is also a need to clearly un- learning from other collaborative partner- derstand how local social, economic, and ships in the USFS system (Cascade Pacific ecological conditions are affected by those 2018). decisions. Once again, collaborative conser- Both watershed councils and steward- vation efforts like the MWSG prove useful in ship groups illustrate the ways in which com- building resilience through tighter links munities reorganize to build social-ecologi- among community interests at multiple cal resilience through collaborative conserva- scales. tion efforts. By bringing together diverse stakeholder groups to address resource man- Build Multilayered Institutions agement and restoration projects, communities like the MRV can transform their govern- A consistent theme in resilient SESs is the ne- ance systems, build resilient landscapes, and cessity of multilayered governance structures strengthen social networks. that are redundant and organized both vertically and horizontally (Anderies et al. 2004; Tighten System Feedback Langridge, Christian-Smith and Lohse 2006; Nelson et al. 2007; Walker and Salt 2006). Feedback represents the secondary effect of Without a multilayered SES, resilience can one variable interacting with another. In the be diminished. For instance, in the MRV, no HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 84

local general-purpose governments exist in Conclusion these unincorporated areas. General governance is provided by the county, and in some This study sought to understand perceptions instances, the state and federal government. of long-term McKenzie River Valley resi- The most active governance organizations in dents regarding landscape and community the area are federal and state resource man- change and provide a general assessment of agement agencies such as the USFS. While factors affecting local SES resilience. Inter- linked vertically, as discussed previously, the viewed residents indicated that dramatic link appears to be influenced from the top changes driven by market competition, tim- down, with little local ability to impact man- ber industry changes, increased regulation, agement decisions. and rural restructuring have occurred in both Furthermore, the primary governance the landscape and the community. These organizations in the MRV have been focused changes have redefined the relationship be- on ecosystem management in recent years, tween the community and the landscape, with little attention to local economic well- moving away from local dependence on tim- being. That appears to be changing, however, ber harvests to an economy driven by tourism with the emergence of the MWSG, with its and other ecosystem services including resto- multiple partners from federal and state agen- ration activities. In doing so the community cies, the private sector, and NGOs. The suc- has transitioned from one with an identity as cess of the first pilot project described above a logging community to one that has be- suggests that progress is being made in man- grudgingly transitioned to a retirement and aging the landscape collaboratively for im- vacation community. As a result of relatively proved social, economic, and ecological low institutional and organizational capacity, health. However, there continues to be a lack the SES is vulnerable to continued drivers of of local organizations focused on the social change from outside the MRV. However, the and economic health of the community. What communities in the MRV have begun to reor- residents in the MRV described was an insti- ganize through collaborative governance tutional structure that is not fully linked ver- structures that may be enhancing resilience tically or horizontally to provide for system- and adaptive capacity. In order to facilitate wide resilience. enhanced resilience, policy makers and pol- Many of those interviewed expressed icy entrepreneurs should take action to ensure an interest or willingness to effect change transboundary management strategies are put within the community. This energy is begin- in place, that feedbacks are tightened to in- ning to be capitalized on as groups like the clude more local influence on decisions, and watershed council and the stewardship group that adequate support is provided to local or- emerge. These collaborative entities can fill ganizations to create multilayered structures in the governance gaps present in unincorpo- that interact both vertically and horizontally. rated regions and provide a platform for local Results of this study suggest the need for fu- community members to interact with local, ture research on the array of institutional, or- regional and national governance systems. ganizational, and governance structures af- Additionally, these groups provide a struc- fecting the MRV and other unincorporated tured way in which local people can advocate rural communities in order to identify strate- for improved social and economic condi- gies to better coordinate response to change. tions. This type of polycentric governance Future work characterizing perceptions and tends to increase resilience. beliefs of more recent community residents will increase understanding of how the shift 85 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

in demographics is shaping local preferences USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Re- for landscape and community management. search Station, Oregon State University, and the ______Willamette National Forest, and funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. Tim Inman, MPP, is the Chief of Staff for the DEB-1440409. Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives. ______He is a graduate of the Master in Public Policy program at Oregon State University (OSU). References Tim’s research at Oregon State focused on resil- Anderies, John M., Marco A. Janssen, and Elinor ience in rural, resource-dependent communities. Ostrom. 2004. “A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-Ecological Sys- Hannah Gosnell, Ph.D., is an Associate Profes- tems from an Institutional Perspective.” sor of Geography in the College of Earth, Ocean, Ecology and Society 9(1):18. and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State Uni- Benson, Melinda H. and Ahjond S. Garmestani. versity (OSU). Dr. Gosnell’s research interests 2011. “Can We Manage for Resilience? have to do with agricultural landscape change The Integration of Resilience Thinking and environmental governance in the context of into Natural Resource Management in the rural working landscapes; and the ways in which United States.” Environmental Manage- laws and institutions might evolve to better re- ment 48:392-399. flect changing geographies and facilitate social- Berkes, Fikret and Carl Folke. 1998. “Linking ecological transformation when necessary. Social and Ecological Systems for Sus- tainability and Resilience.” Pp. 1-26 in Denise Lach, Ph.D., is a Professor of Sociology Linking Social and Ecological Systems: and Director of the School of Public Policy at Management Practices and Social Mech- Oregon State University (OSU). Dr. Lach’s re- anisms for Building Resilience, edited by search interests are broadly focused on the im- F. Berkes and C. Folke. Cambridge, UK: pact of climate change on resource-dependent Cambridge University Press. communities, ways to involve communities in co- Bone, Christopher, Cassandra Moseley, Kirsten producing knowledge that can help them make Vinyeta, and R. Patrick Bixler. 2016. decisions, and ways to visualize results so they “Employing Resilience in the United communicate critical information to both scien- States Forest Service.” Land Use Policy tists and community members. 52:430-438. Butler, William H. and Bruce Evan Goldstein. Kailey Kornhauser is a Ph.D. student in Forest 2010. “The U.S. Fire Learning Network: Ecosystems and Society in the College of For- Springing a Rigidity Trap through Mul- estry at Oregon State University (OSU). She is a tiscalar Collaborative Networks.” Ecol- graduate of the Environmental Humanities ogy and Society 15(3):21. Graduate Program at the University of Utah and Carpenter, S., Brian Walker, J. Marty Anderies, is now beginning her dissertation research on and Nick Abel. 2001. “From Metaphor to forest collaboratives in the Pacific Northwest in- Measurement: Resilience of What to volving the public and the U.S. Forest Service. What?” Ecosystems 4:765-781. Cascade Pacific. 2018. “McKenzie Watershed Acknowledgements This material is based upon Stewardship Group.” Retrieved May. 10, work supported by the H.J. Andrews Experi- 2018 (http://www.cas- mental Forest Long Term Ecological Research cadepacific.org/smartlist_113/). program, administered cooperatively by the HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 86

Chaffin, Brian C., Hannah Gosnell, and Barbara Change in the Upper Willamette River A. Cosens. 2014. “A Decade of Adaptive Basin of Western Oregon: Co-Beneficial Governance Scholarship: Synthesis and Planning for Communities and Ecosys- Future Directions.” Ecology and Society tems.” Retrieved May 10, 2018 19(3):56. (http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/551 Chaffin, Brian C., Robin K. Craig, Hannah Gos- 504/6420038/1270512823240/willamett nell. 2015. “Resilience, Adaptation, and e_report3.11FINAL.pdf?to- Transformation in the Klamath River Ba- ken=D6aPFJ8s2EH3i%2FsfNzv8KE- sin Social-Ecological System.” Univer- jzZP4%3D) sity of Idaho Law Review 51:157-193. Folke, Carl, Steve Carpenter, Briand Walker, Chaffin, Brian C., Ahjond S. Garmestani, Lance Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmqvist, H. Gunderson, Melinda H. Benson, Da- Lance Gunderson, and Crawford S. vid G. Angeler, Craig A. Arnold, Barbara (“Buzz”) Holling. 2004. “Regime Shifts, Cosens, Robin K. Craig, J.B. Ruhl, Craig Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosys- R. Allen. 2016. “Transformative Envi- tem Management.” Annual Review of ronmental Governance.” Annual Review Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics of Environment and Resources 41:399- 35:557-581. 423. Folke, Carl. 2006. “Resilience: The Emergence Davis, Emily Jane, Eric M. White, Lee K. Cer- of a Perspective for Social-Ecological veny, David Seesholtz, Meagan L. Nuss, Systems Analyses.” Global Environmen- and Donald R. Ulrich. 2017. “Compari- tal Change 16:253-67. son of USDA Forest Service and Stake- Garmestani, Ahjond S. and Melinda H. Benson. holder Motivations and Experiences in 2013. “A Framework for Resilience- Collaborative Federal Forest Governance Based Governance of Social-Ecological in the Western United States. Environ- Systems.” Ecology and Society 18(1):9. mental Management 60(5):908-921. Gosnell, Hannah, Brian C. Chaffin, J.B. Ruhl, Donoghue, Ellen M., and Lynnae Sutton. 2006. Craig A. Arnold, Robin K. Craig, “Socioeconomic Conditions and Trends Melinda H. Benson, and Alan Devenish. for Communities in the Northwest Forest 2017. “Transforming [Perceived] Rigid- Plan Region, 1990 to 2000.” In Socioeco- ity in Environmental Law Through Adap- nomic Monitoring Results (Volume III: tive Governance: A Case of Endangered Rural Communities and Economies), ed- Species Act Implementation.” Ecology ited by S. Charnley, E. Donoghue, C. Stu- and Society 22(4):42. art, C. Dillingham, L. Buttolph, W. Kay, Gosnell, Hannah and Jesse Abrams. 2009. R. McLain, C. Moseley, R. Phillips and “Amenity Migration: Diverse Conceptu- L. Tobe. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Depart- alizations of Drivers, Socioeconomic Di- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service. mensions, and Emerging Challenges.” Donoghue, Ellen M. and Victoria E. Sturtevant. GeoJournal 76(4):303-322. 2007. “Social Science Constructs in Eco- Gunderson, Lance H. 2000. “Ecological Resili- system Assessments: Revisiting Commu- ence: In Theory and Application.” An- nity Capacity and Community Resili- nual Review of Ecological Systems ency.” Society and Natural Resources 31:425-39. 20:899-912. Gunderson, Lance H. and Crawford S. (“Buzz”) Doppelt, Bob, Roger Hamilton, Cindy Deacon Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Williams, Marni Koopman, and Stacy Transformations in Human and Natural Vynne. 2009. “Preparing for Climate Systems. Washington D.C: Island Press. 87 CHANGE AND RESILIENCE IN THE MRV

Harris, Charles, William McLaughlin, Greg for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Brown, and Dennis R. Becker. 2000. and Restoration 2016-2026.” Retrieved “Rural Communities in the Inland North- May 10, 2018 (http://www.mcken- west: An Assessment of Small Rural ziewc.org/wp-content/up- Communities of the Interior and Upper loads/2016/12/McKenzieRiverAction- Columbia River Basins.” Portland, OR: Plan_FINAL.pdf). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Moore, Michelle-Lee., Ola Tjornbo, Elin Enfors, Research Stations, and USDI Bureau of Corrie Knapp, Jennifer Hodbod, Jacopo Land Management. A. Baggio, Albert Norström, Per Olsson, Holling, Crawford S. (“Buzz”). 1973. “Resili- and Duan Biggs. 2014. “Studying the ence and Stability of Ecological Sys- Complexity of Change: Toward an Ana- tems.” Annual Review of Ecology and lytical Framework for Understanding De- Systematics 4:1-23. liberate Social-Ecological Transfor- Kelly, Erin C. and John C. Bliss. 2009. “Healthy mations.” Ecology and Society 19(4):54. Forests, Healthy Communities: An (http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966- Emerging Paradigm for Natural Re- 190454) source-Dependent Communities?” Soci- Nelson, Arthur C. and Kenneth J. Dueker. 1990. ety and Natural Resources 22:519-537. “The Exurbanization of America and its Landridge, Ruth, Juliet Christian-Smith, and Planning Policy Implications.” Journal of Kathleen A. Lohse. 2006. “Access and Planning Education and Research Resilience: Analyzing the Construction 9(2):91-100. of Social Resilience to the Threat of Wa- Nelson, Donald R., Neil Adger, and Katrina ter Scarcity.” Ecology and Society Brown. 2007. “Adaptation to Environ- 11(2):18. mental Change: Contributions of a Resil- Lee, Robert G. and Donald R. Field. 2005. “In- ience Framework.” Annual Review of En- troduction: From Scientific Forestry to vironmental Resources 32:395-419. Community Forestry.” Pages 1-14 in Nelson, Peter. 2001. “Rural Restructuring in the Communities and Forests: Where People American West: Land Use, Family and Meet the Land, edited by R.G. Lee and Class Discourses.” Journal of Rural Stud- D.R. Field. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon ies 17:395-407. State University Press. Oregon Communities Explorer. 2018. “Oregon Machlis, Gary E. and Jo Ellen Force. 1988. Communities Reporter: Indicators for “Community Stability and Timber-De- your community by city, county and cen- pendent Communities.” Rural Sociology sus tract – census tract 1.” Retrieved May. 33(2):220-234. 10, 2011 (http://oe.oregonex- Magis, Kristen. 2010. “Community Resilience: plorer.info/rural/CommunitiesReporter/). An Indicator of Social Sustainability.” Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. “A General Framework for Society and Natural Resources Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Eco- 23(5):401-416. logical Systems.” Science 235:419-422. Maier, Carolin and Jesse B. Abrams. 2018. “Nav- Peterson, Garry, Craig R. Allen, and Crawford S. igating Social Forestry – A Street-Level (“Buzz”) Holling. 1998. “Ecological Re- Perspective on National Forest Manage- silience, Biodiversity, and Scale.” Eco- ment in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” systems 1(1):6-18. Land Use Policy 70:432-441. Preister, Kevin, Luis Ibanez, Toby Keys, Megan McKenzie Watershed Council. 2016. “McKenzie Gordon, Kirsten Saylor, Armando Arias, River Sub-Basin Strategic Action Plan and James Kent. 2002. “Upper McKenzie HJSR ISSUE 40 (2018) 88

Community Research Unit.” In A Human Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank Geographic Issue Management System of Kansas City. Second Quarter, 2001. for Natural Resource Managers in the (https://www.kansascity- Willamette Valley, Oregon. Retrieved fed.org/KlcWm/Publicat/Econ- May 10, 2018 rev/PDF/2q01stau.pdf) (http://jkagroup.com/meth- Sturtevant, Victoria E. and Ellen M. Donoghue. ods/willamette-pdfs/01-Ti- 2008. “Community and Forest Connec- tlepage_and_table_of_contents.pdf). tions: Continuity and Change.” Pp. 3-26 Quinlan, Allyson, Marta Berbes-Blazquesz, L. in Forest Community Connections: Im- Jamila Heider, and Garry Peterson. 2015. plications for Research, Management, “Measuring and Assessing Resilience: and Governance, edited by E.M. Do- Broadening Understanding through Mul- noghue and V.E. Sturtevant. Washington, tiple Disciplinary Perspectives.” Journal D.C.: RFF Press. of Applied Ecology 53:677-687. Timberlake, Thomas, Courtney Schultz, and Resilience Alliance. 2015. “Resilience Assess- Jesse Abrams. 2017. “Resilience in Land ment.” Retrieved May 10, 2018. Management Planning: Policy Mandates, (https://www.resalliance.org/resilience- Approaches, and Resources.” Ecosystem assessment). Workforce Program Working Paper Risley, John, J.R. Wallick, Ian Waite, and Adam Number 77, Institute for a Sustainable Stonewall. 2010. “Development of an En- Environment, University of Oregon, Eu- vironmental Flow Framework for the gene, Oregon. McKenzie River Basin, Oregon.” U.S. Walker, Brian and David Salt. 2006. Resilience Geological Survey Scientific Investiga- Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and tions Report. People in a Changing World. Washing- Robson, Colin. 2002. Real World Research: A ton, D.C.: Island Press. Resource for Social Scientists and Prac- Walker, Brian, Nick Abel, John M. Anderies, and titioners. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub- Paul Ryan. 2009. “Resilience, Adaptabil- lishing. ity and Transformability in the Goulburn- Shindler, Bruce, Brent Steel, and Peter List. Broken Catchment, Australia.” Ecology 1996. “Public Judgments of Adaptive and Society 14(1):12[online]. Management: A Response from Forest Communities.” Journal of Forestry 94:4- 12. Shindler, Bruce and Angela L. Mallon. 2006. “Public Acceptance of Disturbance- Based Forest Management: A Study of the Blue River Landscape Strategy in Or- egon's Central Cascades Adaptive Man- agement Area, Final Project Report.” USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station and Department of For- est Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Stauber, Karl N. 2001. “Why Invest in Rural America - And How? A Critical Public Policy Question for the 21st Century.”