AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Chelsea Batavia for the degree of Master of Science in Forest Ecosystems and Society presented on June 4, 2015. Title: Ecological Forestry: A Critical Analysis Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ Michael P. Nelson Although science is widely accepted as a fundamental source of information underlying decisions about forest management and conservation, considerably less attention has been paid to the inevitable role that normative values and beliefs play in such decisions. This thesis highlights the normative dimensions of “ecological forestry,” a strategy of forest management that uses silviculture to mimic the effects of non-anthropogenic processes of disturbance and succession in order to meet multiple objectives on a single piece of land. Although its scientific foundations and silvicultural applications are relatively well developed in the literature, a conceptual analysis of ecological forestry reveals that it fails to coalesce into a discrete philosophy of forest management due to persistent metaphysical, normative, and ethical ambiguities, which allow for problematic philosophical and practical inconsistencies. Even once it has been tailored to a specific context, e.g. current proposals to use ecological forestry to manage the O&C lands in western Oregon, without clear answers to normative and ultimately ethical questions about objectives, values, and beliefs, ecological forestry might still be applied in variable and potentially incommensurable ways. An analysis of the arguments made about ecological forestry, both broadly theoretical and pertaining specifically to western Oregon, shows that empirical uncertainties and normative gaps need to be addressed before we can make a clear, well-reasoned decision about whether ecological forestry is a viable and appropriate strategy for forest management and conservation. © Copyright by Chelsea Batavia June 4, 2015 All Rights Reserved Ecological Forestry: A Critical Analysis by Chelsea Batavia A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Presented June 4, 2015 Commencement June 2015 Master of Science thesis of Chelsea Batavia presented on June 4, 2015 APPROVED: Major Professor, representing Forest Ecosystems and Society Head of the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. Chelsea Batavia, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the support of the HJ Andrews LTER program and the generosity of the ARCS Foundation, with particular thanks to Jamie and Mike Anderson and Shelley and Joe Voboril. For their guidance throughout the various stages of this project I would also like to thank Matt Betts, Jeremy Bruskotter, Cheryl Friesen, Mark Harmon, Norm Johnson, Julia Jones, Ariel Muldoon, Tom Spies, and Fred Swanson, along with all of the experts consulted for Chapter Two. Thanks to my graduate committee, Jeff Hatten, John Vucetich, and Klaus Puettmann, for their patience and valuable advice, and to my parents for their enduring support. Finally, deepest thanks to my major advisor, Michael P. Nelson, for more reasons than I can enumerate here. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction………………………………………………………………….……………………………....…...1 Chapter One: What Is Ecological Forestry? ..................................................................................3 Introduction…….…………………………………………………………...…………….….……......3 Methods…..………………………………………………………………………………….………...…6 Background and Context……………………………………………………...………………...…7 Forestry and Forest Ecology…………………………………..………………....……7 Ecosystem Management and New Forestry……………………………………12 From New Forestry to Ecological Forestry……………………………...……..15 Theoretical Principles……………………………………….................................……………...18 Forest Ecology…….……………………………………………………………..…………19 Forestry……………..…………………………………………………………….…………..28 Application in Western Oregon………………………………………………………………...35 Background…………………………………………………………………………………..37 The Johnson and Franklin Plan……………………………..………..………..…….42 The Missing Pieces…………………………………………………………………………………..51 Metaphysical Ambiguities…….…………………………………...…………………..52 Normative Ambiguities………………………………...…………………….…………64 Ethical Ambiguities…………………….……………………………………...………….98 Paradigm Shift in Forest Management?.........................................................124 Recommendations…………………….………………………………………………..…………126 Conclusion………………………………………………..………………………….……………….128 Chapter One Figures………………………………………………………………………………131 Chapter One Tables………………………………………………………………………………..137 Chapter Two: Argument Analysis…………..………………………………………….……………...148 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Introduction………..…………………………………...……….……………….………………….148 Methods………………………..…………………………………….…………………………….…..149 Argument Selection…………………………………..……………….………….…….150 Argument Formulation……………………………………...……………………......151 Argument Review……………………………………………………………....……….153 Argument Evaluation……………………..…………………………….…...………...155 Results…………….………………………………………………...…...……………………….…….156 Argument Selection………….…………………...…………………………………….156 Argument Review…………..........................………………………………………….159 Analysis and Discussion…………………………………………………………………………160 Theoretical Arguments……………………………………………………………..…160 Applied Arguments: Pro-Ecological Forestry in Western Oregon…………………………………………………………………………….196 Applied Arguments: Anti-Ecological Forestry in Western Oregon…………………………………………………………………………….232 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..…………..….261 Chapter Two Figure…………………………………………………………………………….....266 Chapter Two Tables…………………………………………………………………………….…267 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..……………..….273 References………………….……………………………………..……………………..………………….…..277 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………...…308 Appendix A: Argument Selection Survey…………………………….….…………….…309 Appendix B: Example Argument Review Survey……………………………………..315 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1.1 Illustration of the differences between managing for a single value and managing for multiple values………………..………..……...131 Figure 2.1 The role of a normative framework in ecological forestry……...…….....132 Figure 3.1 Diagram of normative questions and judgments embedded in management decisions …………………………………………………..….………133 Figure 4.1 Illustration of ambiguous language about multiple values..……..……...134 Figure 5.1 Diagram of the relationship between ethical beliefs, normative judgments, and management actions…………………………...…135 Figure 6.1 Moral accretions in an increasingly expansive environmental ethic………………………………………………………….………………………….…..…...136 Figure 1.2 Example of an argument table……………………………………………...…….....266 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1.1 Different labels referring to ecological forestry ideas………….…….....….…..137 Table 2.1 Proposals for use of ecological forestry on O&C lands…………...………….…138 Table 3.1 Citations from the literature identifying ecological forestry (and associates) as a strategy for multiple-use management………......……139 Table 4.1 Examples from the ecological forestry literature in which normative decisions are deferred………………………….………………….…….....140 Table 5.1 Normative questions about ecological forestry prescriptions that lead to questions about the prescriptions themselves………..…..……142 Table 6.1 Ambiguous language describing how ecological forestry manages for multiple values or objectives………………………………….….…..143 Table 7.1 Examples suggesting that ecological forestry is motivated by an intrinsic value approach, an instrumental value/ecosystem services approach, or leaving ethical underpinnings unclear…………....….144 Table 8.1 Normative and ethical questions underlying concepts of sustained yield, resilience, and restoration, as advanced in the Johnson and Franklin plan for western Oregon…………….…….…….146 Table 1.2 Theoretical reasons in support of ecological forestry, as presented to experts in the Argument Selection survey…………........….267 Table 2.2 Applied reasons for and against ecological forestry on O&C lands in western Oregon, as presented to experts in the Argument Selection survey………………………...……..………………..…….....268 Table 3.2 Expert ratings of reasons on Argument Selection survey………….……....…269 Table 4.2 Arguments selected for analysis………………………...………………………..….....272 1 INTRODUCTION What is the future of forest management? Humans have managed forests for centuries, with objectives ranging from a steady supply of game to a clean supply of drinking water (Sands, 2005). However, only in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have concerns for the long-term sustainability and conservation of forests become prevalent (Puettmann, Coates, & Messier, 2009). The pressures of a growing human population, coupled with uncertainties about a changing global climate, lend urgency to questions about how forests should be managed now and into the future, whether for resilience (e.g. Benson & Garmestani, 2011), adaptability (e.g. Bolte et al.), some amalgamation of the two (e.g. Stephens, Millar, & Collins, 2010) or something else entirely. In this complex and dynamic context, the decisions we make about forest management need to reflect not only the most current scientific information, but also an appropriate ethical view of forests and how humans ought to interact with them. And yet, although natural resource management is inherently