Restoration and Conservation Projects:

Springboards or Shackles for Rural Economies?

by Brett Brownscombe, Conservation Director

Conservation and rural communities in Oregon face a critical juncture, with twined futures.  Globalization and trade agreements put much of Oregon’s rural economic sector at a competitive disadvantage with countries whose labor and environmental standards lag well behind our own. Rising fuel and transportation costs add to the challenge of viably moving products to market from Oregon’s far corners or remote middle.  Then there is the shift away from production altogether, towards service sector economies often associated with lower-paying and/or more seasonal jobs as well as land conversion, whereby forest and agricultural land is replaced by development, often as second or retirement homes.  Land values rise without a corresponding increase in local income or quality of life.  It is a typical storyline told and heard in rural communities that young people are just not connected to or staying on the land anymore, that folks moving in are not tied to the land, that school enrollment has plummeted, and family wage jobs have dwindled.   

At the political level, a phasing out of the County Payments legislation (1) will predictably inspire pressure to address local school, road, and other public funding needs by increasing logging on federal public lands, effectively re-coupling the relationship between timber revenue production and provision of county services.  On state-owned lands, local counties are already mounting an effort for increased cut levels, upping the pressure on already compromised water quality, fish and wildlife habitat.  With housing market trends driving timber prices ever lower, and with transportation costs rising, it will take many more trees just to attain the existing level of revenue production.  Ecological concerns aside, a conservative economic approach would argue for restraint in cutting given these circumstances, to retain value over time.  But this somewhat academic point fails to address the driving, underlying issue of hardship arising from existing local economic conditions. The likely result:  a public battle that unnecessarily pits conservation against the health of rural communities. 

Some people argue conservation just doesn’t pay.  And at a time when county commissioners, other elected officials, and local communities are dealing with the loss of school, road and other public service funding, it might be understandable that they have difficulty viewing conservation or restoration work as part of an economic solution. However, it is because of not in spite of current pressures—whether related to markets, rising costs, political decisions or land use—that conservation and restoration are increasingly linked to the viability of traditional resource management sectors.  Instead arguing the same tired, false choice of conservation being the enemy of rural economic health, restoration and conservation work can offer opportunities for economic strength, as well as ecological gain.  This is a truer path.

At the most basic level, restoration work brings fresh money into rural economies. This is money that would exist locally if conservation and restoration projects were not added to the traditional economic legs of agriculture and timber.  An expanded job menu exists doing work such as road maintenance and decommissioning to address erosion, side-channel reconnection, fish passage, invasive weed removal and riparian re-vegetation—“feel good and pay good” jobs with immediate economic and ecological payoff, and that advance long-term cost savings and natural benefits instead of externalizing costs upon future generations.  Through purchasing materials and supplies at local businesses and hiring contractors to perform work on the ground, dollars from public and private funders outside the rural community enter the local economy, supplementing not replacing traditional economic sectors.  In Oregon Trout’s experience with restoration projects over the last three years alone, we have directed over three-quarters of a million dollars into purchasing local supplies and hiring local contractors.  And these are the nascent years of the organization’s restoration project work. 

Although policy changes could better ensure restoration dollars stay local, research shows this is already happening to a significant degree.  Upon tracking Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board funding for stream restoration, University of Oregon research revealed that over 80% of every dollar spent stays in the county where a project sits, and 96% stays in Oregon. (2)   This activity also incentivizes the development of local businesses around restoration (e.g., heavy equipment operators, weed and planting crews, etc.).  Compare this with other economic development models such as ushering in large box stores, where associated business development opportunities are minimal (in fact, many local businesses get hurt when large box stores move in), workers are detached from the land, and local consumer’s dollars are largely siphoned to profit centers outside the community.

Conservation can also bring efficiency gains and incentives with real value.  Would you believe that removing thirty percent of a ranch’s acreage from agricultural use could actually result in increased agricultural production and profits?  The Wahl Ranch on Oregon’s South Coast has done just that.  Instead of allowing sheep to use all available land, they are confined to fenced pastures outside riparian areas and wetlands.  The pastures occupy the richest soils on the land, and in turn provide the most forage productivity.  As a result, the sheep are focused on the best food sources; kept out of areas presenting greater risk of injury, disease, or low forage value; and easily moved from pasture to pasture without the need to search out strays.  The Wahl’s gain management efficiencies that keep costs down while increasing - not decreasing - livestock productivity.  The riparian areas and wetlands gain conservation benefits expressed by species diversity and habitat health that is not nearly as prevalent on other ranches.  This conservation-based approach also allows operators to capture price advantages through access to “green” or sustainably-produced food markets. 

Further, the decision to remove certain land from agricultural production and instead focus it on restoring stream health or other habitat benefits is not without its own form of profit.  The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) provides annual “rental” payments to landowners who make this decision, compensating them for the public good they provide by keeping this land in conservation status.  This sits atop an initial sign-up payment, as well as a bonus payment for landowners who have enough stream frontage.  CREP also pays for fencing, invasive weed removal, and native planting work.  By providing monetized economic value to conservation practices, landowners have a real option to consider in deciding what land use to advance.  Also well worth considering in this calculus is that, in addition to advancing regulatory compliance with water quality standards and reducing flood damage, lands containing healthy, restored riparian zones hold higher property value than those that do not. (3)

More and more, decisions about land management are not as individually profitable or beneficial to local economies without the integration of conservation and restoration. As pressures on resources and rural economies mount, and local communities work to retain their character, the economy of the future is one in which conservation and restoration are partners in rural economic health.