Human Ecology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1999

Brief Comment

Ecological Restoration and Local Communities: ACase Study from Sinkyone Wilderness State Park,Mendocino County, California

Frederica Bowcutt1

INTRODUCTION

Today, calls for power sharing between institutions and local peoplein all forms of resource management are common, including restorationecology (Jaffee, 1997; McGinnis and Woolley, 1997; McNeely, 1995; Pinker-ton, 1992; Wyant et al., 1995). Crafting partnerships between institutions andlocal communities is known by many names: co-management, community-based management, community forestry, social forestry, and watershedmanagement.

Hardin claimed that locally managed lands held in common inherentlyresult in a ‘‘tragedy of the commons,’’ where resource use becomes a freefor all (Hardin, 1968). Critics take issue with Hardin’s conclusions andmany provide examples of local systems of sustainable resource use (Cox,1985; Feeny et al., 1990; Fortmann & Bruce, 1988; Monbiot, 1994; Netting,1976; Ostrom, 1990). Jaffee (1997) asserts that ‘‘planning for natural re-source use—and ecological restoration—may be most effective on a collec-tive basis and at a local level.’’ Through a case study of a state park witha rich history of con�ict over natural resources, I examine how greaterlocal involvement might shape restoration work.

PROJECT AREA

Sinkyone Wilderness State Park nestles in the northwestern corner ofMendocino County on the Lost Coast of northern California (Fig. 1). The

1Ecology Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. Present address: TheEvergreen State College, 2700 Evergreen Parkway, NW, Lab II, Olympia, Washington 98505;e-mail: bowcuttf@elwha.evergreen.edu

359

0300-7839/99/0600-0359$16.00/0 Ó 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

360 Bowcutt

Fig. 1. General location of Sinkyone Wilderness State Park in northwestern Mendo-cino County, California relative to local communities and InterTribal SinkyoneWilderness Park.

coast highway from Mexico to Canada skirts this extremely steep, unstablecoastline leaving the 2805-hectare (6925-acre) park with a wilderness qualitydespite its 150-year history of logging and farming. Three small old growthstands of Douglas-�r (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) escaped the ax, the two-man saw, and the chain saw. Butsecond growth forests, mostly Douglas-�r, dominate the northern half ofthe park. Recovering clearcuts blanketed with blue blossom (Ceanothusthysi�orus) and other brush dominate the southern half, along with anextensive network of old logging roads. Grasslands of European species

Ecological Restoration and Local Communities 361

cover old farmlands and haying �elds on the marine terrace (Bowcutt, 1994–1996).

In 1989, the California Department of Parks and Recreation set aboutwriting a general plan for the state park, laying out natural resource manage-ment policies and development plans. Public meetings degenerated intoopen con�ict. State parks decided to put the plan on hold and proceedwith restoration work, namely recontouring of abandoned logging roads,funded primarily by an anonymous donor. State parks intended to givewilderness status to most of the park, which would preempt use of heavyequipment. As a result, state park staff decided to delay completion ofthe general plan to allow for the road closure work (Kolster, personalcommunication, 1994).

There were mixed feelings in the local communities about the restora-tion efforts. State parks employed local back-to-the-landers, native people,and timber workers to do some of the work. Back-to-the-landers’ discontentover herbicide use ultimately lead to its cessation (DeMark, 1987). Thetimber worker community harbored reservations about the costs of roadrecontouring work. This was the context in which I conducted interviewsduring 1995 and 1996 in the Garberville area and Fort Bragg, California.

METHODS

The goals, methods, and priorities of ongoing or potential restorationprojects in Sinkyone Wilderness State Park formed the focal point forsemi-structured interviews and survey questionnaires. The groups involvedincluded local timber workers from Fort Bragg and back-to-the-landers(‘‘reinhabitors’’ as they sometimes call themselves) from Garberville andenvirons. Resource ecologists from various of�ces of the California Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation were also queried. Native Americans con-tacted were generally not interested in participating owing to past negativeexperiences with some anthropologists and ethnobotanists. As a resultstatistics are not presented for this cultural group.

I initially interviewed individuals who took leadership roles in thegeneral plan meetings. They helped to re�ne the interview questions. Iused the ‘‘snowball’’ method of selecting interviewees by taking leads fromeach person I interviewed. Most interviewees have extensive experiencein the Sinkyone area. Interviews on average lasted 1¹�2 to 2 hours. A com-plete list of the questions is available in Bowcutt, (1996).

RESULTS

Table I summarizes the data by cultural group. Common ground existsacross differences. Most resource ecologists and reinhabitors reject the

362 Bowcutt

Tab

leI.

Inte

rvie

wan

dQ

uest

ionn

aire

Res

ults

Fro

mSi

nkyo

neW

ilder

ness

Stat

eP

ark

onN

on-N

ativ

eP

lant

Man

agem

ent,

Veg

etat

ion

Man

agem

ent,

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g,an

dC

on�i

ctR

esol

utio

n

Inte

rvie

ws

Que

stio

nnai

res

Rei

nhab

itor

sC

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aT

imbe

rW

orke

rsfr

omD

epar

tmen

tof

Par

ksD

epar

tmen

tof

Par

ksfr

omG

arbe

rvill

ean

dR

ecre

atio

nan

dR

ecre

atio

nF

ort

Bra

gg,

and

envi

rons

,R

esou

rce

Eco

logi

sts,

Res

ourc

eP

erso

nnel

,C

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aR

espo

nses

toqu

esti

ons

(n5

14)

(n5

18)

(n5

11)

(n5

28)

Res

tora

tion

goal

san

dre

stor

ing

ecol

ogic

alpr

oces

ses

Man

age

tow

ards

pris

tine

cond

itio

ns21

%28

%9%

36%

Use

�re

asa

man

agem

ent

tool

71%

89%

73%

89%

Indi

geno

uspe

ople

sus

ed�r

eas

man

age-

men

tto

ol86

%10

0%10

0%10

0%N

on-n

ativ

epl

ant

man

agem

ent

Do

noth

ing

abou

tno

n-na

tive

plan

ts50

%17

%0%

0%C

ontr

olin

vasi

vesp

ecie

s50

%78

%73

%96

%L

eave

the

euca

lypt

us,d

ono

thin

g57

%17

%9%

4%P

ull

euca

lypt

ussa

plin

gs,l

eave

old

grow

thtr

ees

7%67

%27

%29

%R

emov

eal

lth

eeu

caly

ptus

21%

11%

18%

46%

Don

’tus

ehe

rbic

ides

36%

100%

9%0%

Ver

ylim

ited

herb

icid

esus

eis

okay

21%

0%73

%71

%It

’sok

ayto

use

herb

icid

es,n

opr

oble

m29

%0%

0%29

%

Ecological Restoration and Local Communities 363

Tab

leI.

(Con

tinue

d ) Inte

rvie

ws

Que

stio

nnai

res

Rei

nhab

itor

sC

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aT

imbe

rW

orke

rsfr

omD

epar

tmen

tof

Par

ksD

epar

tmen

tof

Par

ksfr

omG

arbe

rvill

ean

dR

ecre

atio

nan

dR

ecre

atio

nF

ort

Bra

gg,

and

envi

rons

,R

esou

rce

Eco

logi

sts,

Res

ourc

eP

erso

nnel

,C

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aC

alif

orni

aR

espo

nses

toqu

esti

ons

(n5

14)

(n5

18)

(n5

11)

(n5

28)

Dec

isio

n-m

akin

gIn

volv

elo

cals

asm

uch

asno

n-lo

cals

inde

-ci

sion

-mak

ing

64%

89%

73%

86%

Giv

elo

cals

mor

eco

ntro

lth

anno

n-lo

cals

inde

cisi

on-m

akin

g21

%6%

0%7%

Impo

rtan

tth

atsc

ient

ists

have

inpu

tbu

tno

tas

�nal

deci

sion

-mak

ers

71%

94%

82%

57%

Con

�ict

reso

luti

onL

itig

atio

nis

the

wor

stco

n�ic

tre

solu

tion

tool

57%

28%

73%

75%

Def

erto

the

expe

rts

isth

ew

orst

con�

ict

reso

luti

onto

ol14

%39

%0%

7%C

onse

nsus

isth

ebe

stco

n�ic

tre

solu

tion

tool

21%

67%

36%

43%

Pub

licm

eeti

ngs

are

the

best

con�

ict

reso

-lu

tion

tool

14%

6%9%

11%

Med

iati

onis

the

best

con�

ict

reso

luti

onto

ol29

%11

%0%

7%D

efer

toth

eex

pert

sis

the

best

con�

ict

reso

luti

onto

ol14

%0%

9%4%

Res

olve

con�

ict

thro

ugh

aco

mbi

nati

onof

cons

ensu

s,m

edia

tion

s,pu

blic

mee

ting

s,an

dde

ferr

ing

toex

pert

s0%

6%18

%21

%

364 Bowcutt

notion of managing toward pristine conditions at initial contact with Eu-roamericans. Instead they suggested that maintaining biodiversity and rees-tablishing natural processes, such as �re, are more appropriate restorationgoals. Indeed, many acknowledged the prehistoric use of �re by SinkyoneIndians as a legitimate management tool and support state parks’ prescribedburn efforts to reduce non-native plant populations. State parks devote alarge percentage of their resource management budget to control of invasiveplants not native to California. The majority of reinhabitors and state parkresource ecologists share a desire to control such invasive exotics.

Differences do exist over the issue of non-native plant management.Timber workers are evenly split on whether non-native species should bemanaged. Cost and the perceived futility are issues, but many of them alsoobject to restoration which denies local history. Even more contentious isthe issue of using herbicides to eradicate non-native plants. Roughly onethird of timber workers oppose herbicide use based on worker safety,ineffectiveness of the herbicides, and/or negative ecosystem impacts. Allreinhabitors opposed herbicide use. Their concerns centered on the impactof herbicides on non-target species and on toxicity of unlisted ingredientsclaimed to be inert by the manufacturer. Some expressed concerns aboutbecoming dependent on the herbicides, which are costly. Resource ecolo-gists support limited herbicide use; they oppose aerial applications, andsome expressed concern about long-term impact.

Decision-making is an arena where local populations can make sub-stantial contributions to effective resource policy. A majority in all groupsof respondents feel that locals should be involved but should not have morecontrol than non-locals over the process of deciding on restoration goalsand methods. This �nding runs contrary to the fears of some opponents toincreased local involvement. A majority of respondents also feel that scien-tists need to be involved in decision-making but should not be the �naldecision-makers. Several members of the timber workers and reinhabitorcommunities expressed concern about experts being too theory driven,while lacking adequate local �eld experience. They demonstrated that localpeople can have signi�cant knowledge of speci�c environmental conditionsbased on local experience and could make valuable contributions to deci-sion-making.

People’s positions on modes of con�ict resolution re�ect their experi-ence of con�icts and con�ict outcomes. With one notable exception, thevarious groups ranked litigation as the worst way to resolve con�icts. Theonly people who supported litigation over deferring to experts were thosewho had had successful experiences with litigation. The reinhabitor commu-nity successfully sued the California Department of Forestry over the issuingof a timber harvest permit for an old-growth stand on land owned by the

Ecological Restoration and Local Communities 365

Fort Bragg lumber mill. The grove of coast redwoods and Douglas-�rultimately became part of the park after a state government run consensusprocess (Fishman & Spellman, 1987). The majority of reinhabitors feel aconsensus decision-making process is the best way to resolve con�icts. Theenthusiasm for consensus is not shared by timber workers and state parkecologists. Negative attitudes about consensus were linked to negative meet-ing experiences where judgmental interactions and breaches of trust servedto further divide people rather than increase communication.

In terms of future possibilities for coalition building, a key �ndingfrom the semi-structured interviews is the concern for anadromous �sheriesshared among the majority of all the respondents. The primary restorationpriority for timber workers was stream restoration for anadromous �shhabitat. In addition to stream restoration, the back-to-the-landers and re-source ecologists also placed controlling invasive exotic species and re-contouring of abandoned logging roads high on the priority list.

DISCUSSION

Given past con�icts, is it realistic to hope power sharing can occur onrestoration projects among locals and between locals and state bureaucratsand professionals? There is reason for cautious optimism in the Sinkyonearea. The deep shared interest among Indians, timber workers, and reinhab-itors to restore degraded anadromous �sh runs gives these groups a sharedgoal to work toward. Commitment to this cause is demonstrated by theformation of organizations in each community which address the issue: theInterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, the Salmon Restoration Group,and the Mattole Restoration Council respectively. They back up their pas-sion with action in the form of stream restoration, �sh rearing, fund raising,and education. Through these community-based efforts, locals have demon-strated active concern with local resource management. Based on the datain this paper, locals want to collaborate with state ecologists towards theseends. Thus, key elements of successful power sharing exist: a shared goal,local ability to contribute, and a willingness to collaborate with state profes-sionals.

Despite the shared interest across different local groups in restoringanadromous �sheries, it’s not as simple as calling a meeting among thesevarious local groups. Tensions are high and too many people have givenup on process. An alternative to meetings may be making direct effortsseparately and together through the community organizations to restore�sh habitat and, through this action to address shared concerns, rebuildtrust. Such work may be a precondition for public meetings focused on

366 Bowcutt

tackling more dif�cult and potentially contentious issues. This does notnegate the need to overcome blocks to �nding effective vehicles for deci-sion-making and con�ict resolution. Community-based work efforts madetowards this common good of restoring �sh habitat may allow better deci-sion-making and con�ict resolution processes to emerge. Based on the data,some combination of consensus and mediation would be worth pursuing.Perceived neutrality of mediators will be critical, thus the state cannot serveas mediator. Based on the data, I caution people to be careful not toadvertise as consensus a process that is in fact majority rule or powerpolitics. Call it what it is, or risk jading people against future collaborativeefforts. Despite past dif�culties, many respondents seek alternatives tolitigation and other con�ictual interactions. They hope for ways to democra-tize decision-making for natural resource management, including ecologi-cal restoration.

The most contentious issue identi�ed in this study is the use of herbi-cides. Restoration ecologists cannot assume that herbicide use, or even thegoal of controlling invasive species, will be supported by locals. Alternativesto herbicides may need to be explored and education on the ecologicalimpact of invasive exotics may be required. Fire as a management toolfor reducing non-native plant populations is a widely accepted alternativemethod if effective and controllable.

CONCLUSIONS

How much can we generalize from this case study limited in space andtime? Pinkerton (1992) found coalitions forming around �sheries betweenEuroamerican environmentalists and native people in British Columbia.In areas with degraded �sheries, restoration ecologists may want to considerusing stream restoration as a potential tool for coalition building. Localorganizations can provide clues as to the extent of local interest and concernover this and other issues relevant to restoration goal setting. Sinkyone isrepresentative of many rural communities in the Paci�c Northwest wheremanagement of forested lands is contested by timber workers and reinhab-itors (Brown, 1995). As a member of the Mattole Restoration Council,Freeman House has worked for years on restoring anadromous �sheriesin the Mattole River watershed north of Sinkyone Wilderness State Park.Based on his experience with coalition building across differences, he arguesfor a need to nurture strong working relationships between professionalrestoration ecologists and community-based restoration groups (House,1996).

It may comfort those leery of public involvement to know that even

Ecological Restoration and Local Communities 367

in this case study with a history of con�ict locally and with the state, localpeople welcome the expertise of outside scientists, with some caveats. Theydo not respect theory-driven scientists lacking local �eld experience. Theywant to work with scientists who value local knowledge and who take timeto educate the public. Locals agreed that they do not want more controlover local public lands than outsiders have, they want meaningful opportu-nities for input, and they want their input to matter.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the generosity of the people who granted me interviews or�lled out a questionnaire, this study would not have been possible. Thanksto J. Brown, S. Haultain, M. Hoopes, B. Orlove, D. Robertson, and G.Snyder for their helpful suggestions on the initial list of interview questions.Thanks to B. Hackett, R. Henly, M. Hoopes, B. Lym, G. Meffe, C. Meine,C. Merchant, D. Robertson, R. Saecker, M. Saunders, S. Schrager, M.Smith, M. Stevens, and two anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlierversions of this paper. I deeply appreciate the generous support of theCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

REFERENCES

Bowcutt, F. (1996). Wild Restoration: Building Multicultural Partnership in the SinkyoneWilderness. PhD thesis. University of California, Davis.

Bowcutt, F. (1994-1996). A �oristic study of Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, MendocinoCounty, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology 51: 64-143.

Brown, B. (1995). In Timber Country: Working People’s Stories of Environmental Con�ictand Urban Flight. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Cox, S.J.B. (1985). No tragedy on the commons. Environmental Ethics 7: 49-61.DeMark, P. (1987). Roundup spraying stopped in Sinkyone. Redwood Record, May 27.Feeny, D., Berke, F., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1990). The tragedy of the commons:

Twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18: 1-19.Fishman, N. and Spellman, M. (1987). The Sinkyone promise. California Waterfront Age 3

(3): 11-19.Fortmann, L. and Bruce, J. W. (1988). Whose Trees?: Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry.

Westview Press, Boulder.Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.House, F. (1996). Restoring relations: the vernacular approach to ecological restoration.

Restoration & Management Notes 14(1): 57-61.Jaffee, D. (1997). Restoration where people matter: reversing forest degradation in Michoacan,

Mexico. Restoration & Management Notes 15(2): 147-155.McGinnis, M. V. and Woolley, J. T. (1997). The discourses of restoration. Restoration &

Management Notes 15(1): 74-77.McNeely, J. A. (ed.). (1995). Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Island Press, Washing-

ton, D. C.Monbiot, G. (1994). The tragedy of enclosure. Scienti�c American 270(1): 159.

368 Bowcutt

Netting, R. McC. (1976). What alpine peasants have in common: Observations on communaltenure in a Swiss village. Human Ecology 4(2): 135-146.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Institutional arrangements for resolving the commons dilemma: somecontending approaches. In McCay, B. J. and Acheson, J. M. (eds.), The Question of theCommons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. The University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Pinkerton, E. (1992). Translating legal rights into management practice: overcoming barriersto the exercise of co-management. Human Organization 51: 330-341.

Wyant, J. G., Meganck, R. A., and Ham, S. H. (1995). A planning and decision-makingframework for ecological restoration. Environmental Management 19(6): 789-796.