State forest practice regulatory programs: An approach to implementing ecosystem management on private forest lands in the United States

Environmental Management

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 421-432

  Ellefson, Paul V ^a   Cheng, Antony S ^a   Moulton, Robert J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecosystem management; Forestry practices; Private landowners; Regulatory programs; State government

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FOREST; GOVERNMENT; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; PRIVATE FORESTRY; REGULATORY APPROACH;

USA;

ECOSYSTEMS; LAND USE; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PUBLIC POLICY;

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; PRIVATE FOREST LANDS;

FORESTRY;

EID: 0030615647     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s002679900039     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Ayer, J. D. 1973. Public regulation of private forestry: A survey and a proposal. Harvard Journal on Legislation 10:406-429.
2. Cheng, A. S., and P. V. Ellefson. 1993a. State programs directed at the forestry practices of private forest landowners: Program administrators' assessment of effectiveness. Staff paper series No. 87. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.
3. Cheng, A. S., and P. V. Ellefson. 1993b. State forest practices laws and regulations: A review of constitutional and legal environments, Staff paper series No. 88. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.
4. Colla, J. 1991. Evaluation of the 1990 antidegradation local working committee process. Report No. 3-91 FPA. Idaho Department of State Lands, Boise, Idaho.
5. Cortner, H. J., M. A. Shannon, M. G. Wallace, S. Burke, and M. A. Moote. 1996. Institutional barriers and incentives for ecosystem management: A problem analysis. PNW-GTR-354. Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA-Forest Service. Portland, Oregon.
6. Cubbage, F. W., and W. C. Siegel. 1985. The law regulating private forest practices. Journal of Forestry 83(9):538-545.
7. Diver, C. S. 1983. The optimal precision of administrative rules. Yale Law Journal 93:65-109.
8. Ellefson, P. V. 1992. Forest resources policy: Process, participants and programs. McGraw-Hill, New York.
9. Ellefson, P. V., and F. W. Cubbage. 1980. State forest practice laws and regulations: A review and case study for Minnesota. Stat. Bull. 536-1980. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.
10. Ellefson, P. V., and P. D. Miles. 1985. Protecting water quality in the Midwest: Impact on timber harvesting costs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 2(2):57-61.
11. Ellefson, P. V., A. S. Cheng, and R. J. Moulton. 1995. Regulation of private forestry practices by state governments. Stat. Bull. SB-605-1995. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.
12. Green, K., S. Bernath, L. Lackey, M. Brunengo, and S. Smith. 1993. Analyzing the cumulative effects of forest practices: Where do we start? Geo Info Systems 3(2):31-41.
13. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27-38.
14. Henly, R. K. 1992. Cost of small landowner timber harvesting plans. Working paper. Strategic and Resources Planning Group, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, California.
15. Henly, R. K., and P. V. Ellefson. 1986. State forest practice regulation in the US: Administration, cost, and accomplishments. Stat. Bull. AD-SB-3011. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.
16. Hickman, C. A., and M. R. Hickman. 1990. Legal limitations on governmental regulation of private forestry in the United States. In Forestry legislation: Report of the IUFRO working party S4.08-03. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Vienna, Austria.
17. Hickman, C. A., and C. E. Martus. 1991. Local regulation of private forestry practices in the eastern United States. In Proceedings, 1991 southern forest economics workers conference. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
18. Hoberg, G. 1993. Regulating forestry: A comparison of institutions and policies in British Columbia and the US Pacific Northwest. Working paper 185. Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
19. Hoskisson, R. E., C. W. L. Hill, and H. Kim. 1993. The multidivisional structure: Organizational fossil or source of value? Journal of Management 19(2):269-298.
20. Idaho Department of Lands. 1992. Rules and regulations pertaining to Idaho Forest Practices Act (Idaho Administrative Rules IDAPA 20.15). Boise, Idaho.
21. Keiter, R. B. 1994. Beyond the boundary line: Constructing a law of ecosystem management. University of Colorado Law Review 65(2):294-333.
22. Lickwar, P. M., F. W. Cubbage, and C. A. Hickman. 1990. Current southern state programs for control of forestry nonpoint source pollution. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(2):64-69.
23. Lickwar, P. M., C. Hickman, and F. W. Cubbage. 1992. Costs of protecting water quality during harvesting on private forest-lands in the southeast. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 16:13-20.
24. Mangin, R. M., and M. A. E. Steger. 1990. The T/F/W environmental policy negotiations of Washington State. Pages 21-39 in M. K. Mills (ed.), Conflict resolution and public policy. Greenwood Press, New York.
25. Marzulla, R. J., and N. G. Marzulla. 1991. Regulatory takings in the United States Claims Court: The burdens that in fairness ought to be borne by society as a whole. Catholic University Law Review 40:549-569.
26. May, P. J., and J. W. Handmer. 1992. Regulatory policy design: Cooperative versus deterrent mandates. Australian Journal of Public Administration 51(1):43-53.
27. McNeal, H. L., Jr. 1992. Regulatory takings: Societal benefit or violation of owner's rights? Pennsylvania Law Journal 15:5, 18-19.
28. Minda, G. 1991. The dilemmas of property and sovereignty in the post-modern era: The regulatory takings problem. University of Colorado Law Review 62:599-636.
29. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 1992. Cooperative monitoring, evaluation and research: Research and status reports with abstracts 1988-1992. TFW-00-92-001. Timber, Fish & Wildlife Committee, Olympia, Washington.
30. Olson, A. 1989. DNR guidelines for conditioning forest practices applications. Memorandum to the Timber, Fish & Wildlife Administrative Committee, June 28. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.
31. Oregon Department of Forestry. 1996. Forest practices. Forest Log 65(5):9-10.
32. Oregon Forest Practices Act. 1993. ORS 527.610-770, 990. Salem, Oregon.
33. Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking new ground. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
34. Timber, Fish & Wildlife Committee. 1989. Status and recommendations on cumulative effects of forest practices. TFW Policy Group, Olympia, Washington.
35. Sitkin, S. M., and R. J. Bies. 1993. Legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas. Organizational Science 4(3):345-351.
36. Turner, A. C., and J. O'Laughlin. 1991. State agency rules in Idaho water quality policy: Executive summary. Special report for Idaho Legislature (Report No. 5). College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
37. Washington Forest Practices Board. 1993. Forest practices rules and regulations (WAC 222). Olympia, Washington.
38. Williams, E. M., and P. V. Ellefson. 1996. Natural resource partnerships: Factors leading to cooperative success in the management of landscape level ecosystems involving mixed ownerships. Staff paper 113. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.