ABSTRACT

Increased consumption and multiple-use demands on Western North Carolina forest resources threaten the region’s ecological sustainability. The recent proliferation of wood chip mills appears to cause the greatest controversy among disparate groups and community members. Numerous stakeholder concerns include: air and noise quality, trucking safety concerns, clearcutting of forests, commercial timber harvesting on public lands, compliance with Best Management Practices, property rights, protection of biotic integrity and watersheds, appropriate land use, forest product yields, tax incentives, recreation and tourist industry impacts, agency responsibilities, and cultural resource protection. My research activities provided opportunities for me to work toward resolving conflict, to seek sustainable forestry solutions, and to influence policy planning in the Union Mills community and my home region of Western North Carolina.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have many to thank for their association with this Fellowship project. I would first like to thank Dr. Miguel Vasquez, Northern Arizona University Anthropology faculty, for his suggestion that I apply. I also thank the SfAA Advisory Committee for granting me this research opportunity. Dr. Barbara Rose Johnston, the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) Project Director, provided tremendous professional direction and support, personal encouragement, all tempered with the right dose of humor. Theresa Trainor, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Project Director, invited me to speak at the agency’s Eastern Community-Based Environmental Protection Practitioner’s workshop in Atlanta. The workshop gave me a forum to present project information and glean additional insight into the agency’s dynamics. Al Lucas, my EPA Region IV mentor, with a good-spirited nature steadfastly read my prolific fieldnotes. He also reminded me to be aware of my "agenda" as I "insert myself into the process." Dr. Harvard Ayers, my SfAA mentor, again and again provided much needed support as he has in many of my anthropological activities of this last decade. Lynne Faltraco, leader of the Concerned Citizens of Rutherford County (CCRC), is a remarkable woman committed to attaining environmental and social justice for her community. To the CCRC members who have empowered themselves with an endless well of solution-seeking tools, I hope I have contributed to that process. Gwen Parker took several of the photographs contained herein (See Appendix); I have gratefully used them on numerous occasions throughout my research activities. Our previous association continues to have a positive influence on my thinking about this issue. I also want to thank Shannon Buckley, the Willamette Industries’ District Procurement Forester, for his forthright participation in this research; he also has much at stake in this issue. For each person that participated in formal interviews or in workshops and meetings, I am grateful for your input. So many more people aided my research (e.g., government agents, landholders, loggers, librarians, and regular citizens), supplied me with documents, answered my countless inquiries, shared their feelings and professional opinions. I hope that my interpretation reflects what they tried to convey to me. I want to thank my family and friends who witnessed and tolerated my obsession with this issue, and who continue to love me in spite of it. To any others whom I failed to mention, I apologize. I take full responsibility for any errors contained in this final paper.

PREFACE

This document describes ongoing efforts towards sustainable forestry issues in western North Carolina and my anthropological part in that process. It’s the tip of the iceberg. The research experience was humbling.

Natural resource concerns, environmental protection, and conflict resolution impact all of us. I hope that, you, the reader finds at least one piece of information in my environmental anthropology report that you did not already know, but wanted to know.

Part I, Chapter 1 frames the issue. Chapter 2 introduces you to the ideas and theories of others that influence some of my data in the report. Chapter 3 addresses the methods I used during my study. Chapter 4 discusses the local and regional contextual information, some historical and social, some environmental and economic.

Part II, Chapter 5 investigates different perspectives about sustainability. Chapter 6 describes my research findings in broad topic areas on the chip mill issue. Chapters 7 and 8 wrap-up the conclusions, analysis, and recommendations. The References Cited section is separated by major categories of the communication genre.

My conclusions and analysis are offered in the context of a contribution to a much larger upcoming project, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) chip mill impact study. The state study will have Region IV Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) support. Duke University’ Nicholas School of the Environment and North Carolina State University’s Forestry School will be the major contributors to the impact study. Their interdisciplinary research work through the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests is expected to take about two years, and will be funded by about $250,000. It would be presumptive for me to make wide sweeping dogmas about my findings in light of their projected work. However, my work is a concerted attempt at reaching stakeholders in this area and on this issue. It is my desire that this summary gives voice to some of those who might not otherwise be heard.

Cheryl Darlene McClary

CHAPTER 1. A CHIP MILL IN UNION MILLS

My SfAA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship officially began on June 15, 1997. However, the work is a continuation of my Masters study at Northern Arizona University. During the summer of 1996 I interned with the Sierra Club’s Southern Appalachian Highlands Ecoregion Task Force (SAHE). I served as a researcher, an advocate, and a liaison to a grassroots group, the Concerned Citizens of Rutherford County (CCRC). The grassroots group opposes the proposed construction and operation of a Willamette Industries, Inc. wood chip mill in their rural farming community of Union Mills, in western North Carolina (See Photo 1.1). Anthropological questions, developed but left unanswered during my applied anthropology internship thesis writing (McClary 1997), compelled me to further explore research opportunities. My goals included work with CCRC toward community-based environmental protection solutions, identification of various stakeholders concerns, and conflict resolution on community development and forestry issues in western North Carolina. This SfAA fellowship provided me that expanded opportunity.

Numerous people with multiple perspectives are involved directly and indirectly in what I will refer to in this paper as the "chip mill issue" (See Photo l.2). The geographic setting is part of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region IV. The terrain, nestled between the Southern Appalachian’s Blue Ridge mountains and the state’s piedmont region, mimics the geophysic features of both. The county’s western border adjoins the Southern Appalachian Assessment area. Recognition of forestry related concerns is evidenced by the inclusion of erosion and siltation from logging as one of the region’s "major environmental stressors" (http://www.epa.gov/region4/cbep/r4cbep/appalchi.htm).

The issue concerns wood chip production. Wood chips are used in a number of wood products, especially in pulp and paper production, but are also used in photography film paper and cellulose for rayon fabric. Satellite chip mills, which produce many of the chips, are a relatively new phenomena in this region. Pulp and Paper Magazine reports that the South is experiencing a "record runup of chip mill construction" which continue to move "into the outer reaches of the South and offshore" (October, 1997:25) (my emphasis). The mills are located in areas remote from the pulp and paper mills (TVA 1993 Vol. 1:1-2). The locations increase the timber sourcing

area for the pulp mills. In addition to the domestic market, chips are also exported from the country. Export of hardwood chips alone have increased from values of $36 million in 1989 to approximately $200 million in 1995; shipments to Japan absorb 90 percent of the recent market (West 1996:1).

In the Spring of 1995, Union Mill citizens learned that their ex-Lieutenant Governor, Bob Jordan, hoped to acquire an $8 million dollar industrial development bond to build a chip mill in their neighborhood. They did not, as taxpayers, want to fund a private individual to exploit their neighborhood by building an industrial plant. When the citizens investigated chip mill operations, they learned that approximately 50 logging trucks a day would enter, and then exit the mill, on their curvy two-lane roads. Road improvements near Union Mills would be required to handle the 40-ton trucks bringing the logs to the chipper. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) road work figures began at $900,000 and did not include the costs of the necessary easements (Moore 1995). The citizens did not believe the economic benefits to the community would outweigh the cost. Bob Jordan expected to employ ten people directly and seventy indirectly through "the process of cutting and transporting the logs to the mill" (Denny 1995). Citizens’ frustration mounted when they learned Jordan intended to export the chips to Asia.

He originally planned to purchase inferior-grade hardwoods, render the trees into pulp and transport the byproducts to Wilmington for export to Japan for the production of paper (Tatum 1996:1).

Initially citizen’s concerns focused on construction financing through the bond, the actual construction and operation of the mill in their neighborhood, the low number of employees (thus economic benefit) to the region, and the export of local resources to Asia. Four citizens filed a suit against Bob Jordan regarding his already approved industrial bond (Tatum 1996:1). The citizens won their suit. Bob Jordan sold the mill property to Willamette Industries, Inc., of Portland, Oregon (Henderson 1996). Willamette’s ownership differed on two points: the company did not need the industrial development bond financing and most often supplies domestic markets.

Willamette plans to build a chip mill of about the same size Jordan contemplated...It [the mill] will produce up to 300,000 tons of chips a year. Hardwoods cut on private lands within a 50-to-60 mile radius will supply the mill. (Bob Schaefer in Henderson 1996).

During this time, the citizens built a coalition with area support; they became known as the Concerned Citizens of Rutherford County (CCRC). Members began to learn what they could about silvicultural practices and about Willamette Industries. The corporate offices are located in Portland, Oregon (Willamette Industries, Inc. 2/96; Willamette Industries, Inc., 1996 handout; Willamette Industries, Inc., 7/96; Dunn 1994; http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/971113/ or_willamette_ind_di.1.html" 12/11/97; "Willamette Facts in the Carolinas" handout). The company is "an integrated forest products company" manufacturing three product lines (i.e., building materials, fine paper, and unbleached paper). The corporation ranks 322nd on Fortune’s "500" list. In 1995, sales reached $4 billion, with profits of $5l5 million. In 1995 the company held 96 facilities operating in 21 states, with no foreign operations. By 1997, the company increased its holdings to 97 plants including the 1996 purchase of Medite (Medite of Europe Limited) in Ireland. In recent months, the company announced plans to construct a $10 million East Coast office just across the North Carolina state line in Rock Hill, South Carolina (Charlotte Observer 1997). Willamette owns 1.8 million acres of timberland, including 156,000 acres in North Carolina. However, the timber for the Broad River Chip Co. in Union Mills will come from "gatewood" sources (Buckley interview 10/23/97). Gatewood describes the transfer of timber ownership when loggers deliver the wood to the chip mill gate; the company does not purchase the wood directly from the landholders.

In its July 1996 newsletter to the community, Willamette reported it would "begin operations with one shift, working 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays." The product would be manufactured from "fiber that can’t be used by local sawmills" (e.g., " early thinnings,""tree tops and weak or deformed trees,""twisted and diseased trees and trees from stagnant stands"). The chips would be transported by truck or rail to Willamette’s paper mills in Kingsport, Tennessee and Bennettsville, South Carolina. An August, 1997 company newsletter included chip transport to their Hawesville, Kentucky mill.

The company’s history book chronicles a continuous series of mill openings and closings based on available timber supplies (Woodward :358-359; Dunn 1994:20-23;69-70;81;113-114; 120-121;151-154;160-162;168;195; "Willamette Industries, Inc. Annual Report 1995," 1996:15-16; "Willamette Industries, Inc. 1996 "Growth on a Solid Foundation"). Earlier controversies with environmental groups (Dunn 1994:151;160-162) and restrictions on federal timber supplies in the Pacific Northwest, influenced the company’s move to the South and the East (Woodward :359-359; Dunn 1994:159-160; 162). This information worried CCRC members who heard that satellite chip mills were part of a "boom/bust" industry which exploited local timber resources. CCRC also became concerned about the company’s continued historical trend in business practices which exploited local economies for the company’s benefit (Woodward:358; Dunn 1994:1;49;151-153). The citizen group discovered that controversy existed in some of those communities, about labor practices (The Paperworker 1996:8-9; Woodward:358), mill operations (The Oregonian 1995), and quality of life impacts (Sandlin 1996; Surra 1995). CCRC wanted the Division of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to re-examine the company’s use of Bob Jordan’s Broad River Chip Mill stormwater discharge permit (General Permit No. NCG040000) based on Willamette’s environmental history in other locations. The permit re-examination request was based on agency authority to reopen permits (NPDES General Permit No. NCG04000, p.19), and hold a public hearing [NC Gen. Statues Art 21 sect. 143-215.3 (a)(3] (Parker 1996). No action was taken by the agency. However, early company construction activities confirmed that the Union Mills community would also experience impacts. In November, 1996, Willamette was found in violation of the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act because they had not filed an erosion control plan to DENR. A Western North Carolina Alliance (WNCA) newsletter reported:

...county soil and water officials discovered collapsed silt fences on Willamette property that would allow heavy sediments to foul the unnamed tributary that runs into the Second Broad River (Dietz 1997).

In January of 1997, members of the group met with DENR personnel to again appeal for a public hearing on the stormwater discharge permit. At this same meeting, the members asked for an impact study of the proposed chip mill and a moratorium on any permitting until the study was completed. The group’s ideology expanded to include other agenda. The agenda now includes missions shared with other impacted community and environmental groups (e.g., WNCA, Dogwood Alliance). In addition, the scope of the issue enlarged to include similar chip mill concerns in other states. Current concerns are many and include: noise pollution in their neighborhoods; increased logging truck traffic creating hazardous road conditions; hardwood deforestation and reforestation in loblolly pine farms; siltation of lakes and streams; loss of the area’s biological diversity; possible clearcutting in three nearby National forests; visual and aesthetic impacts to a beautiful mountain region; negative economic impacts on the tourist industry, the furniture industry, and other hardwood users; and state tax credits which encourage exporting North Carolina chips to Asia. The chip mill issue caused controversy in the community, re-examination of many public policies, and provoked serious solution seeking work toward appropriate sustainable development. Citizens desire increased job opportunities while protecting the natural and human resources and their quality of life (See Photo 1.3).

The various groups requested that North Carolina Governor James Hunt, DENR, and also the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take part in the solution seeking process. Eventually, the Governor directed DENR to study ‘the environmental impacts and economic benefits of woodchip mills" (1997 Hunt). The enlarged environmental agendas call for putting a moratorium on any future chip mills, including additional permits to Willamette Industries, until impact studies can be completed to establish current conditions of the forest resources and to show the cumulative socioeconomic and ecological impacts.

The issue involves a multitude of stakeholders including the community groups, members of environmental and wildlife organizations, forestry and pulp and paper industry personnel, and agents for states and the Federal government. The concerns permeate many cultures (e.g., the corporate industry culture, the environmental community, and the residential communities) in the South and Southeast for a variety of reasons. Continued growth and population increases cause ever greater stresses to the natural resources in this region. People desire to protect their quality of life, their financial livelihood, to maintain their family’s property rights, and to continue work that they enjoy. Research that can show the many different stakeholders’ feelings, questions, concerns, and ideas about this issue, may in the long-run allow people to live more safely and comfortably in their communities. Participation in solution-seeking processes can enhance people’s feeling of membership within the community; it is an action toward community-building while addressing the value of ecological sustainability.

My desires, intentions, and activities during this fellowship have been to work on community-based environmental protection issues confronting the residents of Union Mills, especially as they impact the people and the environment in Rutherford County and western North Carolina. The issues included the proposed construction of a chip mill, sustainable forestry alternatives, and related environmental protection and community development concerns. I used ethnographic data collection and interviews to identify stakeholders and their concerns. In addition, I drew on anthropological methods to organize and facilitate consensus-building public meetings exploring potential impacts of the proposed chip mill. Through participation and research I examined what information stakeholders bring to the bargaining table and how they participate in the solution-seeking processes. I worked toward developing a community-based conflict resolution model that might aid participants’ involvement in this issue, and perhaps in future issues. My desire in this paper is to contribute to anthropological understanding of community-based environmental protection, and to enhance governmental and community-based stakeholders’ efforts to engage in environmental solution-seeking processes.

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

As part of my graduate degree requirements I completed an applied anthropology internship thesis, entitled "Grassroots Grow Greener in Western North Carolina: An Ethnographic Chronicle of Ideological Change" (McClary 1997). My ethnographic data provides insight into incidents of ideological change as CCRC members became involved in this environmental issue. This ideological change was evidenced in their ensuing behavior to take part in more grassroots activities. Their changed behavior and involvement in this movement reflected new cultural constructions of "self/other" (Pandian 1985). As the new social and coalition identities developed, the opposition worked to enlarge their coalitions (Ginsburg 1985). This dialectical behavior represents a spiral of escalation in which each groups reacts to the opposition’s behavior. The groups take stronger stances on the issue and become polarized in their ideology. My thesis analysis discussed issues of "us/them," "selective victimization," (Johnston 1994) and the reconciliation of polarized positions through conflict resolution.

During this research I hoped to further my understanding of those concepts, but reach a larger pool of stakeholders. Numerous community stakeholders are already seeking ways to find solutions to natural resource issues and reduce conflict among disparate parties. In the anthropological community, I draw on works by Carley and Christie in Managing Sustainable Development, for perspectives on development. Sargent, Lusk, Rivera, and Varela, in Rural Environmental Planning for Sustainable Communities, provide methods to access public involvement and ideology about land values and planning. In Sustainable Development: Exploring the contradictions, Michael Redclift compares and contrasts the North (developed) and the South (developing) environmental/sustainable development ideology; both are instructive here. He describes the different perceptions about nature or the environment as:

two frequently opposed intellectual traditions: one concerned with the limits which nature presents to human beings, the other with the potential for human material development which is locked up in nature [my emphasis] (1995:199).

Or "...the way in which we look at the world. One person’s world of resource depletion is another person’s world of resource abundance" (1995:202).

Further, the different perspectives are socially constructed and involve social groups (Redclift 1995:202). He claims that the existing political economy is influenced by different economic interests, as well as disparity of power among the "plural rationalities" or social groups And if sustainable development:

is to be an alternative to unsustainable development, [it] should imply a break with the linear model of growth and accumulation that ultimately serve to undermine the planet’s life support system (Redclift 1995:4).

Redclift claims that "developed world" environmental issues focus primarily on access to, appreciation and protection of rural spaces, as well as, protection of endangered species (1995:200). His text focuses on the somewhat different "environmental objectives" in the "developing" countries. The environmental impositions and exploitations of the "The South" (the developing countries below the Equator) often benefit the developed countries’ (e.g., us, the "north") "material standards of life." However, I believe his arguments can be applied in my study in "the South" of the United States in which the exploitation of rural labor and resources, and the control (or lack of) thereof, benefit the desires and needs of the domestic and the international markets of timber goods.

David Cleveland, in "Can Science and Advocacy Coexist? The Ethics of Sustainable Development," ask professional anthropologist to examine our anthropological roles in sustainable development (1994:9-10). For specific techniques on conflict resolution, I found useful Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by the Harvard Negotiation Project (Fisher and Williams 1983). For example, the text provides information about how to "separate the people from the problem" and "invent options for mutual gain" which provide participants a forthright solution-seeking fora.

A number of interdisciplinary and community-based organizations currently publish their methods and findings on forestry issues. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations published proceedings from an electronic conference on Addressing Natural Resource Conflicts through Community Forestry (1996), had a special focus on conflict management and conflict resolution.

The interface between community forestry and conflict management is a natural extension of both disciplines. Conflict managers focus on developing problem-solving skills to empower those managing disputes. Community forestry professionals focus on developing problem-solving skills to empower people managing the natural resources on which a community is dependent (1996:88).

Other initiatives were instructive on different sustainability concepts and visions of implementation. One is from a market based but non-governmental perspective. The Paper Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable Paper provides the reader with fairly comprehensive research findings on the methods used and participants in "life cycle" of paper. Their intend to shift away from a strictly sustained yield forestry approach toward a more sustainable forestry perspective (1995). Charles Taylor’s "Report on Forest Health of the United States by the Forest Health Science Panel" (1997) and the Report of the Governor’s [North Carolina] Task Force on Forest Sustainability (1996) examined forest conditions and alternative policy implications.

Frederick Cubbage’s "The Public Interest in Private Forests: Developing Regulations and Incentives" (1997) focuses on the policy, practices, and options for private landowners rights and responsibilities in light of changing environmental charges to the industry. Ecosystem management, "bundle of rights," financial incentives, and "taking" of habitats, are a few of the many issues relevant to developing a base for sustainable forestry initiates now and in the next century. Other approaches investigate the necessity of broadening forest management practices to include other than yield values. In "A Value-Based, Multi-Scalar Approach to Forest Management," Daily and Norton submit:

Coordination of forest management activities with other resource management efforts is becoming increasingly important. Forestry practices, such as clearcutting, can significantly impact aquatic systems. A system that can identify and account for these indirect effects and larger-scale considerations in local-level forest management will be needed to ensure the success of these other programs (1994:29).

In "Sustainable Forestry or Sustainable Forests?", Conservation Biologist, Reed Noss, provides the most forthright approach to sustainability and biodiversity (1993). He removes the sustainability argument from the pre-settlement condition interpretation into one of "reversing trajectories of impoverishment;" a restoration that speaks of "becoming" rather than "returning:

‘It is becoming something more secure for sensitive native species, more natural, and more sustainable by any reasonable criteria...closer to it [pre-European] in some fundamental ways than the present, exploited forest and, therefore, more similar to the ecological theater in which the native species of a region evolved (1993:27).

Noss submits that our anthropocentric approach to development led to current conditions, "We got rich on unsustainable development" (1993). He calls for a revised way of thinking:

Forests are valuable and must be sustained for their own sake. Until we acquire such an attitude, the sustainability concept may be a smoke screen, behind which we continue to chip away at our biotic heritage.

 

CHAPTER 3. METHODS

My fellowship required sponsorship by a community-based organization and advisement from an EPA mentor and a SfAA mentor. Lynne Faltraco, CCRCs leader, committed the group as my community-based sponsoring organization. Al Lucas, is my Region IV EPA mentor. Al is a Life Scientist and Senior Biologist in the Office of Environmental Assessment in the Environmental Accountability Division. Dr. Harvard Ayers, from Appalachian State University’s Anthropology Department, is my SfAA mentor. Dr. Ayers and I already had an established working relationship. He was one of my early anthropology instructors, as well as my preceptor during my graduate applied anthropology internship with SAHE. My contract required submitting a series of reports (i.e., work plans, revised work plans, and progress reports) for mentor review before submitting the reports to Dr. Barbara Johnston, the SfAA/EPA Project Director. I generated the reports from my daily fieldnotes.

Al Lucas and I met in Asheville for a forest data review session with EPA agents, and federal and state forestry agents. One meeting objective included examining if EPA would have any role in the impending North Carolina DENR chip mill study. Information presented during this meeting contributed further to my understanding of forestry data. The meeting also provided an opportunity to meet authorities with whom I would interact during future project activities and to observe inter-agency relationships. I met with Dr. Ayers at Appalachian State University and at CCRC meetings. I also met with Lynne Faltraco on a regular basis regarding CCRCs work.

My ethnographic data came from many sources. I collected contextual data at organizational and agency offices. I read agency documents, newspaper articles, magazines, industry trade journals, and other texts which reported relevant information. The literature provided opportunities for a better understanding of the accepted jargon and a fuller awareness of "key players" in this and related issues. I also did some "ground truthing" by walking through clearcuts and woodlots, and hiking through Old Growth forests. As a participant-observer, I attended a Mountain Water Quality BMP tour, numerous workshops (e.g., Broad River Basin NPS meetings), public meetings (e.g., County Commissioner, Rutherford "neighborhood"), and public hearings (e.g., DENR chip mill hearing, DWQ Broad River Reclassification, and Maymead Materials, Inc. Draft Permit hearing). I visited the State Capitol offices to discuss trucking issues and export tax credits with legislators, and to learn more from DENR agents about the state’s upcoming chip mill impact study. My observations aided my assessment of "who" participates in these events, "what" information they contribute, and "how" participants perform or behave in various cultural settings. I often learned as much about the people and the issue during informal interview settings (e.g., while standing by a pick-up truck in a parking lot) as I did in formal settings (e.g., public hearings).

I had almost daily and countless informal interviews in person or by telephone with a broad spectrum of people to discern stakeholder attitudes (e.g., loggers, hunters, landholders,

and industry). I formally interviewed six people, including Shannon Buckley, Willamette Industries’ District Procurement Forester for the in-construction Broad River Chip Mill. The interviews lasted from forty minutes to two and one-half hours, in their places of business or in their homes. Some were audio tape-recorded with the consultant’s permission (See Appendices).

During the day-long meeting of the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests Forum, I was a participant-observer during meetings in which representatives from industry, academia,

government, and the private sector discussed indices and perceptions of North Carolina forest resources. I also participated in a small group meeting about "collaboration and cooperation" possibilities for/by the disparate parties to learn more about conflict resolution techniques.

I did participant-observation during an introductory meeting about the Southeastern Regional Forest Certification Standards Project. After this meeting I was invited to serve as a social scientist Working Group member to help develop standards that would, after a lengthy negotiation process, be submitted to the public and the Forest Stewardship Council for approval.

The certification standards process is a market-driven approach to encourage timberland holders to grow and manage their timber sustainably. I spent about six full days in meetings with "economic," "environment," and "social" representatives negotiating the not-yet-complete first draft. This on-going project provides an excellent opportunity for me to learn how participants define sustainable forestry and to also observe and practice conflict resolution efforts.

I continued my membership in various environmental organizations, including the WNCA, and the Dogwood Alliance. I was a participant-observer in several meetings, including annual meetings for both organizations. During the annual meeting of Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition (SAFC), I learned more about conflict resolution activities, the "zero cut" campaign, and assisted in a workshop about chip mills. The workshop provided an arena for collecting peoples’ ideas about impacts and land use options. In InterFaith Forum meetings in Watauga County, I learned how various denominational persons defined sustainability. During one meeting I presented information about chip mills and sustainable forestry issues, as well as solicited their opinions about land use options.

The environmental anthropology project encourages participants to establish a social science network, which I began early in the summer. I visited with several anthropologists in person, by telephone, and/or E-mail. Our discussions provided opportunities for "intellectualizing and theorizing" in addition to literature resource-sharing, gaining fresh perspectives, and good companionship. The project also requires information dissemination with the public, students,

and agencies about social scientists’ contributions in environmental protection processes. I lectured to the local community college cultural anthropology class about work options for applied anthropologists and my work on the chip mill issue. Another opportunity to disseminate this information came through EPA Project Director Theresa Trainor’s invitation to speak at

the EPAs Eastern Community-Based Environmental Protection Practitioners’ workshop in Atlanta. I also observed EPA personnel and gained some perspective of their philosophies about within-agency relationships, regional office-to-Headquarters relationships, and agency-to-public responsibilities.

In late November, I attended the SfAA/EPA Environmental Anthropology Project reception held during the American Anthropological Association annual meeting in Washington, DC. The setting provided an opportunity to meet in person Advisory Committee members and other project participants, as well as to visit with professors from my graduate alma mater, Northern Arizona University.

Completion of my environmental anthropology contract requires this final analysis reporting of my project. However, preparation of this report also provides an opportunity to disseminate to other policy-makers (e.g., DENRs chip mill study team, TDA) and to social scientists working on environmental protection issues (e.g., project forum at the April SfAA annual meeting in Puerto Rico).

I found in this work, as I did during my thesis internship, that, "Objectivity gets its biggest challenge when you study your own culture" (Bernard 1994:154). Therefore, I tried to be forthright about my place in this work to those with whom I discussed the issues, to look for the "irrefutability" in the information and documentation, and to maintain a reflexive awareness in my own analysis. As I noted in my internship thesis, Bernard also suggests closing our fieldwork in a

"culturally appropriate way" for relationships may be permanent and important to maintain (Bernard 1994:153-153; McClary 1997:15). Adhering to his advice provided the fieldwork setting in which I could continue my research through this environmental anthropology fellowship and will also perhaps provide future research opportunities.

CHAPTER 4. CONTEXTUAL SETTING

My Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) Environmental Anthropology Fellowship provided an opportunity to explore additional questions developed during my applied internship thesis writing. My thesis analysis of the Willamette Industries’ "chip mill" issue in Union Mills (Rutherford County) focused on CCRC members’ ideological and behavioral change, and the escalation of the environmental movement. However, I perceived the issue as an indicator of growing concerns about forestry practices in western North Carolina and the Southeast. I was eager to return home after my graduation to begin work anew (See Photo 4.1).

The Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) mission statement commits its general membership to responsible and interdisciplinary work on human cultural problems

(http://www.sfaa.net/eap/cooptext/html). The Cooperative Agreement, between SfAA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC), contributes to implementation of OSECs mission. OSEC, through Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP), promotes regional "integrated approaches" to ecosystem recovery and protection (June 1996 "Introducing OSEC," EPA/OSEC/CBEP Handout). The Cooperative Agreement supports anthropology fellows’ work in an already familiar community on environmental protection activities. The Fellow’s research results should contribute to that protection (http://www.sfaa.net/eap/fellow.html). The combination of the SfAA mission statement and the Cooperative Agreement undergirded my desire to seek issue solutions and to work toward ecologically sustainable forestry and other development issues in Rutherford County and western North Carolina.

Many of my professional desires during this fellowship paralleled those of my internship (McClary 1997:17). I wanted to expand my research capabilities, as well as learn how to better contribute to the work on sustainability solutions with community members, and now policymakers. I also hoped to make contacts for future anthropology work.

Because of my previous involvement in the issues and the geographic area, I found it useful to assume a reflexive approach in my role as an anthropologist (McClary 1997:17). This approach requires me to examine my southern roots, my history in this region, and my ideas about this environmental issue. In cultural anthropology, the examination of those perspectives is called "reflexivity." As a long time resident of the South and the western North Carolina region, I had worked in a variety of positions which enhanced my understanding of the socio-economic dynamics of corporate structures and the region. The "chip mill" issue is related to the pulp and paper industry. My own history is related to the paper making business through family members, including my nuclear and extended family. I have many friends and relatives either directly or indirectly associated with the paper making industry, from procurement foresters to IBM paper sales representatives. Thus, I have a commitment to environmentalism that is tempered with an empathy for those who make a living in the paper industry.

During my thesis writing, I became more aware of my personal and professional need and responsibility to go beyond the obvious escalation and polarization between the culturally created identities of the "environmentalist" (as "self/us") and the "industry" (as "other/them") (Pandian 1985; McClary 1997:4;67). I wanted to more actively seek solutions for sustainable forestry working with the diverse stakeholders through conflict resolution and policy change.

The focal point for CCRCs activities is their protest of Willamette Industries’ construction and operation of the Broad River Chip Mill on Centennial Road in Union Mills. The two-lane road weaves through parts of the quiet rural farming community (See Photo 1.1). In fact, it weaves past the 140 year-old Forney House which is listed in North Carolina Century Farms: 100 years of continuous Agricultural Heritage (1989:205). Hudlow Road is the main street of Union Mills; it is lined closely on both sides by the United World Missions, a home for the aged, a school for the deaf, and the middle school. Among the many concerns of the residents are the negative impacts of the 50-plus logging trucks that will travel to, and then away from the chip mill daily. The residents are concerned about impaired road safety and the disruption to their long-held quiet quality of life. Union Mills won honors this year from the Western North Carolina Development Association for their community beautification efforts (10/24/97 Daily Courier) as they have for many years (McClary 1997:33).

Union Mills is nestled in the Southern Appalachian foothills in Rutherford County. The county’s 563 square miles asserts its place as the state’s third largest county (of 100) with an approximate 59,000 (predominately white) population (Rutherford County Chamber Relocation Information; Rutherford County Tourism Development Authority 1997/1998 Marketing Plan). Elevations range from 806 to 3,967 feet creating diverse landscapes which include the agricultural fields of the thermal belt , as well as the resort mountain communities of Lake Lure and Chimney Rock. The county is home to the most abundant and profoundly beautiful magnolia trees that I have ever observed. The county also has a rich cultural and natural resource history, much of which is significant in the nation’s history, and seems important to consider in this development issue (See Photo 4.2).

For "thousands of years" the Cherokee Indians, Iroquoian people who had migrated from the north, hunted and lived in what became Rutherford County (Lee 1963:56; Bynum 1984:XVI).

Historians claim that the Spanish expeditions of Hernando De Soto and Juan Pardo traveled through the area in the mid-1500s (Bynum 1984:XVI; BB&T 1984:62). By the time the English came through in 1673, both the Catawba and the Cherokee Indians used the area as their hunting grounds (Bynum 1984:XVI). They likely hunted for fox, deer, bear, otter, beaver, and even buffalo (Camp 1963:19). Projectile points, or arrowheads, can still be found in the area today.

By the 1760s Scotch-Irish immigrants, as well as some English and German settlers, migrated from Pennsylvania into what was then known as Tryon County (Bynum 1984:XVI; Camp 1963:18-19). They were drawn to the area because of the climate and terrain; most became farmers.

In 1776 General Griffith Rutherford (Patriot) led a campaign to secure settlement lands by defeating the Cherokee (Bynum 1984:XVII-XVIII; Van Noppen 1973:4; Powell 1977:65). The county takes its name from this soldier (10-24-97 Agnes interview; Bynum 1984:XVIII). In 1780, Rutherford County soldiers fought on both sides during the Battle of King’s Mountain (See photo 4.2); those who joined the "Over-Mountain Men" won a victory in the fight against Patrick Ferguson (Bynum 1984:XVIII; Powell 1977:72-73; BB&T 1984:82). The British loss represented a "significant" turn of events in the Revolutionary War (Powell 1977:73). After the war, soldiers returned to farming, many raised cotton; however, textiles would not become a major industry until the 1890s (Bynum 1984:XX).

Between 1814 and 1845, Rutherford County was the nation’s "center of gold production" (Van Hoppen 1973:57). In 1831, Bechtler’s Mint produced the first minted U.S. gold dollar (BB&T, 1984:87; Powell 1977:124). Rutherfordton became "one of the leading towns of western North Carolina," however much of the county’s economic success was attributed to the large slave labor population used on the farms and in the gold mines (Bynum 1984:XX-XXI).

In spite of the fact that North Carolina was the last state to join the Confederacy in the Civil War, 1,734 men from the 1,670 white families left Rutherford County to fight in the war (BB&T, 1984:91; Bynum 1984:XXII). Fighting in the county occurred briefly in 1865 before the war ended (Bynum 1984:XXII). After the war ended, soldiers again returned to their farms.

Well into the 20th century the local economy was driven by agriculture and textiles. During World War II, approximately 6,000 men and women from the county served in the military (Griffin 1952). Many of the remaining residents produced "war crops" (e.g., corn, peanuts, Irish potatoes, oats, soybeans) and raised poultry and cows on the farms. All of the local textile plants, including the still-operating Stonecutter Mills, manufactured war goods (e.g., tent twill, army shirts, parachute rayon, surgical gauze, and hospital flannel pajamas). Wright Bachman Lumber Company produced shell and bomb boxes for the war effort. The U.S. Government leased the Lake Lure Inn and some surrounding buildings to house a "rest and recuperation" center for returning air corps men; about 5,000 men stayed in the facilities:

Lake Lure’s unusual recreational facilities and scenic beauties prompted its selection as one of the first centers of this type [only 4 or 5 in the nation], an experiment in combating fatigue and nerve strain and the after-effects of prolonged illness. Swimming, fishing, boating, hiking and tennis were of great help in putting the men back in first class condition again (Griffin 1952:87).

Even in contemporary times, the Lake Lure and Chimney Rock areas continue to be a place for "r & r." The Chimney Rock is an approximately 500 million year old geophysic feature that stands over 26 stories high (Chimney Rock Park CRP-95). The rock overlooks the 1,500 acre Lake Lure which meanders for 27 miles (Rutherford County Relocation Information) On a clear day, one can stand atop Chimney Rock and see 75 miles away to King’s Mountain (Chimney Rock Park RP95). They have additional claims to fame as settings for such well known movies as "Dirty Dancing," "The Last of the Mohicans," and "My Fellow Americans" (Rutherford County Chamber Relocation Information). The Tourism Development Authority (TDA) claims it will continue to work with the Western North Carolina Film Commission to promote the county as a film site (TDA Marketing Plan 1997/1998). These locations in the western part contributed the greatest to the county’s 1996 $69.67 million revenue from tourism, which generated $5.87 million in state and local tax revenues, and "represents a $99 savings to each county resident." Future implications are referenced in the report. It references studies that show the fastest tourism growth is "nature tourism" and the South "the nation’s favorite region to visit." In 1995 statewide tourism generated $9.2 billion, much based on forest related activities (Jahn 1997:3). CCRC members feel that increased clearcutting in the area caused by the operation of the wood chip mill would create a negative effect on the tourist trade. In the TDAs visitor study, tourists said "88% felt seeing the mountains and its scenery was extremely important or very important on this trip." And in fact, in county-wide input sessions, clearcutting was listed first as the perceived threat to the tourism industry’s success.

Almost half of the county’s "artificial" boundary borders four counties in the Southern Appalachian Assessment area (i.e., Henderson, Buncombe, McDowell, and Burke) (SAMAB 1996:iii;1;6). Parts of the county are mapped as "ecological units" of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Southern Appalachian Piedmont Sections. The Nature Conservancy lists Rutherford County in the state’s "Southwest Mountains Region" (Gery 1997:17). Because chip mills source their timber from forested areas at least 50 to 100 miles away, it is useful to put in context likely sourcing and impacted geographic areas from the Union Mills facility.

The Southern Appalachian Assessment Social/Cultural/Economic Technical Report describes the historical habitation since the Paleoindian period around 9000 B.C. (SAMAB 1996b:5-15). Indians used baskets, stone vessels, and woodworking tools, in addition to hunting big game such as mammoth and mastodon (1996b:5-15). By 2500 B.C. residents were less dependent on fishing, hunting, and gathering in the forest, and more dependent on agriculture. When the European settlers arrived, approximately 1 million Native Americans lived in the Southern Appalachians; the Cherokee made up the largest population. Many events (e.g., conflict during white settlement, disease, and relocation) caused the reduction of the total Native American population to about 200,000 by 1989.

As the Native American had used the forest resources so did the new settlers (Steen 1991:22). Van Noppen claims:

Although the forest was thought of as an obstacle to home building, it was the chief resource of the people. In a small way the early settlers were all lumbermen (1973:291).

They found many uses for the wood (e.g. to build cabins, fences, barns, corn cribs, tools, fuel, coffins, wagons, furniture) (SAMAB 1996b:10; Van Noppen 1973:291-322). And they burned down woodlands to make room for their homes, fields, and pastures (Van Noppen: 1973:291-322). The western North Carolina forest provided about 100 types of diverse trees, including chestnut, oak, walnut, maple, cherry, hickory, ash, and yellow locust (SAMAB 1996b:10; Van Noppen 1973:291). Some of the trees were massive:

People told of walnut trees with a diameter of eight feet, and of wild cherry trees reaching a height of sixty feet to the first limb and with a diameter of four feet... (Van Noppen 1973:291).

As early as 1705 in the eastern part of the state, pine turpentine and tar extractions for ship building had provided a "naval stores" export market (Steen 1991:22). By the mid-1800s, the state provided "96 percent of the nation’s production" deriving the thus-named "Tar Heel state" (Steen 1991:22). "Harsh extractive practices and overproduction" caused the state’s eventual market-share decline. This type of more extreme exploitation of forest resources came later in the western part of the state (Van Noppen 1973:294). Besides the settlers’ forest consumption, northern lumbermen who had already over-harvested their own forests by the 1880s, came to buy tracts of "choice timber." Locals were hired to fell the trees and to work at the many new sawmills that were built in the area. The trees became newly-cut railroad ties that soon connected the area with numerous markets. By 1887, the Wilmington, Charlotte, and Rutherfordton Railroad was completed; it would link the county with important locations eastward (Van Noppen 1973:263).

The timber and the new railroads also made it possible for George Vanderbilt to build and furnish his 250-room French chateau, "America’s largest private home" (Forester, 1997:12; Van Noppen 1973:298-300). Gifford Pinchot was the resident forester at the Biltmore Estate; he introduced forest management to the nation, including "timber stand improvement cuttings and tree plantings" (USDA FS June, 1994). He found the local traditional harvesting techniques deplorable, "...done with an eye single to immediate returns and wholly without regard for the safety of the forests...;" he expected forest management would enhance "repeated crops of merchantable lumber" (Van Noppen 1973:302;306). Pinchot left the Biltmore Estate and in 1905 became the United States Forest Service’s first Chief Forester (Stoddard 1968:20). In 1895 Vanderbilt hired a German forester, Dr. Carl Schenck. Schenck founded America’s first forestry school, the Biltmore Forest School, located in the Pisgah Forest (Steen 1991:26; USDA FS June, 1994). Schenck had some difficult adjustments to make in transferring his knowledge to American forests (USDA FS 1994; Van Noppen 1973:304). This adjustment is not surprising, since Europe had "less than a dozen commercial tree species" (Stoddard 1968:18) and Pinchot had already documented over seventy tree varieties at the Estate (Van Noppen 1973:303). One costly mistake involved a splash dam he built at Big Cove Creek to send logs downstream to the French Broad (Van Noppen 1973:304;307). When the logs washed downstream, they tore up the streambanks, "...the fertility of the cove was reduced by the acceleration of the drainage...," logs washed into the adjoining farmlands, "...owners were furious and lawsuits resulted." Thus became his philosophy for establishing permanent logging roads. Van Noppen claims that Vanderbilt "discharged" Schenck in 1909 (1973:307); "The First Forestry School in America" brochure notes that "Schenck left Vanderbilt in 1909 and took his school with him" (USDA FS October, 1995). Whatever the reality, Schenck had already developed a relationship with Reuben Robinson, of Champion Fibre Company, who offered their Sunburst village to house the forestry school (Van Noppen 1973:308; USDA FS October, 1995). Schenck lived in America from 1895 until 1914, one year after the closing of his school. Even though he never gave up his German citizenship, his work here had profound effects on the history of forestry in this nation (Van Noppen 1973:304-322).

At the turn of the century, only 10 percent virgin timber remained in the 75 percent Southern Appalachians’ forest cover (SAMAB 1996b:12). The Southern Appalachian Assessment provides this dismal picture of the forest conditions (1996b:12):

From 1900 to the 1920s, this forest cover would be substantially reduced by heavy cutting. Sawmills served by narrow-gauge logging railroads spread throughout the southern mountains, even to the spruce forests at the highest elevations. Overhead cables and yarding machines speeded the removal of trees in rough terrain, and new bandsaws speeded the milling. With this logging came an increase in soil leaching, erosion, flooding, and forests fires.

1908 reports reflected large company ownerships of about half of the timberlands; and, while some young forests were developing, only about 14 percent of the acreage had not been recently cleared (SAMAB 1996b:12).

In 1907 the Champion Coated Paper Company opened a plant in Canton (Steen 1991:25). The mill owners originally came to the region to exploit spruce for paper production, and chestnut for production of tannic acid and pulp production (Van Noppen 1973:308-310). However, complications arose. The high elevations made spruce harvesting difficult and the chestnut blight killed "27 percent of the standing timber in western North Carolina" (Steen 1991:26). Schenck’s forestry school had surveyed the Canton region and determined that a great quantity of pine existed (Van Noppen 1973:308-309). Champion began to make white paper from pine. Herein is an early accounting of pulp and paper made from chips (Van Noppen 1973:308-309):

A process developed by Oma Carr, a chemical engineer, was applied to chestnut chips to make pulp after the tannic acid had been removed from them. The wood was reduced to small chips and subjected to treatment in boiling chemicals which dissolved the resinous material in the wood, leaving only the fibre. After washing, screening, and bleaching, it was formed in a sheet on a revolving cylinder covered with wire cloth, passed between rollers to wring out the water, then heated over steam cylinders for drying. Wound on reels in continuous rolls as it appeared from the machine, it resembled cardboard or blotter. This product was shipped to Hamilton, Ohio, to be coated.

Champion purchased timber from the new National forests, purchased their own timberlands, and made timber contracts with local landowners requiring sustained yield management. By 1916 the company was valued at $10 million and employed more than 1,000 people (Van Noppen 1973:308-309). As early as 1927 Champion was faced with water quality complaints about their industrial waste discharged into the Pigeon River (Van Noppen 1973:116;119;310). Health officers from Tennessee, North Carolina, and the federal government met with Champion’s Robertson to try to develop pollution control measures. A 1957 French Broad River Basin study revealed continued waste discharge pollution by Champion which required remediation attempts by the company in the early 1960s. In this decade, Champion’s waste discharge continues to plague agency personnel.

Even though established as an early conservation act, The 1891 Forest Reserve Act, (Stoddard 1968:20) did not provide for the protection of forests except by withdrawal of lands from "sale or homesteading" (Van Noppen 1973:311;313). By 1897 timber sales were allowed in the reserves. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt announced:

The fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use. Forest protection is not an end in itself; it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend upon them (Van Noppen 1973:311) [my emphasis].

In 1905 Gifford Pinchot became head of the Forest Service which had been moved from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture (Stoddard 1968:20). In 1907, the nation’s forest reserves became known as the " ‘National Forests’ because ‘reserve implies that the area is withdrawn from use’," which clearly they were not. Across the nation the forests were used by a variety of industries, aided by Pinchot’s efforts, even to feed industries such as Anaconda’s smelters in Montana (Moniak 1989:224). One fourth of the revenue earned went back to the state where the forests were located (Van Noppen 1972:312). During this same time period, concern about over-exploitation provoked generation of an inventory of the condition of the nation’s natural resources (Stoddard 1968:21). The 1911 Weeks Law granted the federal government authority to buy forests to protect watersheds of navigable waters. Several became established in North Carolina. The Pisgah became a National Forest by acquisition from Mrs. Vanderbilt in 1916 (Van Noppen 1973:314). The Nantahala was purchased in 1920 and the Uwharrie (in the Piedmont) in 1934 (Steen 1991:26). The Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest of the Nantahala, home to virgin hardwoods over 400 years old, was purchased in 1935 (USDA FS September, 1996); it is now protected for its "naturalness and solitude." In 1926 The Great Smoky Mountain National Park was established (BB&T 1984:105); "Park" status provided for forest protection from logging (Van Noppen 1973:312). The Smokies’ 520,000 acres contain over 200,000 acres of virgin forest, as well as habitat for more than "1,600 different types of wildflowers and more than 140 species of trees" (Forester 1997:1; Smoky Mountain Host 1995:6). Through this century numerous pieces of federal legislation passed which included: tax credits for encouraging sustained timber yield on private lands; authorizations for forest resource inventories; and, provisions for National Forest sustained yield and multiple use (i.e., watershed, timber, grazing, minerals, wildlife, wilderness, and recreation) (Stoddard 1968:21-22; Steen 1991:26). In the early quarter of the century the state Division of Forestry often partnered with federal projects, but focused principally on fire suppression methods and diseases affecting the forests (Steen 1991:26).

As noted previously, Rutherford County lies in both the mountainous area and the Piedmont (the lower elevation mid-state section leading eastward toward the North Carolina coastline). The western part of the Piedmont is another likely sourcing area for the under-construction Willamette Industries’ Broad River Chip Mill in Union Mills. While the pulp and paper industry have continued to expand throughout the state (Steen 1991:25), other industries based on timber resource consumption exist in the Piedmont. Located in the Piedmont, High Point is the state’s furniture center (Steen 1991:22). The furniture industry is located close to their timber source; indeed, much manufacturing occurs in Rutherford and the surrounding counties (e.g., Broyhill, Drexel). Also textiles manufacturing plants, abundant in the region, have long used wooden shuttles, as well as rayon, made from wood chips.

In fact, today’s settlers produce and consume numerous products made from forest resources; the following represent just a portion (Jahn 1997:89) :

Solid wood products - lumber, plywood, furniture, fences, bird houses, toothpicks

Paper products - computer paper, newspapers, books, disposable diapers, tissues

Bark - mulch, anticancer drugs, cosmetics, oil spill control agents

Cellulose - rayon clothes, carpet, toothpaste, food additives, luggage, pressure sensitive adhesives, irrigation piping

Lignosulfates - artificial vanilla flavoring, deodorants, insecticides, cleaning compounds

Torula yeast - baby foods, vegetarian foods, imitation bacon

Wood alcohols - solvents, colognes

As previously mentioned, federal legislation required implementation of forest resource inventories to determine conditions of the nation’s natural resources (Hansen 1992). The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) provides the public and policy makers with state and regional information. An Eastwide Data Base (EWDB), developed from state FIA, provides comparable data analysis capabilities. Both the FIA and the EWDB are generated from state forest inventories conducted by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service regional experiment station personnel. However, state inventories are taken "every 5 to 15 years." This process creates information gaps for users desiring current data.

In a new program, Southern Annual Forest Inventory System (SAFIS), inventory data will be taken in each state regularly/annually by the USDA Forest Service in "partnerships," (SAFIS 1997). Total state inventories will not be completed, nor will annual reports be published. However, critical data can be examined (e.g., hurricane impacts), as well as surveys on forest test plots. The partnership participants include state foresters, universities, industries, and others. One of the recurring claims that I heard, and experienced, throughout this fellowship was the frustration concerning lack of current forest data. It appears the implementation of SAFIS may help to correct that problem; however, public access to data may be impaired by the lack of formal/traditional reporting genre.

The North Carolina Forests:

The state has 18.7 million acres of timberlands, of which 2.0 million acres are public land, and 2.4 million are owned/leased by the timber industry (Brown 1993:iv-v). Ownership acreage is broken down as follows (Hunt 1996:13):

16 % = Less than 20 acres

42 % = Between 20 and 100 acres

42% = Greater than 100 acres

The forests cover 60 percent of the state and are valued at $19 billion (Jahn 1997:1-3). Economically the industry ranks third in the state, following textiles, and equipment manufacturing (Brown 1993:21). The 1994 timber industry manufacturing "value added"

totaled: $7.2 billion, which is broken down further as

(i.e., paper and allied products - $1.9 billion;

lumber and wood products - $2.0 billion;

and, furniture and fixtures - $3.3 billion)(Jahn 1997:3).

Changes in the hardwood forests inventories are reflected in the following statistics. In 1984, hardwood growth exceeded removals by 99 percent (Brown 1993:iv-v;21-22). In 1990, growth still exceeded removals, but only by 33 percent. Total removals of hardwood increased by 36 percent. In the state’s Northern Coastal Plain, a growth deficit occurred. Since 1984, there was a 4 percent increase in hardwood growing stock volume (Ibid.:10;22). The majority of the hardwood growth was "survivor" growth (Ibid.:16). In spite of the 69 percent increase in hardwood regeneration (Ibid.:v), much of it occurred on pine plantation properties and will, therefore, likely be removed (Ibid.:30). There is a "deficit" in hardwood tree ages between 11 and 50 years old, which coupled with increased pulp demand, may threaten future regeneration success (Ibid.:v;30). Pulpwood made up 43 percent of the production output, which had increased by 24 percent (Brown 1993:iv-v).

One of the environmentalists’ concerns about the increasing number of chip mills, relates to conversion of hardwood forests to loblolly pine forests. Pine forests generally have a shorter harvesting rotation period than do hardwoods. The majority of the loblolly pine inventory is in the eastern part of the state; it increased statewide by 9 percent (Brown 1993:6). For the last 50 years, loblolly pine has been replacing the longleaf pine in "its natural growing area" (Jahn 1997:7). Pine plantations in the state increased by 29 percent (Brown 1993:v). More growth is expected.

The North Carolina’s Forests, 1990 report claims that conditions elsewhere in the nation "(e.g., endangered species, catastrophic weather)," may contribute to an increased demand for timber in the South (1993:27). The Report of the [North Carolina] Governor’s Task Force on Forest Sustainability claims that harvesting restrictions on National Forests in the state increases demand on private timberlands (Hunt 1996:3). This reports notes that, although National Forests in North Carolina make up only 6 percent of the timberlands, "they were until recently the major raw material supply for the forest products industry in the western part of the state" (Hunt 1996:3).

Map 4.1 illustrates the location, by company name, of chip mills currently operating or under construction in North Carolina. The information is extrapolated from chip mill self-reported data published in Timber Processing (1997:75-79). Note the oldest (1969) reported mill is owned by Weyerhaeuser Company; the mill pulps 88% softwood and produces the greatest number of wood chips with an annual production of 1,500,000 tons per year. The corporation is also one of the big chip exporters to Asia from North Carolina, for which it receives a state tax credit. (Charlotte Observer 1996:3C; Leavenwork 1996). Currently, self-reported annual production in North Carolina is approximately 5,637,000 tons.

The Forestry and Forest Products Data Book describes the volume of the states timber harvest:

Thus, if all sawtimber harvested in North Carolina was converted to lumber for houses and all of the pulpwood was used to make paper, enough trees are harvested each year to build approximately 118,300 houses and print 9.45 billion daily newspapers(Jahn 1997:9)[my emphasis].

The Rutherford County Forests:

County statistics for Rutherford note that approximately 74 percent (267,970) of the total acreage (363,277) is forested (Brown 1993:85). About 11 percent is industry owned; almost all of the remaining is privately owned (Ibid.:87). The "management classes" include (approximate): 10% pine plantation; 28% natural pines; 20% oak-pine; 37% upland hardwood; and, 4% lowland hardwood (Ibid.:89). Over half of the merchantable timber (5 inches diameter at breast height - dbh) is hardwood (Ibid.:91). There is a negative net annual change in hardwood growing stock, as well as a negative net annual change in sawtimber (Ibid.97-99).

Disruption in forest cover impacts humans, as already evidenced in this issue paper; however, it also impacts other species (See Table 4.1). My table is a very modest representation of species which may be impacted by timber harvesting for the Willamette Industries Chip mill in Union Mills, NC. Included are only ten (10) counties, which adjoin Rutherford County. Willamette’s sourcing area exceeds these boundaries. If a 60-mile radius map is drawn, timber will be sourced from approximately 33 of North Carolina’s 100 counties. If a 75-mile radius is drawn, timber harvesting would impact about 52 counties. A more rigorous impact study would require expert examination of impacts to these counties and species. Impacts to these species reflect the necessity to think beyond the local ecological impacts, or site specific impacts, and toward a landscape level ecology.

The Southern Appalachian Forests:

Much of the sourcing for the Willamette Industries chip mill will extend outside of Rutherford County. The Southern Appalachians’ 37 million acres contain most of the east’s public lands; however, about 84% are private land holdings (SAMAB 1996:10;23-26). Private land ownership includes approximately 70% by individuals and 15% by others (e.g., corporations, associations). Almost 19 of the 24 million forested acres exists on private lands. The government manages about 20% of the forested land, which includes much of the industry-desirable high-quality deciduous forest (e.g., oak). Tree growth is denoted in successional stages which varies by species. Most of the late-successional and old growth forests are on public lands (1996:47-50). The report claims even though Black bear (included in the report as game species) are most often associated with National Park property, much potential habitat exists. It notes that mid-to-late successional mast-producing forests have aided the bear population numbers, but increased road density may impede the isolation required for denning and habitat (1996:56-58). The region’s profound biological diversity includes numerous Threatened and Endangered (T & E) Species; the Blue Ridge region contains the greatest number of the terrestrial species on private lands (1996:52-54) (See Table 4.1). Maintaining large mid-to-late successional tracts enhances perpetuation of these species (1996:66). As well, many of the two-thirds "rare communities" habitats (e.g., spruce-fir forests, forest-bog complexes, caves, sinkholes, karstlands) exist on private lands (1996:67-68).

The "globally outstanding" biological distinctiveness of the Appalachian/Blueridge forests are "vunerable" to human activity (Noss; --Table I). Many tree species are ranked imperiled (G2) or critically imperiled (G1) globally, and/or threatened (T), endangered (E), or critically endangered (CE). "All" types of primary and old-growth forests are critically endangered; "all" types of "native, riparian" forests are threatened. These ratings indicate that long-range impacts of future timber harvesting in this region should be examined (and methods revised) to sustain the forests.

Interior forests habitats for area-sensitive bird (including Neo-tropical migrants - NTMBs) and other animal specie populations, are expected to decline in the future due to increased land use and development, air pollution (e.g., sulfur dioxide, acid rain), and exotic pests (Dogwood Anthracnose, gypsy moth)(SAMAB 1996:62-67). The health of plants, trees, wildlife, and humans will likely be impacted by these same factors (1996:77-101). Nonpoint Source (NPS)(e.g., agricultural fields, logging roads) and Point Source (e.g., municipal treatment plants, industrial sites) water quality pollution are also major concerns (1996:100-104). The region supplies water to many downstream populations, outside of the assessment area, from the Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. Many of these issues will have to be addressed on a region-wide basis, because they have region-wide implications (1996:92). All of these issues are further complicated by the conflicting ideology of the region’s long-time residents and developers (1996:39).

The Southern Appalachian Assessment Social/Cultural/Economic Technical Report examines timber resource use and the ensuing impacts on the region (1996b). Most of the comparisons included reflect differences in and between hardwood and softwood quantities/inventories over time. Timber inventories are measured by growth and drain, or removal. When the total growing stock increase (e.g., by increased tree size, additional plantings) and is not diminished by total removals (e.g., harvesting, deforestation, mortality), there will be a net annual growth in the timber resources (1996b:108). Their inventory data came from a number of sources, including an USDA Forest Service Eastwide Data base (EWDB). However, most of the data was generated in the last 1980s or the early 1990s. Changes in forest consumption and conditions warrant updated inventories (1996b:108-109).

Depending on markets, product substitutions may occur between softwoods and hardwoods (SAMAB 1996b:116). Different quality trees may also be used for different product markets. For example, since high quality sawtimber markets exist, and low quality timber markets for pulp exist, industries may substitute the middle quality timber wherever the demand is the greatest. That substitution to high quality products may become more limited (1996b:89). Pulpwood and sawlogs make up between 80 and 90 percent of the region’s products (1996b:91).

Several indicators described in the report may be relevant to the operations of the Willamette chip mill in Union Mills, as well as to the number of increasing mills in the region. The report suggests that high quality timber stand improvements might be made more economically feasible through commercial thinnings; the thinnings used for pulpwood (1996b:89). In the entire assessment region, between 1989 and 1992, hardwood pulp production made up most of the 17% increase in total output (1996b:93). In the Blue Ridge subregion (most relevant to Rutherford County):

Between 1980 and 1992, output of softwood pulpwood nearly doubled, while output of hardwood pulpwood expanded by more than 75 percent (1996b:93-94) [my emphasis].

Sawlog production declined during the same time period. Most of the pulpwood increase was in counties in the southwestern section of the state, in which "the product mix has therefore shifted strongly from sawlogs to pulpwood" (1996b:97-99). Between 1986 and 1992, pulpwood production in this same section increased by 53% (Ibid.:116). Pulpwood procurement and production generally concentrate in areas close to the pulp and paper manufacturers (Ibid.:98; 133-134). Since pulping "capacity" in the region did not change at the paper mills, the increased production indicates increased hauling to out of state locations (Ibid:116). As pulpwood demand has increased in the region, procurement areas have also increased (Ibid.:90; 116). Pulpwood prices that rose indicated an "economic scarcity in this region" (Ibid.:102; 116). In addition, other newer timber sourcing products compete with existing timber uses; veneer supplies compete for high quality saw logs, and composite board completes with pulp markets for low quality timber (Ibid.:98;102).

While many people are self-employed in the lumber and wood products industries, virtually none are in the pulpwood industry (1996b:130). Softwood lumber and wood products users in the North Carolina subregion declined as "Bigger wood-processing operations and labor-saving technology" increased. These changes impact labor markets in other ways. While on the average, the pulp-using industries’ average wage is higher than that of the solid-wood industries employee (Ibid.:126), the solid-wood industry harvest-related employment is about double the number required for pulpwood harvesting (Ibid.:126)

The South/Southeastern Forests:

In Southeast pulpwood production, the state ranks second; and sixth in the nation (Brown 1993:23). The USDA Forest Service report, Trends in Southern Pulpwood Production, 1953-1993 (Johnson 1996:), shows continued pulpwood production increases. During this time frame (1953-1993), the number of pulpmills increased from 61 to 102, with increases in pulping capacities from 28,670/tons daily to 132,992/tons daily. This is two-thirds of the nation’s pulping capacity (1996:1). Changes in harvesting techniques include "totally mechanized tree-length harvesting operations" (1996:2). Softwood roundwood for pulp production increased from 14.1 million to 30.1 million cords; while roundwood hardwood increased from 2.0 million to 16.2 million cords. Total production percentages come from: 45% softwood roundwood, 25% hardwood roundwood, and 30% wood residues. The report quotes projections from another inventory study which anticipate a 50 percent increase by the year 2040. The South and its hardwood supply are expected to be the primary contributing manufacturer. In 1994 and 1995 pulpwood production again increased (Johnson, January, 1996; Johnson, September, 1996). In "Chip Mill Projects Total $155 Million," the industry boasts of "10 million tons of new or relocated fiber capacity in the 1995-1998 period" (Pulp and Paper Magazine 1997:25)

In addition to the large amounts of timber chipping for domestic pulp production, environmentalists are concerned with exporting of wood chips, mainly to Japan. During a June meeting at the USDA Southern Research Station, I received a copy of a paper prepared by Cynthia West of the United States Forestry Science Lab, for her presentation to a 1996 Society for American Foresters (SAF) meeting. She claimed hardwood chip exports from the South increased from $36 million in 1989 to almost $200 million in 1995, "An increase of more than 500%" (West 1996). Mobile, Alabama leads Gulf Coast chip shippers in exports to Japan (78%); North Carolina leads on the east cost (68 %). I also received a USDA Southern Research Station handout of graphs reflecting trends of the 199 million acres of Southern timberlands. One graph showed Southern softwood net removals exceeded net growth in 1992 and 1996 calculations. Another graph reflected leveling hardwood growths in 1992 and 1996; but increasing removals.

In Paper Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable Paper, the findings describe harvest and growth relationships:

...In the South, however, where most pulpwood production is centered, a less sanguine picture is seen:

Softwood harvest rates currently exceed growth by about 10%...Hardwood growth rates currently exceed harvest by a considerable margin, about 50%. This situation is expected to reverse itself in the coming decades, however, as demand for hardwood pulpwood and sawtimber increase; the rate of harvest is projected to exceed growth by 2010 (Paper Task Force 1995:158) [my emphasis].

Much of the controversy surrounding the chip mill issue involves continued wood chip and pulp production and continued extraction of resources, both without knowledge of current resource conditions, which may have unsustainable cumulative impacts. As mentioned in the above comments about the Southern Appalachian Assessment, procurement areas to acquire roundwood to chip for domestic pulping and chip exporting are enlarging. This causes more roundwood or chip hauling to the pulp mills or docks. Hauled chips most often are supplied by satellite chip mills, such as the one under construction in Union Mills. One of the core concerns in this issue is the increased number of satellite chip mills, especially in the South/Southeast.

Table 4.2 reflects Southeastern chip mills, listed by state; the data is extrapolated from "self-reported"’ chip mill information published in a trade journal, Timber Processing (1997:75- 79). When perusing this table, one should note that the production data is understated because several locations do not provide annual production figures (i.e. "n/a" for not available). In some cases, startup data is also not available (e.g., Champion’s Caryville TN chip mill provides neither). Chip mills which began operation in this decade (1990s) are bolded. These 1990s mills included nine (9) which did not report production data (eight of which are owned by Price, Inc.). In addition, five (5) mills were "announced" or "under construction." One of these mills is the Willamette Industries’ Broad River Chip Mill slated for Union Mills, North Carolina. The table shows the quantity of chip mills, as well as draws attention to those beginning operation during this not-yet-complete decade. Graph 4.1 shows the same data from a different perspective. The graph demonstrates the annual reported increase in production by thousand tons between a baseline year (i.e., the end of 1989 therefore the beginning of 1990) through 1996. Annual production increased 73 per cent from 19,151 thousand tons/at yearend 1989 to 33,204 thousand tons/at yearend 1996. Considerable controversy exists over how tons of chips equate to harvested forest acres. Forest types, how green is the wood, and how much moisture it holds all impact the appropriate calculations. If one risks a guess using estimates by the TVA 1993 study and Danna Smith’s publication, the conversion for annual production of 33,504,159 tons at 39 tons/acres, the estimated result of annual forests cut would equal 859,081 acres (TVA 1993 Vol 2:641; Smith 1997:81). At any conversion rate, it is a substantial harvest. One much larger than the 500,000 acres that make up the Great Smokies. The Willamette Industries Broad River Chip Mill intends to produce 300,000 tons/ year running one production shift; that production would convert to approximately 7,692 acres/per year. This analysis again points to the necessity to examine the sustainability of chip mills and pulp and paper production from wood chips.

Alabama by far is the largest producer and exporter of wood chips. Mobile’s success in exporting chips stems from barge chip hauling on the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway to the state docks. Around 1990, three companies applied for United States Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) permits related to construction and operation of three chip mills with adjoining barge terminals on the Tennessee River (TVA 1993:1; cover; xix). The close proximity of the barge terminals and the chipping facilities created potential cumulative impacts. The TVA, USACE, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) studied the potential/expected direct (on-site) and indirect (off-site) impacts of the proposed industrial development. Their Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) recommended "denial of all proposed actions."

Two important differences exist between these proposed chips mills and the one in Union Mills. The three Tennessee River terminals would impact navigable waters, and one of the chip mills would be built on public industrial park property. The other two would be built on private property. The FEIS notes that "TVA and USACE do not regulate chip mills which locate on private property and which do not need river access" (1993:xxi). However, an important similarity does exist, which I discuss in my Chapter 6, in regards to USACE permitting to alter or impact wetlands on private lands.

In inter-agency communication concerning another chip mill application to the COE, Patrick Tobin, the then-Acting EPA Region IV Administrator, expressed support for development of a generic southeast region EIS (Tobin 1992). Application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) interdisciplinary process would encourage public involvement and multi-agency (i.e., Forest Service, FWS, COE, TVA, and EPA) technical assistance relevant to the different ecoregions. He further suggested the states’ involvement, as well as adjoining EPA Region III cooperation. Future individual chip mill applications would be considered based on their impacts within the associated ecoregion. He expressed concerns, including erosion, loss of biodiversity, and non-compliance of voluntary Best Management Practices (BMPs) during silvicultural activities.

The proposal did not materialize into a regional study; but neither did the issues abate. By the Spring of 1997, over 150 citizen groups and environmental organizations coalesced in a Dogwood Alliance formal request for a regional chip mill study to the current Region IV Administrator, John Hankinson, Jr. The Dogwood Alliance letter requested that the EPA:

1) conduct a region-wide study of the cumulative environmental and economic impacts of chip mill and log loading operations;

2) petition the President’s Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] to redefine the United States Army Corps of Engineer’s ("USACE") interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") as it relates to chip mills and whole log loading facilities to require the Corps to look at the cumulative, off-site logging impacts, and;

3) support a moratorium on the licensing of new chip mills in the region until the study has been completed.

Basically, the above request reflects the on-going environmentalists’ philosophy on the issue: to stop the activity (moratorium on permitting), examine current behavior (impact study), and re-invent a more sustainable future (redefine authority responsibilities). A similar theme, reflected in correspondences, is used by other stakeholders in this issue. A FWS Field Supervisor recommended denial of a COE permit (stop) for a Ohio River wood chip and log loading facility to supply Willamette’s Hawesville, Kentucky mill (Barclay 1997). The FWS requested a EIS be done to study impacts to the "forest resources including federally listed species" in the sourcing area. FWS expressed a willingness to reevaluate (reinvent) their position if an "acceptable" EIS was completed. The Region IV Wetlands Section also recommended denial of the permit, a re-examination of the COEs NEPA responsibilities, and retention of the "option to refer the policy issues" through "Elevation of Policy Issues" procedures outlined in the agencies’ Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Johnson, H.H. 1997). Not related to a specific chip mill permitting request situation, during this same time frame, Representative John Lewis from Georgia wrote to EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, describing the increasing concerns about chip mills and asking for a southeast regional study (Lewis, J. 1997). Enough controversy now exists to warrant EPA Region IVs further involvement in the issue.

When John Hankinson, EPA Region IV Administrator, responded to the Dogwood Alliance, he commented that petitioning the CEQ about the COEs authority is beyond his agency’s authority (Hankinson 1997). However, he described the agency’s plans to investigate partnership with North Carolina on the State’s chip mill impact study, and further, to inventory the Southeast’s chip mill "activities." He expressed his desire to establish a forum in which disparate stakeholders in this issue could share relevant information and find some "areas of common ground."

CHAPTER 5. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEFINED

My research questions explore "who" participates in development issues, and how those people perceive the issues, including their ideas about the "chip mill" issue and the prospects of attaining sustainable forestry solutions. I also hoped to gain an understanding of the "what" information participants choose to use to make development decisions. And finally, I wanted to learn about "how" the information is interpreted and applied in the solution seeking processes. Since participation in development occurs on various levels, I desired to also include the less obvious "stakeholders." My previous research focused on the environmental perspective, but I concluded that finding solutions and resolving conflict required greater stakeholder involvement. Studying the stakeholder opinions required learning about their social identities.

Jacob Pandian states that our social identities come from the cultural constructions of "self/us," and also "other/them." These concepts are maintained through interaction rather than isolation (1985:41-42;124-125). As I learned about the varied perspectives, for and against the chip mill, I began to hear differences in the way these perspectives were expressed. For example, when describing the same phenomenon, an environmentalist sees a "tree," while a biologist describes a "habitat," a lumber yard manager looks at "board feed," and the procurement forester see "roundwood." Even within the disparate groups deconstructions can be made. In the environmental community, the term "environmentalism" is acceptable to most people involved. However, distinctions in ideology exist within the community (e.g., "conservationist," "deep ecologist"). What information we collect and how we interpret the data also reflects our perspectives. I know an old-growth specialist who uses the term "ground-truthing" to describe how he does his work. What is implied by using phrases like "ground-truthing" is the suspicion felt that forest service and industry foresters provide information that is "ground-falsing." I also heard "ground-truthing" used by a wildlife management classmate to describe his recent forest inventory work. The speaker is a forester, but some other foresters would pejoratively refer to him as a "birder." The implication reflects different philosophies that exist within forestry training (e.g., "industrial tree farmers" or "wildlife specialists"). Alexander Mather in Global Forest Resources further distinguishes between "pre-industrial" forests, "industrial" forests, and "post-industrial" forests. He also uses the term "social forestry," (1990:272-274) while some choose to use "community-based" forestry. Moreover, within anthropology a variety of terms are used to define our work on these types of issues, e.g., "sustainable development" (Carley and Christie 1993:43), "moral ecology" (Dove and Kammen 1997:91), and "sustainable ecology" (Vannette et al. 1994:94). How demands are defined at the negotiating table is based on the formation of the various identities, the related rationalities, and the polarizations that bring the parties there.

See Table 5.1 Sustainability and Sustainable Development Defined.

Sustainable development was early defined by the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 (Carley and Christie 1993:42); however, the definition became widely recognized and co-opted after the United Nations' World Commission on Environment and Development (i.e., also known as the WCED and the Brundtland Commission) study findings were published in 1987, Our Common Future (Norgaard 1994:12;17;194; Carley and Christie 1993:11;42; Goodin 1992:63):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The United Nations' definition is more recently enhanced by the understanding that "world peace and security" require sustainable development to attain "stable economic and social development" (Boutros-Ghali 1995:VII )

Various social groups add a slightly different agenda for further implication of their missions (See Table 5.1). The North Carolina Governor's Task Force on Forest Sustainability definition is the same as the American Forest and Paper Association, and specifically names forest products. In Report of the Governor's Task Force on Forest Sustainability, sustainability was defined as:

the management of our forests to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs for forest products and forest-related values (Hunt 1996:iii; expanded on P.6).

Other more recent ideas include "ecosystem management" which implies landscape level management as opposed to single stand management. Green Politics and the "deep ecology" view depends on "ecological wisdom" (e.g., "Nature knows best"). Another nature concept is the Goddess-worshiping philosophy, Greek mythology, of the Gaia hypothesis (Eisler 1988:

73-75;193). Eisler claims that our current "legacy" from this Greek mythology is reflected in the use of the term "Mother Nature." When I began this study, I understood that conflicts existed on harvesting techniques (i.e., clearcutting) and environmental perspectives, but I had not realized how much our cultural concepts (including belief systems), especially our ideology of the rightness (or not) of "Nature" are at the core of these issues.

In the Paper Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable Paper, the Task Force claims that environmental concerns generated a forest management paradigm shift to sustainable forestry, away from sustained-yield forestry (1995:123). Table 5.2 shows a range of perspectives in the disparity between the "dominant social paradigm" and the "deep ecology paradigm." Redclift (and Sylvan) claim that most ideologies exist somewhere within the range (Redclift 1995:44 adapted from R. Sylvan 1985, "A Critique of Deep Ecology," in Radical Philosophy, Pp. 40-41.) Noteworthy on the chart are the concepts that range from dominion over nature to living in harmony with nature, nature as a resource versus nature as a limited resource, high versus appropriate technology, consumerism versus basic needs ideology. Nature as a resource is often expressed in timber terms a renewable resource.

Understanding the various meanings of nature and sustainable development contributes further to understanding stakeholder ideologies. I will refer back to some of these ideologies.

It is instructive to study the more local influences of sustainability definitions; a slight departure from the "dominant paradigm." The Governor's Task Force on Forest Sustainability inquiry stemmed from recognition of several rapid changes impacting the state's forest resources (i.e., increasing timber consumption, forest fragmentation, public concern about silvicultural practices, restrictions on National Forests timber harvesting policies, population increases, and urban-to-rural sprawl) (1996:2-5). The scope of the study, while it often addresses general forest sustainability, focuses primarily on the timber industry' continued economic growth, restraints to timber availability and production (sustained yield), and possible means/actions to overcome those restraints (many which they admit are highly controversial, 1996:21;25). However, the results of the study created the roots for other forest sustainability and conflict resolution fora in which the interests of the general public may be more fully represented (e.g., The Southern Center for Sustainable Forests Forum, and the State's chip mill impact study).

The language in the study findings reflect the "urgency" of collecting appropriate data to make forest sustainability decisions (1996:iii;1-2;53):

North Carolina is at a crossroads.

The state can simply try to react....or can look ahead...

A cursory examination of data pertaining to the status of North Carolina's forests, collected nearly a decade ago, suggests that the future of our forests and the industry which they support are both reasonably secure. Since that time profound and unprecedented changes have occurred which could direct our forests into a future where their sustainability could be jeopardized (1996:iii) [my emphasis].

These broad data, collected in 1989, clearly indicate that, barring significant changes in future years, there should be ample timber available to meet industrial needs without jeopardizing the quality of the state's environment. However, since the collection of the above data, our forests have experienced changes which call into question the validity of this conclusion. These changes are taking place at a more extensive scale and at a much more rapid pace than was, or ever could have been, anticipated by those who were responsible for earlier studies and projections of our forest resources. These changes are so dramatic that they require a fresh look and a sober assessment of those things that need to be done to assure that our forest resources will continue to meet the needs of North Carolinians (1996:2). [my emphasis]

The Task Force, for pragmatic reasons, put forth only fifteen of its 79 recommendations for action; however, it is useful for one to study the 79 recommendations because the results are excerpted from a combination of them. I expect that citizens will see future actions based on many of the recommendations by the industry, the Forestry Council, and the Southern Center for Sustainable Forestry. One of the final recommendations includes investigation of methods to more quickly collect forest inventory data:

With them we can make course corrections; without them we fly blind into the future (1996:53). [my emphasis]

The lack of existing current data and adequate planning are exactly the complaints the environmental community have been making about forest management. In spite of this parallel understanding, the report claims:

Studies show [none noted] that most of our citizens have no baseline of understanding against which to calibrate their attitudes toward forestry (1996:7). [my emphasis]

Their opinions about matters environmental, ecological and esthetic, while perhaps not always technically sound, are strongly held (1996:41). [my emphasis]

The Task Force attributes this lack of understanding to citizens' urban lifestyles, as well as, them not experiencing the turn-of-the-century over-cutting phenomenon (1996:4;7). This non-land-

based lifestyle and new land-use options contribute to landholders' decisions against managing their lands for timber production. The ensuing reduction in timber availability greatly concerns the industry (1996:17-21;34-35;41). Ironically, some of their recommendations include "reurbanizing" the public to reduce further fragmentation and increase timberlands (1996:36).

What I did not see in the Task Force report were questions about the suitability of the wood products made in terms of sustainable development, for example, suggesting a dialogue within the industry about deliberately changing total industry consumption, or changing allocations of resources to be used in a more sustainable fashion. In short, my question would be: is what the industry asking of the state's resources, what the state is willing to give?

A very different investigative perspective is found in the 1995 Paper Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable Paper. The Paper Task Force was a "voluntary, private-sector initiative" (i.e., non-regulatory), "market-based" effort to investigate more environmentally responsible production and consumption of paper (1995:27). A variety of representatives (including the pulp and paper industry) involved in impacting "the lifecycle of paper" participated in assessing, then recommending "purchaser-

supplier" options (1995:12;15). Noteworthy, at this point, is their comparison of recycling pulp production manufacturing data to virgin fiber use (1995:13;22;30;64-118;154), and also a minor mention of pulp substitutions and "non-wood" fiber alternatives (1995:22;203-204). In addition, their definition of "pulp" is more inclusive than usually provided in industry resources:

Pulp: Cellulose fiber material, produced by chemical or mechanical means, from which paper and paperboard are manufactured. Sources of cellulose fiber include wood, cotton, straw, jute, bagasse, bamboo, hemp and reeds (1995:240)[my emphasis].

Growing concern about forestry issues is recognized, if for no other reason, because of the number of recent issue papers. Another document, this one paid for by all taxpayers, is the "Report on Forest Health of the United States by the Forest Health Science Panel" (Taylor 1997 and Taylor 1997b). The panel, "chartered" by Congressional Representative Charles Taylor (NC-R), describes current forest health conditions from a historical impact perspective, creates several "policy options for managing forests," and explains option consequences (Taylor "Preface" 1997b:2). The authors use 1993 US Forest Service publication data to establish their models for developing a comprehensive forest management plan (1997b:1;5;8). Even though published in 1997, the models were developed on outdated statistics. The mathematical relationships would, therefore, have to be re-examined if the models were applied for policy making today.

I draw on information in this report because it became one of the most controversial, and least accepted, by the environmental community. It became a springboard for a new escalation of polarization indicated by a backlash of response (e.g., the ensuing dialectical relationships). Again, this is an example of "who" participates and "what" information they contribute to this controversy as mentioned earlier in this chapter.

Charles Taylor represents the 11th District of (western) North Carolina, which also includes much of the Willamette Industries Broad River Chip mill sourcing area. In this region Taylor is known disparagingly by the environmental community as "Chainsaw Charlie" because he is closely linked with the timber industry and especially his work on the Salvage logging legislation.

The panel findings, reported by scientists who are other-wise respected, were overshadowed by association with Taylor, the project instigator. While Taylor's research questions/purpose admittedly sought a "forest science basis of the issues" (Appendix D 1997b), my primary criticism of this report concerns its establishment of relationships between five (5) factors (i.e., social, political, economic, educational, and technical) without including panel scientists from the non-forest fields (i.e., social, political, and non-timber economic scientists) (Appendix E 1997b; 1997b:6-7). The panel members were chosen:

primarily from academia, with the attempt to avoid industrial, government (e.g. Forest Service), or lobbying influences (Appendix D 1997b) [my emphasis].

"Influence" is used loosely here, for example on government influence, since many currently hold state employee academic faculty positions, and previously were state and federal employees (of the eight panel members listed in the bibliographic section, six were previously USDA employees and one National Park Service employee) (Appendix E 1997b).

When asking the question, "What is forest health?" the paper explains that:

One definition is not more 'scientific' than another. They all describe the condition of the forest relative to various values... (1997:2).

This comment acknowledges the multitude of perspectives and the complexity of confronting forest issues. It parallels Thoreau's commentary:

The questions is not what you look at, but what you see (quoted in Little 1995:145).

Dr. Robert Zahner spoke about these views at the September WNCA Forest Health Conference in his lecture entitled, "What is a Healthy Forest? Changing Times, Changing Views." The conference named "What are the REAL Forest Health Issues in the Southern Appalachians?" was designed to help a broad stakeholder audience (conference brochure, 9/6/97):

"separate scientific reality from the political myths of forest management"

and to: "expand the debate beyond simply maximizing growth of commercial tree species."

Respected scientists (including Dr. Scott Schlarbaum from Taylor's panel) spoke about a wide range of topics (e.g., air pollution, development, forest fragmentation, diseases caused by exotic pests, neotropical migratory birds, and loss of biodiversity.) Discussions during the day often referred to the importance of "good science," "uncompromised science," science not singly influenced by the timber industry or political regimes for their own ends. I suspect, another noticeable dialectical response to Taylor's paper, the Paper Task Force paper, as well as other science papers known as "white papers," was Danna Smith's Dogwood Alliance "beige paper." Her paper, was further contrasted with the standard science white papers because it was printed on a non-bleached, more environmentally-safe, paper product. This grassroots science-based document, Chipping Forests & Jobs; A Report on the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Chip Mills in the Southeast, draws heavily on industry data, which describes the advance of chip milling into the Southeast and the ensuing impacts (Smith 1997).

The Charles Taylor's science panel attributed the forests current condition on two principle policies based on an outdated "attitude" or concept of conservation ideology, which they claim have changed, (1997:3) that:

1. " 'nature knows best and that human intervention in it is bad by definition' " (Part 2 1997b:2) [my emphasis].

They continue:

Although this theory has been abandoned by most ecologists (Stevens 1990), many policymakers, conservationists, scientists in peripheral field, members of the public, and older scientists still consciously or subconsciously accept it (Taylor 1997b:Part 2:2)[my emphasis].

2. The same uninformed people continue to hold a "[mis]perception of an impending timber shortage" (1997:3):

The expectation of a timber shortage lasted into the 1980's. Like the outdated concept that forests exist as a stable 'steady state', complex structure unless disturbed by people, realization that there is not a timber shortage has not been consciously or unconsciously accepted by many policymakers, conservationists, scientists in peripheral fields, members of the public, and older scientists (1997b:4).

This comment speaks to the opposing opinions between the dominant paradigm ideology of unlimited resources (See Table 5.2) versus the deep ecology perspective of limited resources. The panel authors do charge the forest industry (and consumers) with some responsibility for impacts from earlier management practices, including fire suppression, as well as "increased harvesting and intensive management" (1997b:2;4-5):

Forestry became more heavily based on financially efficient approaches of maximizing timber volume through intensive management and relatively short rotations. Even-aged management began to be regarded as the only biologically feasible way to manage, rather than as one of many methods [my emphasis].

This ideology, they claim, increased cutting of older forests:

...it was prudent to harvest the timber before it died and replace the stand with a vigorously growing, young forest.

The panel intentionally eschews using the term "old growth" because it has "ambiguous" meanings; however, they use the term "old forest" (1997b:3-4;1997:2;4). Their resistence to using the terminology contradicts the USDA Forest Service recent cooption of the term and activities to define various species old-growth inventories (Kennedy and Nowacki 1997).

Cutting of old-growth is an important part of this Willamette Industries chip mill issue for several reasons as I mentioned and will reiterate here: 1) most old growth exists on public lands where the greatest biological diversity and endangered species exist; 2) old-growth inventories are drastically reduced since European settlement; 3) and, particularly Willamette Industries association with sourcing from National Forests and confrontation with environmentalists over old-growth cutting (Dunn 1994:160-162).

Controversy over cutting on public lands by any timber industry company is evidenced further by the increased support for the "Zero-cut" campaign. During the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition annual meeting, Chad Hanson, from the Sierra Club's Board of Directors, described the club's support and work on legislative reform. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the chapters overwhelmingly support a halt to commercial logging on federal lands. Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia introduced to Congress the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act (NFPRA) of 1997. The Bill defines federal public lands as those held in "the National Forest System, the National Wildlife Refuge System and under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)." The Bill intends to support local communities through continuation of "personal use permits" and seeks to "assist communities dependent on this program with economic recovery and diversification." The Bill, obviously, provides for protection and restoration of our "natural heritage," but also provides funding for EPA research and their granting privileges for "wood-free alternative products for paper and construction" research.

While many environmentalists support the "Zero-cut" campaign on public lands, I have never heard even one advocate for "zero-cut" on private lands. However, the claim is made often by timber industry advocates that environmentalists seek just that. For example, in Evergreen Magazine, Mary Wirth, who handles public relations and legislative affairs for a Tennessee lumber and manufacturing company, claims:

'My message is always the same,' she says with conviction. 'The current forest debate is not about how timber harvesting will be done. It is about if timber will be harvested.' (Petersen 1997:24;27) [my emphasis]

In a Charlotte Observer article, "Trouble for Timber: Chip mills gobble forests, jobs, foe say; Do mills chip away Southern forests?" president of Godfrey Lumber, Chester Godfrey, says:

'This issue is not about chip mills,' he said. 'It's about whether we cut trees or we don't cut trees' (Henderson 1997:1-A;10-A) [my emphasis].

Bob Slocum, the executive vice-president of the North Carolina Forestry Association continues this by-line:

This, from our perspective, is not about chipping trees, it's not even really about exporting chips, it's about not wanting any trees cut (Lewis 1997:1;14).[my emphasis]

This repeated over-simplification by some industry personnel seeks to reduce environmentalists' efforts on sustainable forestry to mandates of no wood products use. I know not one environmentalist who would restrict all wood cutting. In an interesting transfer of language, Mary Wirth, known as a "grassroots activist," comments about the environmental "industry:"

'To date, the environmental industry has not been interested in compromise,' she declares. 'Its main interest is in social change, and it is succeeding at redefining some of our nation's bedrock beliefs, including the rights of private property. It is time for people living in eastern timber communities to thoroughly understand what we are up against, and respond.

She continues:

'This debate - if we can call it that - goes to the very root of what our country is all about. How many freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of the environment, and at what cost to the taxpayers? (Petersen 1997:27) [my emphasis].

Many participants began to turn their attention to private landholders' actions/intentions on timber harvesting and all related forestry issues. The Governor's Task Force established plans to research methods of encouraging landholders to commit their properties to timberlands (e.g., through forestry-friendly education, tax incentives) (Hunt:1996).

By July 1997, North Carolina State University (NCSU) Agricultural Extens