Columbia River Gorge Commission, “1997 Annual Report” (April 1998) 1-9. (reviewed by Kristin Johnson)
Summary:
Every year, the Columbia River Gorge Commission puts out a report that describes what the Commission has been doing for the past year. This report “is a snapshot of what happened in the Gorge in 1997, and of how the Gorge Commission is addressing important issues” (pg. 1).
The report changed the way it monitored growth and development in the Gorge by creating a comprehensive “development review database” which involves “more than 98,000 separate pieces of information on over 2,400 development applications reviewed since 1986 by Gorge counties, the Commission or the Forest Service” (pg. 2). Although the report was not yet finished, a few trends were being seen: new houses and land divisions are heavily concentrated on lands designated for residential use, there are a few high growth areas experiencing most of the new residential development, almost no development has occurred on forest lands, and a majority of new homes on agricultural lands are restricted to the “small-scale agriculture” zone leaving the most productive lands largely free of new development.
In January 1998, an “Economic Monitoring Report” was released which analyzed the economic situation on the Gorge. It found that the Gorge economy has grown, but still lags behind on some key economic indicators, particularly unemployment rate, which is still higher than the state averages for both Oregon and Washington; median household income between 1980 and 1990 increased at a faster rate than in other rural areas in Oregon and Washington; retail and wholesale trade, service sector and government jobs have increased substantially while manufacturing jobs only barely increased and farming jobs in the region lost about 9%; and the National Scenic Area Act has invested $13.8 million in the region which has generated an estimated $63 million in economic impacts.
The Commission also addressed important issues which included reaching a multi-party agreement on how to manage forest resources in the special management areas; drafting an “emergency amendment” allowing emergencies crews to respond to emergencies without being in violation of the Scenic Area Management Plan; amending the Management Plan to allow farmers in residential zones to add structures such as barns and storage buildings, which they need to “remain economically viable”; and revising the urban area boundaries that were drawn in 1986 with “mapping errors” making them different from the boundaries approved by the states. The report also highlights some of the tourist developments the Commission worked on in 1997. Additionally, the report gives very brief overviews of the court cases the Commission was involved in to uphold the National Scenic Area Act. Lastly, there is a financial report describing the where the Commission's money comes from and how much it gets from each source. The fiscal year 1998 program operating budget came to a total of $582,037.
Critique:
Although the report is informative, it is far from objective. However, generally any article that closes by explaining how to donate to the organization putting out the article will not be particularly objective. It is largely furnished in order to garner political and financial support for the Commission. Some of the information provided is not particularly flattering to the Commission, but the report tries to twist it into being either positive or insignificant. For instance, the report states that, “Over two-thirds of all new houses occur in the 3 percent of the Scenic Area designated for residential or rural center use” (pg. 2). This is stated to highlight the successful trend in land use planning effectiveness, but where is the other one-third of new houses being built? Are they built in areas where the zoning code does not allow houses to be built? If so, why is the Commission allowing this to occur at all? Similarly, the report notes that, “Of all new houses, only 10 percent were built in forest designation, and these were concentrated on less productive ‘small woodlands'” (pg. 2). The report describes this 10 percent as “negligible growth,” but is 10 percent really negligible? Clearly, the report has proven itself to be subjective.
Additionally, the report is very brief in its explanations of its actions, therefore making it a very limited source of information. It is, however, a good place to start research for someone who wants an overview of the issues the Commission generally deals with. The main focus of the report (and, apparently, the Commission) is surrounding economic issues and tourism/recreation. For anyone interested in how the Commission is helping the environment and the natural resources in the area, this report will offer very little insight.
Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon
HC 441: Science Colloquium, Columbia River Ecology
Fall term, 2005
Send e-mail to the Webmaster