Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

July 2017

Social Economics Report

Craggy Vegetation Management Project

Salmon River/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

Prepared by:

Amaria Crocoll and Margaret Boland, Northern California Resource Center

Andy Mueller, Timber Forester

11263 N. Highway 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032

530-468-1223

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31770

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or 

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-

8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

i

Table of Contents

Social and Economic Report........................................................................................1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

Methodology................................................................................................................................1

Social....................................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 1

Economic ................................................................................................................................ 2

Analysis Indicators.............................................................................................................. 2

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ................................................................. 2

Affected Environment .................................................................................................................3

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................................5

Alternative 1............................................................................................................................ 5

Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................................................. 5

Social............................................................................................................................... 5

Economic ........................................................................................................................ 5

Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................. 6

Social............................................................................................................................... 6

Economic ........................................................................................................................ 6

Alternative 2............................................................................................................................ 6

Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................................................. 6

Social............................................................................................................................... 6

Economic ........................................................................................................................ 6

Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................. 7

Social............................................................................................................................... 7

Economic ........................................................................................................................ 7

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................ 8

Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................................................. 8

Social............................................................................................................................... 8

Economic ........................................................................................................................ 8

Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................. 9

Social............................................................................................................................... 9

Economic ........................................................................................................................ 9

Comparison of Alternatives.........................................................................................................9

Social....................................................................................................................................... 9

Economic ................................................................................................................................ 9

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ............................................. 10

Literature Cited..........................................................................................................................11
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives on Social Analysis Indicators............................................................9

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives on Economic Analysis Indicators....................................................10

List of Figures

Figure 1. Forest Product Sales by the Klamath National Forest...................................................................4

Figure 2. Direct Employment and Labor Income Supported by the Klamath National Forest.....................5
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

1

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REPORT

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to analyze the effects of the Craggy Vegetation Management Project

on social and economic health, and identify any disproportionate effects to minorities and 

disadvantaged groups, in Siskiyou County.

Methodology

Social

Information from federal data sources is used to compare the social status of Siskiyou County to 

the State of California and the United States to provide background information for effects of the 

project on minorities and disadvantaged groups. The Economic Profile System, Human 

Dimensions Toolbox (USDA UDSI and Headwaters 2016a, 2016b, 2016c), compiles statistics 

from federal data sources and is used as a source of information for this analysis.

Social and Civil Rights analysis is based on the quality of life of people affected by this project

(USDA 2016d). Safety is an important value to people in Siskiyou County and an important part 

of quality of life; therefore, one purpose of this analysis is to gain a better understanding of how 

safety relates to the purpose and need of this project and its proposed actions. Quality of life also

depends on an economic element, for people to sustain themselves and their families, which is 

analyzed in the economic portions of this document.

Analysis Indicators

Social and Civil Rights analysis is based on the quality of life of people affected by this project.

The indicators used for the social analysis include lifestyles, values, beliefs, health and safety of 

individuals and communities. For this project, there are two measures for evaluating the effects 

of the project on quality of life for Siskiyou County residents:

1. The value of using the resources of the Forest, and project area in particular, for the 

benefit of county residents (Siskiyou County Land and Resource Management Plan 

1996). This will be analyzed by the jobs provided and value of the estimated volume of 

timber products the action alternatives will produce. Other beneficial uses are discussed 

in other resource reports, especially in the aquatic resources, hydrology, recreation and 

wildlife reports.

2. Changes to the “fire-safe character of communities” in the project area. This will be 

analyzed by the acres of treatment, primarily fuels treatments, and location of treatments 

in relation to private property in each alternative. It is assumed that treatments, primarily 

but not exclusively fuels treatments, have the indirect effect of creating more fire-safe 

communities.

Assumptions made in this analysis include that it is probable that any portion of the project area 

will be accessed by the public, firefighters or Forest workers.
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

2

Economic

Forest Service created models were used to analyze economic effects comparisons between 

alternatives proposed by the Craggy Vegetation Management project (Craggy project). These 

models assist in a cost-benefit socio-economic analysis based on the proposed treatments of each 

alternative. Two different economic models were used, (1) the Region 5 Timber Sale Economic 

Evaluation model and (2) the Treatments for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool (TREAT) 

model (USDA 2016c). The Region 5 Timber Sale Economic Evaluation model calculates the 

approximate residual value of the timber sale to the purchaser after completion of the project. 

The TREAT model calculates approximate present net value which is shown as potential 

employment in number of jobs and the potential income these jobs may provide. These models 

will provide an effective comparison between project alternatives concerning economic 

resources, in particular the volume and value of forest products and employment and labor 

income provided in the timber products sector. To provide input to the model, the approximate 

volume per acre of forest product removals was calculated, for each alternative, by the district 

Silviculturist using the forest vegetation simulator (FVS). Inputs such as haul distance, skid 

distance, slope, and road and landing construction were developed by local knowledge of the 

project area and spatial analysis in ESRI ArcGIS software. Annual Forest product volumes and 

sold values were retrieved from the National Cut & Sold database (USDA 2016a). All 

calculations and models are a best estimate and may differ from actual results.

Analysis Indicators

The Forest Plan includes a Forest-wide goal to promote the economic stability of local 

communities (Forest Plan (USDA 1995) page 4-9). Economic analysis indicators for this report 

are:

1) Revenue generated based on forest product value,

2) Employment supported; and

3) Direct labor income revenue generated.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

Siskiyou County is used as the spatial analysis area for social effects and for fiscal effects 

(timber receipts) because the project area is entirely within the county and data are available at 

this scale (USDA UDSI and Headwaters 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). Siskiyou County will be used as 

the analysis area for economics because the project’s direct economic effects through 

manufacturing, logging, log hauling and forestry support services are primarily realized through 

this larger area. Although direct effects to safety, and treatments proposed to improve safety, are 

entirely within the project area, overall safety of communities outside the project area such as 

Yreka may be affected so the boundaries of the eight 7th field watersheds are used to analyze 

safety.

This analysis considers one to five years as the short-term time period for effects analysis on 

safety and other social and economic indicators. This temporal bounding approximates when 

treatments will be completed and products from implementation will have entered the wood 

products market. Five to ten years is the long-term time period for effects analysis on safety and 

other social and economic effects because the majority of social and economic effects are not 

likely to be noticeable after that time period.
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

3

Affected Environment

The closest sizeable community to the project area is the City of Yreka which is located one mile 

east of the project area. Fort Jones is within 10 miles south of the project area. Some private 

residences and property occur within the project area. Much of the project area is within the 

wildland urban interface, an area or zone where structures and other human development meet or 

intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The density of vegetation, discussed 

in the Silviculture Resource Report, and the potential for high severity wildfire, discussed in the 

Fire and Fuels Resource Report, provide support for the concern with the potential for wildfires 

that would destroy or damage residences in this area.

According to the latest demographic results from the Economic Profile of Siskiyou 

County (USDA UDSI and Headwaters 2016a), the Siskiyou County population consists of 

Caucasian, African American, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific 

Islander, and other races. The American Indian population is a greater percentage of the 

population in Siskiyou County than in the State of California. A larger percentage of the 

population of Siskiyou County is unemployed or below the poverty line than in the state of 

California or the United States as a whole. From 1970 to 2014, employment grew from 14,085 to 

20,478 jobs, about a 45 percent increase from 1970; the number of jobs in 2014 is the same as in 

2000; a high in population and employment was reached in 2010 and has declined slightly since 

then. Since 1990, the annual unemployment rate ranged from a low of 7.5 percent in 2000 to a 

high of 16.6 percent in 2010; the unemployment rate for 2015 was 9.4 percent compared to 6.2

percent for the United States. Labor income in Siskiyou County has held relatively constant since 

1970; non-labor income has been on a steady rise and was almost 57 percent of personal income 

in 2014 (USDA UDSI and Headwaters 2016b). Unlike the nation as a whole, the highest average 

annual wages in Siskiyou County are for government-related jobs.

Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of Siskiyou County residents are similar to those of rural 

residents in other counties in the western United States (Siskiyou County 2005). Many local 

residents depend on the environment to support them, and they want forest products to be used 

for the benefit of the county. The concern regarding the fire-safe character of the communities in 

and adjacent to the project boundary and for the general safety of the public, forest workers and 

firefighters is high. Conditions related to safety have changed in the last few years due to drought 

and high intensity wildfires that have left many acres of the Forest in an unsafe condition and are 

of particular concern to communities within and adjacent to the project area boundaries.

In 1998, timber represented more than seven percent of total employment of Siskiyou County; by 

2014, timber represented less than six percent of total employment (USDA UDSI and 

Headwaters 2016c). The percentage of total employment in the nation as a whole related to 

timber is less than one percentage. Jobs in the timber sector in the county decreased to about 480 

jobs in 2014. “Although National Forests account for more than 60 percent of the county’s land 

base, the share of the county’s timber harvest off federal lands has decreased from roughly 50 

percent to less than 20 percent since the northern spotted owl was listed as threatened in 1990. 

Since 1990, the number of wood products manufacturing facilities in the county has declined by 

half” (Dennis 2012).

2015 is the most recent year for which data is available on timber products sold by the Forest

(USDA 2016a). It also was the highest producing year in both volume and value over the fiveyear period (Figure 1). In fiscal year 2015 (October 2014 – September 2015), forest product sales 
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

4

amounted to about 7,897,900 cubic feet for a sold value of $1,780,200 ($0.23 per cubic foot). 

Average sold value for forest products over the 2010-2015 period are $0.15 per cubic foot. 

Volumes sold over this period have fluctuated, often due to emergency salvage of trees killed by 

wildfire, but averaged about 6,500,000 cubic feet. Planned annual targets for 2014 to 2016 have

been slightly lower, ranging from 4,800,000 to 6,000,000 cubic feet. The Forest has set annual 

forest product volume targets for 2016 to 2018 at 5,400,000 cubic feet per year, well within the 

allowable sale quantity of 7,600,000 cubic feet sawlog volume established by the Forest Plan 

(USDA 1995). The value of the annual forest product volume target is estimated to be $810,000 

per year based on the average selling rate. This is lower than the five-year average of $988,000 

per year. As evidenced by the five-year averages, the Forest has a record of exceeding targets on 

both value and volume of forest products offered to the public.

Figure 1. Forest Product Sales by the Klamath National Forest.

For 2014, the Forest is estimated to have supported 232 direct jobs in the timber products sector. 

This employment represents a direct labor income of $10,611,000 (USDA 2016b). The estimate 

of labor income includes income to sole proprietors of businesses. Employment has slightly 

increased over the five year period from 2009 to 2014 with 158 jobs as the five-year average. 

Labor income followed the same trend with a five-year average of $8,114,000 (Figure 2).

 $-

 $200,000.00

 $400,000.00

 $600,000.00

 $800,000.00

 $1,000,000.00

 $1,200,000.00

 $1,400,000.00

 $1,600,000.00

 $1,800,000.00

 $2,000,000.00

 -

 1,000,000

 2,000,000

 3,000,000

 4,000,000

 5,000,000

 6,000,000

 7,000,000

 8,000,000

 9,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cubic Feet (CF)

Fiscal Year (Oct. - Sept.)

Klamath National Forest

Forest Product Sales 2010-2015

Volume (CF) Value ($)
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

5

Figure 2. Direct Employment and Labor Income Supported by the Klamath National Forest.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Social

Under this alternative, no treatments will be implemented so there will be no change from the 

current situation in terms of the use of resources of the project area for the benefit of Siskiyou 

County residents and property owners in the short term or long term. Without any treatments 

being implemented in this alternative, the fire-safe character of residents, property owners or 

communities within or adjacent to the project area would not improve in the short term. In the 

long term, fire safety is expected to decrease with no treatment since dense vegetation will 

continue to grow and the likelihood of high intensity wildfire will increase (see the Fire and 

Fuels Resource Report for additional information). There will be no disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on American Indians or those below the poverty 

level.

Economic

This alternative has no economic impacts because no treatments generating economic effects 

would be implemented. No forest products or revenues would be generated from timber sales. 

Similarly, no employment or labor income is created as a result of this alternative. Volumes and 

values of sold forest products are estimated to remain within the range of past variability as the 

Klamath National Forest makes administrative decisions on how to meet forest product targets.

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Direct Employment

Fiscal Year (Oct. - Sept.)

Klamath National Forest Economic Impact

Timber Products Sector 

2009-2014

Jobs Labor Income
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

6

Cumulative Effects

Social

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonable foreseeable future actions as noted in 

Appendix C of the environmental impact statement for the Craggy project to the effects of no 

treatment in this alternative would not have significantly cumulative effects on the use of 

resources for the benefit of Siskiyou County nor on the fire-safety of communities.

Economic

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonable foreseeable future actions as noted in 

Appendix C of the environmental impact statement for the Craggy project to the effects of no 

treatment in this alternative would not have significantly cumulative effects on revenue 

generated, employment or labor income.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Social

Under this alternative, treatments that provide revenue to the County would be implemented on 

about 2,870 acres. This would increase the use of resources of the project area for the benefit of 

Siskiyou County residents and property owners in the short term. The fire-safe character of 

residents, property owners or communities within or adjacent to the project area would be 

improved on a total of about 10,600 acres in the short term. Of these acres, 1,400 would be in 

fuel breaks (including 60 adjacent to private property), 4,160 in prescribed underburning, 900 in 

mastication, 1,270 in thinning without product removal, and thinning with removal of forest 

products on about 2,870 acres (these 2,870 acres are the same ones that will provide revenue and 

use resources as mentioned above). In the long term, fire safety is expected to be increased since 

dense vegetation will be thinned and the likelihood of high intensity wildfire will decrease (see 

the Fire and Fuels resource report for additional information). There will be no 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on American Indians 

or those below the poverty level.

Economic

Alternative 2 would make available an estimated 3,305,500 cubic feet of forest products, with 68

percent of this volume as sawlog products. Other products include biomass for energy generation 

and commercial firewood. This amounts to 55 percent of the 5,400,000 cubic feet annual target 

planned for the Forest. The appraised base value of these forest products, subtracting logging and 

hauling costs, is estimated at $158,300 (Region 5 Timber Sale Economic Evaluation model). 

Although 55 percent of the planned volume, the value amounts to only 20 percent of the 

projected $810,000 annual value of forest products sold by the Forest. The difference between

relative value and relative volume of forest products produced by the alternative is due to the 

proportion and value of sawlog products. In this alternative, much of the thinning with forest 

product removal will occur in 40 to 50 year old plantations which have lower stocking of 

sawlogs relative to older natural stands and are composed primarily of ponderosa pine, a low 
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

7

economic value species. Further information on the size and species of trees anticipated for 

removal may be found in the Silviculture Resource Report for the project.

Direct employment in the timber products sector supported by forest product removals is 

estimated at 45 jobs with a direct labor income value of $1,919,300. This employment would be 

supported for the period of four years which is the estimated period over which forest products 

would be produced and jobs created. The majority of employment is in mill processing (32 jobs) 

and timber harvesting (10 jobs). The direct labor income value includes the compensation and 

benefits for employees, as well as the income earned by sole proprietors of businesses employed 

in implementation. Direct employment through this project is estimated at 28 percent of total 

jobs annually supported in the timber products sector by the Forest, based on the five-year 

average of 158 jobs. Labor income value is the same proportion, about 24 percent of the 

approximately $8,114,000 in direct labor income supported by the Forest.

Alternative 2 has an overall positive economic effect. The planned forest product outputs would 

be about half of the annual target of the Forest, although they would yield only a fifth of the 

relative total value. Direct employment and labor income in the timber industry supported by this 

alternative would both be about a quarter of the Forest’s annual economic impact. The small job 

creation effect would last for only the four year period in which forest products would be 

produced. Since the positive effect is so short-lived, there will be no long-term impact on 

employment in the county.

Cumulative Effects

Social

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonable foreseeable future actions as identified in 

Appendix C of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement to the effects of this alternative 

would have positive effects but these are not likely to be significant cumulative effects on the use 

of resources for the benefit of Siskiyou County nor on the fire-safety of communities.

Economic

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonable foreseeable future actions as identified in 

Appendix C of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement to the effects of this alternative 

would have positive effects but these are not likely to be significant cumulative effects on 

revenue generated, employment or labor income. Private timber harvests in Siskiyou County 

have amounted to an average value of $28,600,000 over the 2007 to 2011 period (Dennis 2012). 

The Forest’s forest product sales produced only three percent of this value in the 2010 to 2015 

period. Alternative 2 would produce only 0.5 percent of the average private timber sale value, 

and then only for the sale year. Similarly, the alternative would support only nine percent of the 

total 480 jobs in the timber products sector within Siskiyou County.
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

8

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Social

Under this alternative, treatments that provide revenue to the County would be implemented on 

about 2,230 acres. This would increase the use of resources of the project area for the benefit of 

Siskiyou County residents and property owners in the short term. The fire-safe character of 

residents, property owners or communities within or adjacent to the project area would be 

improved on a total of about 11,310 acres in the short term. Of these acres, 2,190 would be in 

fuel breaks (including 650 adjacent to private property), 4,430 in prescribed underburning, 760 in 

mastication, 1,690 in thinning without product removal and thinning with removal of forest 

products on about 2,230 acres (these 2,230 acres are the same ones that will provide revenue and 

use resources as mentioned above). In the long term, fire safety is expected to be increased since 

dense vegetation will be thinned and the likelihood of high intensity wildfire will decrease, 

especially adjacent to private property (see the Fire and Fuels Resource Report for additional 

information). There will be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on American Indians or those below the poverty level.

Economic

Alternative 3 would make available an estimated 2,651,300 cubic feet of forest products, with 

the same proportion of products as Alternative 2. This amounts to 20 percent less volume of 

forest products produced than in Alternative 2. Compared to the Forest annual forest product 

target, Alternative 3 would be 49 percent of the planned 5,400,000 cubic foot volume. The 

appraised base value of these forest products, subtracting logging and hauling costs, is estimated 

at $127,000 (Region 5 Timber Sale Economic Evaluation model). Although 49 percent of the 

planned volume, the value amounts to only 16 percent of the projected $810,000 annual value of 

forest products sold by the Forest. The magnitude in difference between relative volume and 

value of forest products is not significantly different than in Alternative 2; each metric has 

declined about four to five percent.

Direct employment in the timber products sector supported by forest product removals is 

estimated at 37 jobs with a direct labor income value of $1,550,900. This employment would be 

supported for the period of four years which is the estimated period over which forest products 

would be produced and jobs created. The majority of employment supported is in mill processing 

(26 jobs) and timber harvesting (eight jobs). Direct employment through this project is estimated 

at 23 percent of total jobs annually supported in the timber products sector by the Forest, based 

on the five-year average. Labor income value is the same proportion, about 19 percent of the 

approximately $8,114,000 in direct labor income supported by the Forest.

Alternative 3 has an overall positive economic effect. The planned forest product outputs would 

be half of the Forest’s annual target, though five percent less of the relative total than Alternative 

2. Value relative to the total value of Forest annual target is similarly less, about a decline of five 

percent to only 15 percent of the annual total. Employment and labor income are about a fifth of 

the Forest’s annual economic impact, again about five percent less than in Alternative 2. The 

small job creation effect would last for only the four year period in which forest products would 

be produced and have no long-term impact on employment in the county.
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

9

Cumulative Effects

Social

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonable foreseeable future actions as noted in 

Appendix C of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement to the effects of this alternative 

would have positive effects but these are not likely to be significant cumulative effects on the use 

of resources for the benefit of Siskiyou County nor on the fire-safety of communities.

Economic

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonable foreseeable future actions as identified in 

Appendix C of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement to the effects of this alternative 

would have positive effects but these are not likely to be significant cumulative effects on 

revenue generated, employment or labor income. Private timber harvests in Siskiyou County 

have amounted to an average value of $28,600,000 over the 2007 to 2011 period (Dennis 2012). 

The Forest’s forest product sales produced only three percent of this value in the 2010 to 2015 

period. Alternative 3 would produce only 0.5 percent of the average private timber sale value, 

and then only for the sale year. This proportion is not significantly different than Alternative 2. 

Similarly, Alternative 3 would support only eight percent of the total 480 jobs in the timber 

products sector within Siskiyou County, a decline of one percent from Alternative 2.

Comparison of Alternatives

Social

Table 1 provides a comparison of alternatives on social analysis indicators. As noted, the

beneficial effects to fire-safety are greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2, and both 

action alternatives are more beneficial than Alternative 1. Beneficial effects to the use of 

resources are greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 3, and both action alternatives have 

greater benefits than Alternative 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives on Social Analysis Indicators

Indicator Measurement Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Use of Resources Acres of product removed 0 2,870 2,230

Fire Safety Total Acres treated (all 

treatments included) 0 10,600 11,310

Fire Safety Acres of fuels treated 

adjacent to private property 0 60 650

Economic

Table 2 provides a comparison of alternatives on economic analysis indicators. Beneficial 

economic effects are greater for both action alternatives than for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 

would provide a slightly greater economic benefit in terms of revenue, jobs and direct labor 

income generated than Alternative 3.
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

10

Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives on Economic Analysis Indicators

Indicator Measurement Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Revenue based on 

estimated timber sold Dollars 0 158,300 127,000

Employment Number of jobs 0 45 37

Direct labor Income 

generated Dollars 0 1,919,300 1,550,900

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives comply with relevant laws, regulations, policy and the Forest Plan as noted in the 

Forest Plan consistency checklist, available on the project website. Compliance with Executive 

Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and the USDA Civil Rights policy are as disclosed in the 

social environmental effects sections of this report.
Social Economic Resource Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

11

Literature Cited

Dennis, N. 2012. The Siskiyou County Forest Sector Model. Prepared for Siskiyou County 

Board of Supervisors. Yreka, CA.

Siskiyou County, CA. 2005. The Code of the West: The Realities of Rural Living. Office of the 

County Administrator. Yreka, CA.

Siskiyou County, CA. 1996. Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1995 (updated through 2010). Land and 

Resource Management Plan: Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Northwest Forest Plan. The 

First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest 

and Three Local Communities. PNW-GTR-764.

USDA Forest Service, National Office. 2016a. Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National 

Forests and Grasslands. Accessed online 

11/04/2016. http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/ptsar/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Website Analysis Methods Guide: The Estimated Economic 

Contributions of National Forests and Grasslands. Prepared by the staff economists of 

Ecosystem Management Coordination, May 2016.

USDA Forest Service. 2016c. TREAT: Treatments for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool 

User Guide; Estimating Jobs and Labor Income Associated with CFLR/N Funds and Full 

Project Funds For Use in Project Proposals, Work Plans, and Annual or Five Year 

Reports. Revised September 2016.

USDA Forest Service. 2016d. Northwest Forest Plan. The First 20 Years (1994-2013): Social and 

Economic Status and Trends. Pacific Northwest Region Report FS/R6/PNW/2015/0006.

USDA USDI and Headwaters. 2016a. Economic Profile System. A Profile of Demographics. 

Selected Geographies: Siskiyou County, CA. www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps

USDA USDI and Headwaters. 2016a. Economic Profile System. A Profile of Socioeconomic 

Measures. Selected Geographies: Siskiyou County, 

CA. www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps

USDA USDI and Headwaters. 2016a. Economic Profile System. A Profile of Timber and Wood 

Products. Selected Geographies: Siskiyou County, 

CA. www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps