United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General

Technical Report

PNW-GTR-499

September 2000

Social Assessment for the

Colville National Forest CROP

Program

Angela J. Findley, Matthew S. Carroll, and

Keith A. Blatner
Angela J. Findley is an environmental planner for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &

Douglas, 400 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite145, Portland, OR 97204; and Matthew S.

Carroll is an associate professor and Keith A. Blatner is a professor, Department of

Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman,

WA 99164-6410. This paper is published by the Pacific Northwest Research Station

under agreement no. PNW-97-7021-1-CA.

Authors
Findley, Angela J.; Carroll, Matthew S.; Blatner, Keith A. 2000. Social assessment

for the Colville National Forest CROP program. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-499.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 106 p.

A qualitative social assessment targeted salient issues connected to the Colville

National Forest creating opportunities (CROP) research program that examines forest

management alternatives for small-diameter stands in northeastern Washington. Research spanned various communities in three counties and investigated the diversity of

fundamental values people attach to small-diameter stands, beliefs about appropriate

forest management directions, and perceived impacts from the CROP program. To

focus on people’s knowledge of and interest in small-diameter stand management,

semistructured interviews (n=76) were conducted in person with local residents and

other people associated with the Colville National Forest. Breadth and depth of interviewees’ value orientations and forest use were explored to develop a comprehensive

inductive analysis of the social complexity surrounding the CROP program. Seven distinct groups were differentiated to develop a social typology that juxtaposed positions,

perceptions, and preferred small-diameter stand-management alternatives. Several

themes emerged. Practical implications of these themes are offered as guidelines to

resource managers to improve public involvement as the decisionmaking process

moves to public forums.

Keywords: Social assessment, qualitative methodology, natural resource conflict, public

involvement, collaborative learning, Colville National Forest.

Abstract
Social assessments are viewed with a great deal of skepticism by many resource

managers. Just what is a social assessment and what good is it? The authors of this

paper spend a considerable amount of time and energy talking to natural resource

managers and others throughout the region and the country about social assessments,

but the quizzical looks we often get in response do not seem to have abated much over

time. In the spirit of the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words, we are publishing this paper as an example of a land management-related social assessment.

This assessment was conducted for the Colville National Forest in northeastern

Washington. Its intended purpose was to provide data and insights on the social environment surrounding the forest in support of an innovative public involvement process

known as collaborative learning. Both the assessment and the collaborative learning

process were aimed at helping the agency and its interested public make decisions

about the management (or perhaps nonmanagement) of so-called CROP (creating

opportunities research program) stands in the forest. CROP stands are dense, heavily

stocked stands of small-diameter trees that originated after stand-replacing fires in the

early part of the 20th century. These stands have been the subject of much controversy

and often less-than-successful management efforts for several decades.

Our purpose in publishing this paper is twofold: First, to provide an example of an

indepth, focused social assessment for an audience wider than just the Colville National Forest; and second, because the social dynamics described are hardly exclusive

to this particular forest, to capture insights that could be useful to managers and others

with responsibilities or interests in other public land management arenas.

Before moving to an overview of the organization of the material presented here, one

additional point needs to be made on the nature of this assessment. As noted above,

this is a focused social assessment. Although we interviewed a broad array of stakeholders forestwide and beyond, our purpose was to aid decisionmaking for one specific

set of issues. This paper is no substitute for an assessment that might be conducted,

for example, in support of forest plan revision or for dealing with large, multiforest

issues.

The first section reviews the CROP program, characteristics of CROP stands, and

objectives and methodology of this social assessment. Other background information

is provided to give readers a clear picture of the geographic context, the sociopolitical

climate in 1997-98, and a description of local wood products industries.

The second section further details the social structure of the tri-county area and of the

individuals and organizations in greater Spokane interested in forest policy. Stakeholder groups, the Forest Service, and affected Native American tribes are described

from data collected in personal interviews.

Issues identified by interviewees are explored in the third section. Perceived impacts

of management directions are differentiated.

The fourth section identifies themes emerging from the social assessment. Guidelines

are provided to incorporate these themes and other findings into national forest management, the CROP research program, and subsequent public involvement processes.

Preface
1 Introduction

1 Purpose of the Study

1 CROP Stand Description

3 CROP Research Program

3 Collaborative Learning Role

4 Social Assessment Role

4 Social Assessment Objectives

4 Background

4 Geographic Context

6 Socioeconomic Context

12 Current Forest Policy Events

12 Timber Extraction and Milling Context

21 Methodology

21 Design

22 Sampling

23 Data Analysis

24 Social Groups

25 Stakeholder Groups

25 Civic Representatives

26 Commodity Users

30 Environmentalists

33 Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners

34 Recreationists

35 Tribes

36 Forest Service

38 Issues

39 Evaluating CROP Research Program Objectives

39 Description

39 Discussion

42 CROP Stands: Value Definitions and Perceived Risks

42 Description

42 Discussion

Contents
50 Preferred Stand Treatments

50 Description

50 Discussion

55 Economic Considerations

55 Community Economies and Dependence on Forest Resources

62 Local Timber Industry: Roles and Responsibilities

67 CROP Stand Timber Sales: Cost Variables

71 Social Dynamics

71 Expectations of the Forest Service

77 Relations Among Stakeholder Groups

82 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation Concerns

87 Review by County

87 Southern Pend Oreille County

87 Northern Pend Oreille County

88 Northern Stevens County

88 Southern Stevens County

88 Southern Ferry County

89 Northern Ferry County

90 Conclusions and Policy Implications

90 Themes: Making Sense of the Social Complexity

92 Guidelines for Resource Managers

93 Conclusion

94 Acknowledgments

95 References

98 Appendices

98 Appendix 1: Semistructured Interview Guide

103 Appendix 2: Informed Consent Form

104 Appendix 3. Comparison of Demographic Characteristics, 1990

106 Acronyms and Abbreviations
1

Since the early 1980s, Colville National Forest (CNF) managers have been concerned

with the quantity and conditions of small-diameter, overstocked stands across the forest. Most of these stands originated from fires in the early 1900s, particularly during

1920-36. CROP, an acronym for creating opportunities, commonly denotes the research program and characteristics associated with these stands in 60- to 80-year

age classes. Previously, CROP stands were described as immature and overstocked

stands (IMOS) through a 1973 forestwide inventory; “thickets” was a term used in the

mid-1980s for the same stand characteristics (USDA Forest Service 1994).

Generally defined as stands having trees in the 4- to 7-inch diameter at breast height

(dbh) classes, CROP stands have less than 10.5 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre

and more than 400 trees per acre (tpa). They comprise 110,430 acres of the CNF

(USDA Forest Service 1994). CROP-like stands with slightly higher average diameter

classes and similarly overstocked conditions are estimated to at least double the total

forest acreage of stagnated small-diameter stands. Although many people characterize

CROP stands as “dog-haired lodgepole pine,” they actually are quite diverse in tree

species and plant associations across the landscape (table 1).

Forest managers’ continual attention to CROP stands have several components.

Studies on IMOS and thickets have targeted primarily the underproductive growth and

submerchantable wood products associated with these stands. On-the-ground activities aimed to reduce overstocking and improve tree vigor by hypohatching1 and bulldozer thinning2 techniques. More recently, forest managers in the greater Inland West

Introduction

Purpose of the

Study

CROP Stand Description

1 Hypohatching refers to the killing of trees with a

hypohatch, a commonly used tool for this purpose during

the 1970s. It was a hatchlike device used to inject a

silviacide into the cambium of a tree to kill it as a part of

a timber stand improvement prescription.

2 Bulldozer thinning projects were motivated in part by a

JOBS program through the U.S. Department of

Commerce to provide work for unemployed persons.
2

region have focused on ecosystem management and forest health,3 which take a combined landscape-level, successional, and multiple resource perspective to evaluate

management directions. Willits et al. (1996: 1), for example, analyze the following

diverse management goals under various silvicultural treatments for small-diameter

stands in the CNF:

• create late successional forest structure

• decrease forest health risk from fire, insects, and disease

• improve wildlife habitat by providing large green trees and snags

• improve stand aesthetics by decreasing stand density

The results of modeling stand development over 50-, 100- and 150-year simulations

postulates that some silvicultural intervention in small-diameter stands will produce

trees greater than 20 inches in dbh (Willits et al. 1996) and will achieve management

objectives beyond traditional timber growth and yield goals.

Frustration has grown over the years about the continual study, discussion, and lack of

funds appropriated to CROP stand management. Many residents of adjacent communities expressed concern about the potential risks associated with older, less vigorous

stands and the lack of resources available to the Forest Service to implement silvicultural practices mitigating these risks. Thus, a unique research program specifically

tailored to Colville National Forest CROP stands emerged.

Table 1—Acreage of major tree species and plant associations,

CROP stands, Colville National Forest, 1993

Species and association Acres Percent

Tree species:

Western larch 35,390 32.0

Lodgepole pine 55,552 50.3

Douglas-fir 14,144 12.8

Other 5,344 4.8

Total 110,430 100.0

Plant associations:

Western redcedar 37,022 33.5

Douglas-fir 17,252 15.6

Subalpine fir 26,965 24.4

Western hemlock 21,583 19.5

Lodgepole pine 2,374 2.1

Grand fir 5,233 4.7

Total 110,429 100.0

Source: USDA Forest Service 1994.

3 The authors acknowledge the complex, controversial,

and subjective concept of “forest health.” Critical debate

over the definition of forest health is more appropriately

discussed in other forums (e.g., Kolb et al. 1994, National Research Council 1998, O’Laughlin, et al. 1993,

Sampson and Adams 1994).
3

In 1996, the U.S. Congress set forth funding and legislation to initiate a comprehensive

research program implementing silvicultural treatments for densely stocked, smalldiameter tree stands in the CNF. Goals and objectives, current and future research

directions, monitoring practices, and end products of the CROP program are identified

in a research plan (Quigley 1997) that involves multiple collaborators: the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station, the Colville National Forest,

Washington State University, and the University of Idaho. The overall research goal is

“to provide information and technology that allows land managers to better understand

CROP and CROP-like stands and implement treatments that maintain or restore ecological functions and processes while providing sustainable flows of forest products

to enhance community stability” (p. 3). Research objectives are organized into three

categories: (1) landscape-level information, (2) links between landscape dynamics and

stand-level management, and (3) stand-level management.

This first phase of the CROP research program centers on the Fritz demonstration

project in the Kettle Falls District of the CNF. This area was part of the 1929 Dollar

Mountain fire and includes many acres of CROP stands that are representative of

other sites in the CNF. Comprehensive studies were begun at the Fritz demonstration project during fiscal years (FY) 1997 and 1998, which will examine harvesting

efficiencies, silviculture and stand damage, soils, fuels, insects and disease, economics, and technology transfers (Quigley 1997: 7-8). Also during FY98, additional

studies were begun that targeted public involvement processes and regionalization4

of temporal vegetation patterns.

During FY98, a second site for additional research was chosen: the South Deep watershed in the Colville District. This area also represents CROP conditions across the

CNF so that research results may be generalized.

A complex, comprehensive research program was set in motion by congressional

legislation, which takes an interdisciplinary, adaptive management approach to increase forest managers’ knowledge of CROP stands through implementation and

monitoring practices (Quigley 1997: 2).

One element of the CROP research program is public involvement, which has

prompted the Forest Service to enter a cooperative agreement with researchers

from Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences. This

research team employs an innovative process–collaborative learning (Daniels et al.

1996)–to facilitate a potentially contentious public involvement process surrounding the

CROP program and its proposed treatments. Based in soft systems inquiry, collaborative learning provides a process for people to address diverse views of the forest and

its management decisions by increasing their understanding of complex, problematic

situations (Wilson and Morren 1990). At the core of this process lie objectives to identify ways to improve situations and to address conflict constructively, rather than striving for unrealistic consensus among stakeholders. Pragmatic management alternatives

and open dialogue among multiple parties are key outcomes from a successful collaborative learning public involvement process.

CROP Research Program

Collaborative Learning

Role

4 Regionalization is a process that subdivides large land

areas into ecological subregions. Ecological subregions

are mesoscale groupings of land units (in this case,

watersheds) that are influenced by the same higher

order climate and disturbance regimes and share similar

geology and landform features.
4

Social assessment is a stand-alone research project, yielding qualitative descriptions

and analysis of a particular situation. In the larger CROP program and research effort,

social assessment is the foundation on which collaborative learning is constructed to fit

particular places, people, and resource management needs.

To prepare collaborative learning facilitators at the CNF for the people and relevant

issues they might encounter, a focused social assessment was designed to explore the

interests in the CROP program and stand treatments by local residents and other associated stakeholders. Unlike typical social impact assessments, which often describe

material impacts on a community (e.g., poverty, crime rates, community infrastructure)

of an event (e.g., siting a hydroelectric project), this research concentrated on understanding the diversity of fundamental values attached to the forest, beliefs about appropriate forest management, and perceived impacts from the CROP program. Data

and analysis from the social assessment helped facilitators design and conduct collaborative learning training sessions for CNF staff and public involvement workshops.

Furthermore, the social assessment provided the Forest Service with social data for

subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes and documents

concerning the CROP program.

This social assessment investigated the impacts of small-diameter stand management

on individuals, communities, and Native American tribes neighboring the CNF. Specifically, it differentiated people’s perceptions of CROP stand conditions, ecological properties, economic variables, environmental concerns, and preferred management

directions.

The following five objectives outline the social assessment strategy used to aid the

collaborative learning public involvement process and national forest planners:

1. Gather current socioeconomic data for the region.

2. Identify individuals and groups having interests and concerns about small-diameter

stands and CNF management.

3. Learn firsthand about the impacts of CNF management on people’s lives (e.g., daily

routines, employment, cultural practices, recreation, national forest use, interaction

with the Forest Service).

4. Analyze the commonalities and differences across multiple stakeholders, forest

uses, values placed on the forest or CROP stands, and positions on issues relevant

to CROP management.

5. Produce a report that provides an organizing structure to understand various stakeholder groups and issues, identifies potentially contentious issues with insight into

fundamental differences, and suggests practical implications for CNF staff and

public involvement facilitators.

The tri-county region that includes Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties is in the

northeastern corner of Washington bordering Idaho to the east and Canada to the north

(fig. 1). The CNF comprises about 1.2 million acres of the three counties, thereby accounting for almost one-third of the total land base.

Social Assessment Role

Social Assessment

Objectives

Background

Geographic Context
5

Table 2 displays the distribution of land classes across each of the three counties and

compares the area to neighboring Spokane County and the state. The three counties

have a significantly lower percentage of land in “other lands” (primarily urban centers,

rangelands, and farmlands) compared to Spokane County and the state, which

emphasizes the high concentration of Forest Service-administered lands and nonindustrial private forest land ownership. Ferry County has less than 30 percent of its

land held in private ownership; similarly, about one-fourth of Pend Oreille County’s land

is in private ownership. Stevens County, however, has just over one-half of its land in

private ownership. This distribution has severe implications in taxation and local control

of land uses, which factor into concerns of the residents about national forest management (Larsen 1998).

Figure 1–Locations of CROP stands in the Colville National Forest.
6

The largest town in the three counties is Colville (pop. about 6,000 in 1998) in northcentral Stevens County. Colville is 70 miles northwest of Spokane, which can be defined as an isolated trade center for the tri-country region (ICBEMP 1998). Notable

north-south divisions occur in each of the three counties. The Colville Indian Reservation comprises the south half of Ferry County, whereas the north half includes the

county seat of Republic and a mix of private ownership and the CNF. The northern

half of Stevens County includes the larger communities of Kettle Falls, Colville, and

Chewelah as well as several smaller communities farther north that depend on Colville

for major services. The southern half of Stevens County has additional small communities having stronger ties to greater Spokane and the Spokane Indian Reservation.

Newport, the county seat, is located in the southern half of Pend Oreille County;

residents here and in surrounding communities typically travel to Spokane for major

services. Communities in northern Pend Oreille County are closer to Colville than

Spokane for access to major services.

The CNF Supervisor’s Office and one ranger district are in Colville. The other four

ranger districts are at Republic, Kettle Falls, Sullivan Lake (in Metaline Falls), and

Newport.

Demographics—Changes in total population from 1920 to 1990 are shown in table 3

for the tri-county region and Washington. The state shows continuous growths whereas

the counties depict boom and bust episodes most likely linked to the cyclical nature of

natural resource industries.

Table 2—Percentage of area by county and land class, 1992

Counties

Land class Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens Spokane Washington

Percent

Forest Service

administered lands 33.7 58.4 13.9 0.0 21.5

State timberland 1.5 3.8 10.2 1.7 4.8

Forest industry

timberland 3.8 10.8 13.0 2.3 10.8

NIPF timberland 37.7 16.7 31.8 19.8 10.2

Native American

timberland 30.9 .2 5.9 0 3.1

Other lands 23.2 10.3 31.0 76.3 52.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: McGinnis et al. 1997.

Socioeconomic Context
7

Tables 4 and 5 provide more detail on the demographics, employment, and income

distribution across the three counties, neighboring Spokane County, and the state.

Generally, working age people are less represented in the three counties than in

Spokane County, which has a more diversified economy. Many people leave the tricounty area in search of work, owing to limited local labor markets, and either relocate

to other areas or commute to greater Spokane.

In terms of racial diversity, Washington tends to be overwhelmingly racially and

ethnically homogenous (89 percent white). With the exception of Ferry County (which

includes the Colville Indian Reservation with Native Americans representing 18 percent

of its population), the CNF counties (including Spokane County) are even less racially

diverse than the state. Furthermore, people of Hispanic origin are underrepresented in

northeastern Washington compared to the state. These demographic distributions have

become slightly less racially diverse since the 1990 U.S. census with Washington being

88 percent white but having an increased proportion of people of Hispanic origin (see

appendix 3).

Earnings by place of work show several interesting differences across counties and in

comparison to the state. All counties except Ferry share the same top three industries,

albeit in slightly different order: manufacturing, services and government. Pend Oreille’s

top paying employer is government, for the state and Spokane County it’s the service

sector, and for Stevens it’s manufacturing. Ferry County appears to have an overwhelming concentration of people earning their livelihood from the government sector;

however in a closer look, over one-third of the county’s earnings are undisclosed. Services and mining sectors account for the bulk of this undisclosed amount, thus comprising major industries for Ferry County.

Table 3—Population trends in selected eastern Washington counties and the state, 1920-90a

Area 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Ferry Co. (pop.) 5,143 4,292 4,701 4,096 3,889 3,655 5,811 6,295

Change (percent)b —- (16.5) 9.5 (12.9) (5.1) (6.0) 59.0 8.3

Pend Oreille Co.

(pop). 6,363 7,155 7,156 7,413 6,914 6,025 8,580 8,915

Change (percent) —- 12.4 0.0 3.6 -6.7 -12.9 42.4 3.9

Stevens Co. (pop). 21,605 18,550 19,275 18,580 17,884 17,405 28,979 30,948

Change (percent) —- (14.1) 3.9 (3.6) (3.7) (2.7) 66.5 6.8

Washington (pop.

in millions) 1,373 1,568 1,740 2,379 2,853 3,413 4,132 4,867

Change (percent) —- 14.2 11.0 36.7 19.9 19.6 21.1 17.8

a Numbers in parentheses are decreases.

b Change from previous census figure.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce 1921, 1932, 1943, 1952, 1963, 1973, 1982, 1997.
8

Table 4—Comparison of demographic characteristics by selected eastern

Washington counties and the state, 1997

Counties

Demographic Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens Spokane Washington

Total population 7,256 11,271 39,243 404,650 5,610,362

Percentage of total population

Sex:

Male 52.5 49.9 50.3 48.8 49.8

Female 47.5 50.1 49.7 51.2 50.2

Age:

Less than 18 years 30.9 29.0 30.9 26.2 25.9

18-64 years 58.2 57.5 56.9 60.6 62.5

Over 64 years 10.8 13.5 12.2 13.2 11.5

Race:

White 80.9 97.1 93.0 94.4 89.2

Black .3 .2 .3 1.7 3.5

American Indian,

Eskimo, or Aleut 18.3 2.3 5.9 1.6 1.8

Other .5 .4 .8 2.4 5.5

Hispanic origin:

Not of Hispanic

origin 98.2 98.0 97.9 97.2 93.9

Hispanic origin 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.8 6.1

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1997.
9

Table 5—Comparison of income and employment for selected eastern Washington counties and the state, 1995

Counties (total population)

Income and Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens Spokane Washingtonemployment (7,180) (10,755) (37,680) (401,992) (5,447,720)

Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand

dollars Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent

Personal income: 102,960 167,351 572,763 8,271,093 129,159,234

Nonfarm 98,265 95.4 167,974 100.4 567,108 99.0 8,253,325 99.8 127,912,288 99.0Farm 4,695 4.6 (623)a -.4 5,655 1.0 17,768 .2 1,246,946 1.0

Earnings by place

of work:

Farm 4,695 7.4 (623) -.8 5,655 1.9 17,768 .3 1,246,946 1.4Nonfarm— 58,482 92.6 76,983 100.8 292,820 98.1 5,792,256 99.7 89,802,079 98.6

Agriculture, forestry,

fishing, services 1,220 1.9 564 .7 4,116 1.4 29,640 .5 1,239,916 1.4

Mining D D 487 .6 3,904 1.3 22,010 .4 1,080,649 1.2Construction 2,258 3.6 5,676 7.4 15,130 5.1 429,339 7.4 5,967,240 6.6

Manufacturing— 9,117 14.4 21,533 28.2 87,926 29.5 843,435 14.5 15,457,553 17.0

Durable goods 9,040 14.3 D D 80,015 26.8 669,941 11.5 11,313,863 12.4Nondurable goods 77 .1 D D 7,911 2.7 173,494 3.0 4,143,690 4.6

Transportation,

pub. utilities D D 2,648 3.5 16,294 5.5 377,243 6.5 6,313,734 6.9

Wholesale trade 257 .4 452 .6 5,281 1.8 382,723 6.6 5,817,446 6.4Retail trade 4,600 7.3 7,888 10.3 30,359 10.2 664,035 11.4 9,012,726 9.9Finance, insurance,

real estate 804 1.3 2,087 2.7 6,246 2.1 375,061 6.5 5,197,863 5.7

Services D D 9,255 12.1 59,391 19.9 1,604,826 27.6 24,443,237 26.8Govt., govt. enterprise 18,848 29.8 26,393 34.6 64,173 21.5 1,063,944 18.3 16,171,715 17.8
10

Table 5—Comparison of income and employment for selected eastern Washington counties and the state, 1995 (continued)

Counties (total population)

Employment, total full- Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens Spokane Washingtonand part-time (no.) 2,694 3,520 14,482 228,581 3,122,034

No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

Jobs

Employment, by industry:

Farm 232 8.6 261 7.4 1,321 9.1 2,344 1.0 78,529 2.5Nonfarm— 2,462 91.4 3,259 92.6 13,161 90.9 226,237 99.0 3,043,505 97.5

Agriculture, forestry,

fishing, service 82 3.0 58 1.6 241 1.7 2,040 .9 56,366 1.8

Mining D D 16 .5 124 .9 394 .2 5,679 .2Construction 106 3.9 237 6.7 689 4.8 13,975 6.1 174,259 5.6Manufacturing 272 10.1 480 13.6 2,547 17.6 23,146 10.1 356,043 11.4Transportation, pub.

utilities D D 101 2.9 540 3.7 9,641 4.2 137,270 4.4

Wholesale trade 17 .6 29 .8 225 1.6 12,136 5.3 157,516 5.0Retail trade 369 13.7 540 15.3 2,197 15.2 41,097 18.0 533,068 17.1Finance, insurance,

real estate 94 3.5 147 4.2 582 4.0 18,374 8.0 227,146 7.3

Services D D 620 17.6 3,487 24.1 70,788 31.0 885,160 28.4

Govt., govt. enterprise: 757 28.1 1,031 29.3 2,529 17.5 34,646 15.2 510,998 16.4

Federal, civilian 167 6.2 121 3.4 427 2.9 4,361 1.9 69,702 2.2Military 29 1.1 44 1.2 154 1.1 5,900 2.6 75,150 2.4State and local 561 20.8 866 24.6 1,948 13.5 24,385 10.7 366,146 11.7
11

Table 5—Comparison of income and employment for selected eastern Washington counties and the state, 1995 (continued)

Counties (total population)

Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens Spokane Washington

Income

Derivation of total Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand

personal income: dollars Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent

Net earnings 59,689 58.0 79,542 47.5 331,878 57.9 5,147,034 62.2 85,970,449 66.6Transfer payments-- 29,445 28.6 58,418 34.9 145,419 25.4 1,702,034 20.6 21,061,162 16.3Income maintenance 3,742 3.6 8,496 5.1 14,911 2.6 154,171 1.9 1,843,179 1.4Unemployment insurance 1,841 1.8 2,631 1.6 8,402 1.5 58,428 .7 911,089 .7Retirement and other 23,862 23.2 47,291 28.3 122,106 21.3 1,489,431 18.0 18,306,894 14.2Dividends, interest, rent 13,826 13.4 29,391 17.6 95,466 16.7 1,422,029 17.2 22,127,623 17.1

Per capita incomes: Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Personal income 14,340 15,560 15,201 20,575 23,709Net earnings 8,313 58.0 7,396 47.5 8,808 57.9 12,804 62.2 15,781 66.6Transfer payments-- 4,101 28.6 5,432 34.9 3,859 25.4 4,234 20.6 3,866 16.3Income maintenance 521 3.6 790 5.1 396 2.6 384 1.9 338 1.4Unemployment insurance 256 1.8 245 1.6 223 1.5 145 .7 167 .7Retirement and other 3,323 23.2 4,397 28.3 3,241 21.3 3,705 18.0 3,360 14.2Dividends, interest, rent 1,926 13.4 2,733 17.6 2,534 16.7 3,537 17.2 4,062 17.1

D = not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Estimates are included in totals.a Numbers in ( ) are negative.Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2000.
12

Jobs at various government levels employ almost one-third of the working population

in Ferry and Pend Oreille Counties but only 15 to 17 percent in Stevens and Spokane

Counties and the state. Other industries employing large percentages of the counties’

working population include services and retail trade, which mirrors trends in Spokane

County and the state. Table 6 highlights industries by communities within the tri-county

region, and emphasizes strengths as well as a lack of employment diversity in some

cases.

Another important variable in the struggle by communities and counties to strengthen

their economies is the level of earned income (see table 5). Per capita income is significantly lower in the three counties relative to the city of Spokane and the state. Furthermore, transfer payments in the form of income maintenance, unemployment insurance,

and retirement account for a high proportion of tri-county per capita personal income

(29, 35, and 25 percent for Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, respectively)

compared to Spokane County’s 21 percent and Washington’s 16 percent.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) is a regional

effort to coordinate management strategies for lands administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management within the Columbia River basin (ICBEMP

1997a). The project’s geographic scope includes eastern Washington and Oregon,

Idaho, western Montana, and northern portions of Nevada and Utah. ICBEMP currently

is in the process of producing the east-side and upper Columbia River basin environmental impact statements (EIS). The former includes lands administered by the CNF.

Thus, any resulting EIS record of decision and associated guidelines will apply to management decisions and on-the-ground forest practices for the CNF. At the time of this

report’s publication, no record of decision has been made; however, the draft east-side

EIS identified alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 emphasizes active

restoration of ecosystems and addresses issues such as the “risks of wildfires, fish and

aquatic habitat deterioration, road-related sedimentation problems, and the spread of

noxious weeds” (ICBEMP 1997b: 2). It is likely that some modifications of CROP management decisions will occur when the east-side EIS is implemented.

A distinction should be noted. The CROP program is not linked to ICBEMP. Research

objectives of CROP are independent of the ICBEMP EIS process. However, any resulting records of decision for ICBEMP may modify the CROP research project so that

CROP objectives comply with new resource management and restoration guidelines.

Also in process are current policy changes concerning management of roadless areas

within national forest lands.

Certain species are under evaluation for potential listing as threatened and endangered

under the Endangered Species Act. Those that may impact CNF management include

lynx (Lynx canadensis), grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis), woodland caribou (Rangifer

caribou), and bull trout (Dolly Varden [Salvelinus malma]).

Timber harvests, sales, and forest receipts history—The CNF harvested 30.5

million board feet (mmbf) in 1996, representing 19 percent of eastern Washington’s

national forest total harvest and 4 percent of the PNW Region’s total harvest (table 7).

First quarter harvests in 1997 decreased significantly compared to the previous year.

Timber sales, however, indicate possible increases in the CNF’s share of eastern

Washington (44 percent) and PNW Region (6 percent) total future harvests (table 8).

Also, the average value of timber harvested and stumpage prices of timber sold from

the CNF are noticeably higher than for other eastern Washington national forests

(Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests).

Current Forest Policy

Events

Timber Extraction and

Milling Context
13

Table 6—Employment specialization by industry category for communities, by selected eastern Washington counties, 1995

Employment specialization by industry category

1992 Wood Other Trans- Finance Federal Local

County and town Pop. Agriculture Mining Construc. Products Mfg portation Trade Insurance, Services Govt GovtFerry:

Inchelium 392 none none none high none none none none none very high noneRepublic 1,080 med very high none high none none none none none none low

Pend Oreille:

Cusick 256 none none med med none med none none none med medIone 501 none none none very higha none low none none low none low

Metaline 193 none none none none none none med none none none lowMetaline Falls 227 none none none none none low none none none very high medNewport 1,780 med none low none low none none none none none low

Stevens:

Chewelah 2,243 high none low med none none none none low none noneColville 4,440 low none none med none none none none low low lowKettle Falls 1,435 low none none very high none low none none none low noneMarcus 154 none none none none none none med none low low noneNorthport 342 high very high none very high none none none none none high noneSpringdale 355 very high very high none med high none none none none none none

a The single large mill in Ione closed in 1995. Employment in wood products manufacturing most likely is now characterized as low or none.

Source: ICBEMP 1998: tables 1-3 reprinted in part.
14

Table 7—Volume and average value of timber harvested from the Colville National Forest compared to eastern Washington andPacific Northwest Region national forests, 1996-97

Colville National Forest Eastern Washington All Pacific Northwest

Year and quarter Volume Average value Volume Average value Volume Average value

mmbf $/mbf mmbf $/mbf mmbf $/mbf

1996:

1 10.6 152.29 29.1 92.49 141.8 213.922 3.3 107.26 41.7 49.36 160.6 195.283 8.9 119.44 61.5 74.15 258.9 223.084 7.7 139.00 26.6 74.91 175.5 217.96

Total or average 30.5 134.46 158.9 71.12 736.8 214.02

1997:

1 4.8 235.54 13.0 171.97 128.9 224.892 3.5 195.77 15.8 101.50 166.3 231.423 14.5 159.46 53.2 106.36 297.3 216.864 17.1 172.24 35.3 130.34 217.2 182.14

Total or average 39.9 177.19 117.3 120.21 809.6 211.82

Sources: Warren 1997, 1998.
15

Table 8—Volume and average stumpage price of timber sold from the Colville National Forest compared to eastern Washingtonand Pacific Northwest Region national forests, 1996-97

Colville National Forest Eastern Washington All Pacific Northwest

Year and quarter Volume Average value Volume Average value Volume Average value

mmbf $/mbf mmbf $/mbf mmbf $/mbf

1996:

1 4,585.0 22.37 36,982.0 36.63 96,198.0 114.832 13.0 271.80 15,337.0 103.56 84,555.0 181.163 24,263.0 150.02 32,441.0 120.97 267,759.0 221.654 19,475.0 286.40 24,488.0 241.84 351,409.0 253.19

Total or average 48,336.0 192.89 109,248.0 117.07 799,921.0 218.38

1997:

1 4,509.0 184.10 4,509.0 184.10 15,608.0 153.102 643.0 185.69 15,620.0 38.25 47,843.0 72.103 6,924.0 150,302.00 23,124.0 139.85 143,080.0 173.234 22,541.0 152.64 39,875.0 118.23 220,271.0 259.88

Total or average 34,617.0 156.83 83,128.0 112.79 426,802.0 205.88

Sources: Warren 1997, 1998.
16

Table 9 provides an overview of timber harvests across the three counties by various

forest land ownerships. Timber harvests from the CNF in 1997 represented the fourth

largest share of tri-county harvests. The ownerships with the top three harvest levels

were small private lands (33 percent), forest industry (23 percent), and Native

American lands (16 percent). Social assessment interview data provided an explanation of this distribution: it seems to be a response by private ownerships to the demand

created by substantial declines in CNF timber harvests. Many residents believe private

lands are being cut at unsustainable levels, which raises concerns about the future role

of timber harvesting in the three counties and about the conditions of private forest

lands.

Forest Service timber sales not only make raw materials available for harvest but

also generate revenues, in part, for county governments and schools. Federal forest

receipts consist of 25 percent of national forest timber sales revenues; natural resources trust monies come from the lease of state lands and sales of resources from

state lands, in this case the Washington Department of Natural Resources; and timber

excise taxes are derived from timber harvests on private lands (Washington State

University 1997: 9). As timber sales and harvests have shifted from decreasing Forest

Service sales to increases in private harvests, county timber receipts have been influenced. The end result is mixed: Ferry County experienced a fairly consistent amount

of total receipts in 1991-94 but had a significant loss in 1995; receipts for Pend Oreille

and Stevens Counties peaked in 1994 but declined in 1995 (table 10).

Industry structure and wood utilization—The distribution of mills located in the tricounty region is indicated in table 11. Stevens County hosts Boise Cascade, Stimson,

and Vaagen Brothers lumber and veneer and plywood mills as well as several smaller

milling operations.5 One lumber mill in Ferry County belongs to Vaagen Brothers; the

other is a smaller, specialty products lumber mill. With the 1995 closure of Vaagen

Brothers’ Ione lumber mill in Pend Oreille County, the only remaining mill (pulp) belongs

to Ponderay Newsprint. Not represented in table 11 is a chipping facility, Ponderay

Valley Fibre, also located in Pend Oreille County.

Owing to the small number of mills in the tri-county region, as well as the Inland Empire

economic area6 as a whole, some log and wood consumption data have been combined with data from other areas to avoid disclosure of confidential information. In

1996, Inland Empire lumber mills (n=9) acquired almost one-half of their logs from the

farmer and miscellaneous private sector (i.e., nonindustrial private forest land owners)

(table 12). Forest industry, other public, and national forests provided about 17, 10, and

9 percent raw logs, respectively. Of the total 253,635 mbf consumed by lumber mills,

85 percent came from sound logs and 15 percent from utility logs (table 13). Additionally, pulp mills in the Inland Empire (n=4) used 983,713 bone dry tons of residue.

5 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for

reader information and does not imply endorsement by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or

service.

6 Washington Department of Natural Resources’ mill

surveys categorize the state into five economic areas.

The Inland Empire area includes Asotin, Columbia,

Ferry, Garfield, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla

Walla, and Whitman Counties.
17

Table 9—Timber harvest by selected eastern Washington counties, 1997

Counties

Ownership category Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens Total Percentage

– – – – – – Thousand board feet, Scribner log scale – – – – – – Percent

Native American 37,424 — 15,583 53,007 15.8

Forest industry 6,960 33,714 37,033 77,707 23.2

Private, large 1,966 9,761 16,243 27,970 8.3

Private, small 10,538 41,007 59,484 111,029 33.1

Total, private 56,888 84,482 128,343 269,713 80.5

State 283 9,420 17,744 27,447 8.2

Other nonfederal — 10 — 10 0.0

National Forest 10,755 8,011 16,514 35,280 10.5

Other federal — — 2,637 2,637 0.8

Total ownership 67,926 101,923 165,238 335,087 100.0

 – – – – – – – Percent of total timber harvest – – – – – – –

Harvest in Ferry, Pend Oreille,

and Stevens Co. 20.3 30.4 49.3 100.0

Total, eastern Washington

timber harvest 6.9 10.3 16.7

Source: Larsen 1998.
18

Table 10—Forest receipts by selected eastern Washington counties, 1991-95

County and year Federal forest receipts Natural resource trust Timber excise tax Total

Dollars

Ferry:

1995 461,912.36 0 327,819.15 789,731.51

1994 690,893.17 0 433,690.55 1,124,583.72

1993 848,786.02 0 313,235.89 1,162,021.91

1992 865,040.54 0 176,627.68 1,041,668.22

1991 943,445.79 0 155,232.52 1,098,678.31

Average 762,015.58 0 281,321.16 1,043,336.73

Pend Oreille:

1995 829,265.76 0 953,534.65 1,782,800.41

1994 926,267.30 0 1,413,243.75 2,339,511.05

1993 952,383.02 0 812,979.38 1,765,362.40

1992 1,200,480.70 0 432,896.63 1,633,377.33

1991 1,011,506.01 0 323,612.09 1,335,118.10

Average 983,980.56 0 787,253.30 1,771,233.86

Stevens:

1995 228,252.30 31,383.63 1,820,366.30 2,080,002.23

1994 328,362.22 26,252.75 2,375,692.22 2,730,307.19

1993 394,850.12 31,591.20 1,695,939.80 2,122,381.12

1992 413,007.33 17,373.94 1,106,305.34 1,536,686.61

1991 436,612.40 17,506.99 862,291.48 1,316,410.87

Average 360,216.87 24,821.70 1,572,119.03 1,957,157.60

Source: Washington State University 1997.
19

Table 11—Number of mills by industry in selected eastern Washington counties, 1996

County All mills Lumber Veneer and plywood Pulp Shake and shingle Log export Post, pole, and piling

Ferry 3 2 — — — — 1

Pend Oreille 1 — — 1 — — —

Stevens 9 6 1 — — — 2

Total 13 8 1 1 0 0 3

Source: Larsen 1998.

Table 12—Inland Empirea log consumption by industry and ownership, 1996

Ownership Lumber Veneer and plywoodb Pulp and boardc Shake and shingle Post, pole, and piling

Thousand board feet, Scribner log rule

State 12,455 — — — —

National forest 23,641 — — — —

Bureau of Land

Management 600 — — — —

Other public 25,519 — — — 5,330

Forest industry:

Own wood supply 43,295 — — — —

Other wood supply 26,175 — — — 630

Farmer, misc. private 121,950 — — — 2,535

All owners 253,635 — — — 8,495

a Inland Empire includes the counties of Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla in

extreme eastern Washington.

b Data combined with other state economic areas to avoid disclosure of confidential information due to few number of mills in survey.

c No pulp and board and no shake and shingle mills in Inland Empire responded to survey.

Source: Larsen 1998.
20

Table 13—Inland Empire primary wood consumption by industry and ownership, 1996

Consumption Lumber Veneer and plywooda Pulp and boardb Shake and shingle Post, pole, and piling

Thousand board feet, Scribner log rule

Sound logs 216,025 — — — 3,355

Utility logs 37,610 — — — 5,140

All roundwood 253,635 — — — 8,495

Bone dry tones

Residues — — 983,713 — —

a Data combined with other state economic areas to avoid disclosure of confidential information.

b No pulp and board mills in Inland Empire responded to survey.

Source: Larsen 1998.

Table 14—Raw log destination and origin, selected

eastern Washington counties, 1996

Origin

Destination Ferry Pend Oreille Stevens

Percent

Ferry 30.7 0.8 1.0

Pend Oreille 8.1 27.2 9.5

Stevens 32.1 39.2 71.0

Okanogan 27.3 0 5.5

Idaho 0 23.0 8.1

Other 1.8 9.8 4.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Washington State University 1997.
21

Table 14 shows the destination of raw logs originating in the tri-county region. Stevens

County retains 71 percent of its own logs whereas Ferry and Pend Oreille Counties

export over two-thirds of their raw logs; Stevens Counties receives about one-half of

the logs exported by the other two counties. The remainder of Ferry County’s logs are

milled mostly in neighboring Okanogan County; Idaho mills the remainder of the Pend

Oreille County logs.

Table 15 outlines wood processing alternatives given potential harvests of CROP material. Higher returns are realized in products such as laminated veneer lumber and

market pulp. Lumber alternatives have a lower investment risk ratio, however. Pulp

processing requires the lowest quantity of raw wood material to profitably operate a

mill.

Willits et al. (1996: 10) indicate that “Douglas-fir and western larch have higher lumber

yields compared to lodgepole pine; lodgepole pine submerchantable logs have higher

yields of kraft pulp than sawmill residues, whereas Douglas-fir and western larch submerchantable logs have lower kraft pulp yields than sawmill residues; and lodgepole

pine submerchantable logs have lower yields in thermomechanical pulp than sawmill

residues.” Thus, to realize profits and protect investments, lumber mills need large

quantities of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and western larch

(Larix occidentalis Nutt.). If submerchantable lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex

Loud.) is the dominant available resource, lumber mills produce fewer value products,

but kraft pulp processors benefit from a strong byproduct industry using mill residue

from this species.

Small-diameter harvesting systems—Although harvester-forwarder systems minimize soil degradation and damage to the residual stand, operation can be costly compared to more conventional logging systems (Willits et al. 1996). Furthermore, Barbour

et al. (1995) determined that harvesting costs in cut-to-length systems can increase

drastically with small decreases in average stand diameters. These harvesting systems

are usually a barrier to local contractors due to the high capital investment required,

and if a consistent supply of raw material is not available, higher risks are incurred to

recover initial investments.

Qualitative methods enable researchers to explore complex connections between

people and forest policy by identifying and differentiating nuances not captured quantitatively. Qualitative analysis also can examine smaller units (e.g., stakeholder groups

in a community or county) than typically found in published socioeconomic studies

(Beckley 1998). Three general stages achieve research objectives: design, sampling,

and data analysis.

For this study, semistructured interviewing was the primary tool for collecting data. The

semistructured nature allows for open dialogue between interviewee and interviewer,

but it also attempts to keep the interview focused on topics salient to the discussion–

in this case, CROP stand conditions and management concerns (McCracken 1988).

Other data collection methods were considered but not used. Surveying (quantitative

and open-ended) does not provide the richness of an individual’s understanding and

explanation of issues. Focus groups did not provide the confidentiality and anonymity

to individuals as do one-on-one interviews, which researchers deemed highly important

for CROP issues that might be openly contentious. Focus groups, however, might be

an appropriate method to validate the social assessment findings. Ethnography was

not practical for the geographic size of the study area.

Methodology

Design
22

One-on-one interviews were conducted to develop an atmosphere that was genuine

and personal in order to discuss issues that might be serious, emotional, or complex.

A semistructured interview guide was designed to probe four topic areas: people’s attachment to the CNF and CROP program, their view of the CROP program, their perceptions of impacts from CROP management decisions on the individual and communities, and factors affecting the implementation of CROP management decisions (see

appendix 1 for specific questions asked per topic area).

The interview guide, developed in discussions with key informants concerning the

CROP program and researchers’ professional expertise, served as a tool to focus interviews on issues pertaining to CROP and to pursue these issues in depth. Sampling

procedures had to consider the geographical scope of the whole forest, spanning five

ranger districts, and stakeholders located in greater Spokane. The goal was to conduct

interviews with people representing a broad and diverse range of interests and values.

The sampling strategy began with key informants identified by each ranger and other

Forest Service staff who interact with the public, local representatives of organizations

and individuals named on the CNF key informant list, and local county and municipal

representatives. Referrals were requested from each interviewee to continue probing

local social networks.

Seventy-six interviews were conducted over 3 months. Interviews occurred in homes,

work places, and restaurants. All interviewees were asked to meet and discuss the

CROP program and their concerns about the national forest. If they declined the interview request (n<5), no further contact was made. At the first meeting, the researcher

informed them of the voluntary and anonymous nature of the interviews (see appendix

2 for the consent form orally discussed with each person). Interviewees were asked

permission for interviews to be tape recorded (two declined tape recording but accepted interviews). Tape recording was used only to improve data collection accuracy

and thoroughness and to allow the researcher to focus attention on the conversation

rather than taking notes. After interviews were completed, the researcher “debriefed”

herself by supplementing taped conversations with observed nonverbal behavior, further clarifications on particular ideas or concepts, and unrecorded statements spoken

when the recorder was not on.

Table 15—Comparison of wood processing alternatives for Inland Empire smalldiameter timber

Ratio of investment

to annual

Return to wood income

Annual wood

Product Low price High price Low price High price required

 – – – – – – – – – – Dollars/ft3 – – – – – – – – – – Million ft3

Oriented strand board 1.24 2.24 3.33 1.89 16.80

Stud lumber 1.10 1.31 1.39 1.17 14.00

Random-length dimension

lumber 1.11 1.32 1.87 1.57 13.80

Machine-stress-rated lumber 1.24 1.45 1.73 1.48 13.80

Laminated veneer lumber 2.23 3.84 2.04 1.27 11.60

Market pulp 1.90 3.60 8.75 4.61 4.60

Source: Spelter et al. 1996.

Sampling
23

All transcribed interview data were kept anonymous. Names and other identifying characteristics were removed. Excerpts used in the reports are identified only by a number

assigned to each interviewee. Furthermore, the interviewee number was replaced with

a “D” for some excerpts to prevent disclosure in other parts of the report.

Data analysis consisted mainly of inductive tactics to organize commonalities and differences found in the interview transcriptions (Miles and Huberman 1994). Through

interviewees’ own words, their perceptions of the forest, CROP stands, and management of the forest conditions were compared and contrasted to identify shared themes

as well as divergent beliefs (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Strauss and Corbin 1990). The

complexity that emerged from multiple stakes in CROP management and parties and

issues connected to the CROP program were then categorized to inform resource

managers of people’s fundamental values, positions, and perceived impacts.

Data Analysis
24

To characterize social impacts of forest management pertaining to the CROP program,

the structure of stakeholders, or interest communities, first had to be defined. The following groups of forest stakeholders were derived from inductive analysis of the social

assessment data. Groups were assembled based on commonalities and differentiated

by incompatibilities. Some groups overlapped (e.g., a person could be an avid recreationist while also a tribal member); other groups were distinct (e.g., an environmentalist

who advocates a zero-cut policy on public lands is most likely not a timber industry

manager).

Myriad components factored into each group’s definition, including political philosophies, values attached to the environment, employment affiliations, leadership roles,

organizational memberships, land ownership, leisure activities, and cultural identities.

Some groups were represented by organized clubs, professional affiliations, tribes, or

community civic bodies; other groups were fragmented but corresponded to common

activities dependent on the national forest.

The following stakeholder group typology uses commonly recognized identifiers or general descriptors grounded in the connection of each group to the forest. Criteria used to

categorize these stakeholder groups included interviewees’ self-defined attachment to

the CNF and CROP program; their knowledge and position on CROP management

directions; their perception of how the CROP program may impact their families, livelihoods, communities, and living environments; and their outlook on implementation of

the CROP program and challenges the program might encounter.7 Five stakeholder

groups, broadly defined, emerged from interviews:

• civic representatives

• commodity users

• environmentalists

• nonindustrial private forest land owners

• recreationists

Social Groups

7 Refer to the interview guide in appendix 1 for specific

questions that further clarify these topic areas.
25

Within each stakeholder group some diversity existed, necessitating further subgroup

reductions. Subgroups sometimes voiced competing positions on forest management

and policy issues, even though they shared values with others in their stakeholder

group.

Besides stakeholder groups, two other social groups—Native Americans and the

USDA Forest Service—were important participants in forest policy. Tribes have distinct

roles in the management of federal lands held in trust, including the CNF. Tribes are

domestic, sovereign governments with individual and collective laws, executive orders,

treaties, and memoranda of understanding relevant to national forest policy. And, obviously, the Forest Service has a key role in decisions and activities implemented within

the CNF. Their role, however, is unique to public stakeholder groups, thus necessitating a distinct category for their decisionmaking authority and land stewardship responsibility to the policy process.

The social group typology used throughout the social assessment was a tool to differentiate various themes or general positions on salient forest policy issues. Some

generalizations were inevitable and overlooked diversity within each social group. In

addition, individuals had overlapping interests and typically identified with more than

one social group. As the following groups are defined and further used to understand

competing interests in the local forest policy situation, it is important to recognize that

these themes are likely to be more clearly differentiated than are the actual individuals

who reside in the communities.

Detailed definitions follow for each stakeholder group and subgroup, the Forest Service, and tribes. Quotations are used generously to validate the authors’ understanding

of the social situation.8 All descriptions of social groups were derived from inductive

analysis of the social assessment data. Key concerns about forest management are

summarized below. These descriptions provide a social structure for subsequent chapters to differentiate various positions on issues surrounding small-diameter stand management and to analyze social impacts from the CROP program.

This group was comprised of people holding elected, appointed, or leadership positions

in the community; e.g., mayors, city council members, county commissioners, chamber

of commerce members, school administrators and boards, members of the clergy, economic development council members, and leaders of local civic organizations. This

group tended to support forest activities that would further economic development and

the quality of life for community residents.

The strength of their individual interest in forest issues differed considerably, mostly

due to other priority issues directly tied to their occupation or leadership role. But because communities and counties encounter multidimensional impacts from forest management decisions, civic representatives must consider how their organizations and

constituents are directly or indirectly affected. For instance, reductions in log supplies

potentially can decrease timber industry employment, thereby causing residents to

tighten their spending habits and affecting local tax bases and business revenues. City

governments and chambers of commerce are duly impacted. Not all impacts are as

straightforward. Interconnected aspects of community economy and quality of life tied

to the national forest made the task of identifying causes and effects of forest policy extremely difficult. Civic representatives grappled with this complexity, trying to optimize

impacts of forest management on communities.

Stakeholder Groups

Civic Representatives

8 Indented, italicized formatting sets the quotes apart

from the text. Assigned interviewee numbers are

included in parentheses.
26

Many saw active management, including timber production, of the national forest as

beneficial to the community. The tri-county area has consistently had some of the highest unemployment rates in Washington; therefore, maintaining and creating jobs was in

the forefront for many civic representatives. Continued employment and economic dependence on timber would boost community well-being. In addition, many civic representatives supported the Forest Service’s past actions to manage and regenerate the

forest. They often were skeptical about the environmental movement that strives to

curtail timber sales. They felt that active management can produce a valuable product

for the communities as well as promote environmental integrity.

I’ve been to meetings where an environmentalist got up and showed pictures: “Look at the damage here and a logger did it.” Well I’ve been in the

woods all my life and I’ve seen a lot of things done. When a logger is done,

he cleans it out, he piles his brush, and takes care of the run-off with waterbarring. In the places that have been cut, when you go back 3-4 years later

you have all this new growth. And you have all kinds of animals in there,

from the birds to the bears....Nature takes care of itself. (149)

So the Forest Service and its impact on the community with regard to small

diameter timber, if they want to literally deal with it and create a win-win

situation, then they would get in the forest and get that product out. In a way

that then promotes larger diameter timber by doing thinning and decent

forest management. (124)

The woods should be handled just like any other thing. It should be managed and logged. Shutting down the woods completely is not the right way

to do it. (138)

I was born and raised here. I know there came a time when we needed to

clean up our act. But as [a] whole they have. Everyone talks about timber

being depleted, but I can pull out pictures [from 50 years ago] and now look

at those places that are green. It’s been replanted through the forestry program the Forest Service does. There’s far more timber on it now then there

was on it 50 years ago. (148)

Key concerns were economic stability and development, quality of life, forest

aesthetics, and forest health.

Timber, ranching, and mining are the main natural resource industries in the tri-county

area. Timber extraction and processing are most relevant to the CROP program; however, ranchers and miners often shared similar management philosophies. This stakeholder group relies on the availability and access to use natural resources. To them,

prudent management of forests, grazing lands, and mining resources would increase

sustainable use for the long term. Their wise use philosophy in forest practices corresponded to balancing extraction with stand improvements and regeneration. It would

be an active management paradigm rather than a “hands off” approach.

They [environmentalists] want to stop all logging. But you go out in the

woods and you see these nice old trees. I don’t see the purpose of cutting

all those trees down. But why let them all rot and go to waste?! You should

utilize them. Timber is one of our few renewable resources. You cut the old

growth, yeah it might be another 100 years, but trees grow back! (150)

Commodity Users
27

In terms of managing federal lands for trees, water, air, animals and all

those things–standing back and looking at it is not my idea of good

management. (172)

Commodity users represented a majority of residents in the rural communities surrounding the CNF. With an ingrained history and tradition of using natural resources

for livelihoods and community development, timber remains a significant force in people’s lives and regional economies. A cadre of subgroups represented the diversity

within the natural resource commodity user stakeholder group:

• forestry consultants

• forestry technicians

• industrial wood products operations

• loggers

• mill workers

• mining operations and workers

• ranchers

• support organizations

Major private industrial wood products operations involved in processing wood fiber

from the tri-county area were Boise Cascade, Ponderay Newsprint, Ponderay Valley

Fibre, Stimson, and Vaagen Brothers;9 all operated sawmills except Ponderay (manufactures pulp and newsprint) and Ponderay Valley Fibre (chipping facility). In addition,

Washington Water Power operated a power generation station; however, its fuel–mill

residues–were procured from a much larger region than the tri-county area.

The key concern for industrial operations was a reliable, continuous supply of raw

materials. With declining sales and harvests and the decreasing log size coming from

national forest lands in recent years, each operation had to make adjustments. This

process included reducing their demand, retooling to accommodate small-diameter

logs, procuring more logs from fee and other private forest lands, and reducing mill

activity. Not only had this affected their businesses in the short term, but forest resiliency and sustainability in the long term also were jeopardized.

The Forest Service are not operating like they used to so it’s causing everybody to rethink what they’re doing. We hope at some point in time that the

Forest Service will figure out what they’re doing. It will never be the same

again, we all recognize that. But their ineptness is causing some forest

health issues because they need to remove some of that timber. It doesn’t

take a genius to look at the growth and yields; we’re growing a lot more timber than we’re harvesting. We have serious fuel buildups in the forest. (153)

Vaagen Brothers had a particular interest in the CROP program because its Colville

mill was equipped for small-diameter logs.

9 Vaagen Brothers had a relatively large operation in the

tri-county area, but it did not have the span of mills, fee

lands, and employees across the PNW Region available

to Stimson and Boise Cascade. It therefore would be

more accurately categorized as a small mill.
28

We are really confused and frustrated. We think we have such an answer to

the problem with the forests. That’s what we want to offer. But we can’t get

people to buy into it. Why don’t we thin and make a healthier forest? We’re

taking the trees nobody else wants and putting value into them....We are a

tool and a resource for them, not the other way around. (D)10

Other industrial operations included several relatively smaller sawmills, shake mills,

and pole producers. They typically were family owned. Continuous timber supply also

was a concern for these operations: furthermore, if raw materials became overly scarce

or prices became too high, their ability to stay profitable would be extremely difficult.

Most had to develop some specialized niche in the wood products market to preserve

product merchantability and business viability.

Mill workers, and loggers to some extent, experienced direct impacts from changes

occurring in area mills; thus, they also were concerned about raw material supplies to

the mills. Conflicting interests, though, could arise about on-the-ground activities. Mill

workers and loggers typically were residents in local communities as were large industry office managers.11 Yet, policies for industrial operations often came from corporate

headquarters located outside the area. An interesting dynamic can arise between those

making decisions on how to manage forest fee lands and mill operations and the local

people who must face the consequences of these actions.

Loggers, forest technicians, and forestry consultants (sometimes one and the same)

usually work contractually. Their key concerns revolved around continuous “jobs.” Decreases in the number of sales offered by the national forest–contract and green sheet

sales–reduced the demand for logging labor. To respond, they had diversified their

skills from logging to other silvicultural practices or traveled outside the area to find

additional logging jobs. Forestry consultants were less affected by sale reductions at

the national forest because they typically contracted for work with private landowners.

Both loggers and forestry consultants, however, expressed serious concerns about

management, or lack of, at the CNF. They viewed current policies as ignoring forest

health issues and failing to take a preventative course to mitigate catastrophic damage

to timber, watersheds, and habitat resources.

Their mortality far exceeds by many times what they harvest. For people

who are involved with timber products and producing, they see that as a

tragedy, or are sad to see a potential there not being utilized. The impact on

the area communities and economies that are timber driven are pretty

severe. (108)

Another subgroup, with which many of the above commodity users were affiliated, was

support organizations:

• county cattleman’s associations

• county conservation districts

• Ferry County Action League

• Northwest Timber Workers

10 D=interviewee identifier deleted. bvbvbvbvbvbvvvbbv

11 Stimson’s corporate headquarter was in Portland,

Boise Cascade in Boise, and Ponderay Newsprint in

Canada; Vaagen’s was locally owned.
29

• Public Lands Users Coalition

• Washington Contract Loggers Association

• Women in Timber

These organizations were active in the local communities through educational programs, participating in public involvement for city and county governments, and representing the interests of people working in natural resource-dependent industries.

In addition, these organizations often lobbied their interests at the state and national

levels, either independently or through their parent organizations.

We formed the Ferry County Action League to promote the benefits, the

good points that can happen from mining, farming and logging. Use common sense...point out the good and the bad from industry. We know the

greenies have accused the industry of greed and that’s part true. But we

can still cut trees without causing damage. (135)

All subgroups shared a common viewpoint, even if they disagreed on details: Natural

resources play an important role in local, national, and global economies. It would be

unwise, in their opinion, to ignore this role. Demand for wood products has not diminished even with electronic technology. Commodity users suggested that combining this

demand with a decreasing forest land base due to population and settlement growth

makes it all the more important to effectively manage the forests.

I believe that with our population growth and the demand for resources, we

really do have to manage our forests....it means some areas will have very

little management but nonetheless they should be managed. (154)

Active management to minimize waste and loss of resources while optimizing production was their desired policy. This did not preempt protection and stewardship of noncommodity resources. Most commodity users believed that commodity resource use

can occur while environmental integrity is maintained and even improved.

We can still have a pristine, healthy forest and still derive the resources from

it. (170)

They felt, furthermore, that timber is a renewable resource. Substituting nonrenewable

resource-based products for wood products seemed, in their minds, to contradict an

environmentally friendly consumption philosophy.

Forest health issues such as tree mortality, insect and disease epidemics, atypical fuel

loading and fire dynamics, and vegetation and physical structural changes in the forests worried many commodity users. Most advocated active management that would

intervene to mitigate potentially catastrophic disturbances, which could in the long term

cause more severe damage to endangered wildlife populations and habitat, soils,

riparian areas, biodiversity, and genetic heritage.

...many think logging is so bad, but mother nature is not as forgiving as the

logging. She just takes it all. When mud starts going down the hill, that’s the

way it is. If we got the amount of mud in the creeks [through logging] as

what happens after a fire, we’d all be in jail. That’s not saying natural fire is

bad. We’re just mimicking it when we do logging. It’s hard for people to

understand that. I think one big fire here, 50,000-100,000 acres, will wake

some people up. (136)
30

I have a preference for using the education and experience that I have to

manage the forest versus letting catastrophic events occur, repeatedly over

time. And that’s how nature has treated our forests over time, repeated

catastrophic events. The intervals have changed since man has intervened.

(154)

You can manage water, air, all those things if you actively manage. If you

don’t, you’re going to suffer consequences. And it’s usually catastrophic for

the streams. (172)

Everybody’s trying to manage for now and stop it. But we’re not going to

stop it. That forest is going to grow and die. Those people, if they believe the

way they do, they should never go to a doctor. If they have cancer, they

should get ate up. That’s their cure. That’s the same thing they’re looking at

in the forest. If it’s got a disease and it’s dying, why fix it? It’s natural. Well,

it’s natural for them to die same as the dammed forest. It’s a dumb mind set.

They take their kids to the doctor when they get sick; they take their car to

the mechanic. What are they thinking about? They get this mind set “we’re

going to keep it just like it is.” Well, I’m sorry, it’s just not going to happen....

go out and look. It’s natural, but nature can be very cruel sometimes. (130)

They also felt that local communities and dependence of society on the environment

were threatened by the failure to reduce catastrophic resource losses in terms of

economics, recreation, and cultural, and spiritual experiences.

Key concerns for commodity users included commodity resource use (timber, grazing,

and mining), forest health, biodiversity, and quality of life. The latter reflected their

source of livelihood and the aesthetics the forest provides to the areas they live in.

People in this group included those affiliated with environmental organizations as well

as those taking an independent interest in the environment. Organized groups located

in the tri-county area were:

• Kettle Range Conservation Group

• Pend Oreille Environmental Team

Others, located in the inland region and concerned with forest management of the CNF

were:

• Audubon Society

• Greater Ecosystem Alliance

• The Lands Council12

• Northwest Ecosystem Alliance

• Sierra Club

• Washington Environmental Council

In general, these groups advocated for conservation, and in some cases preservation,

of the environment’s components, processes, ecosystems, and spiritual, cultural, and

existence values. As to CNF management, environmentalists focused their attention on

two levels: overall policy directions and site-specific activities.

Environmentalists

12 Former name was Inland Empire Public Lands Council

(IEPLC).
31

Environmentalists strove to change policy coming from a body of laws and regulations

accommodating sustainable levels of resource use and protection, policies affecting

other national forests, state trust lands, and state forest practices guidelines for private

lands. To do this, they advocated a conservative approach for using, extracting, and

managing natural resources. Damage or irrevocable changes to the environment, they

believed, could be avoided or minimized if humans let natural forces work on their own.

We have a lot of information, but we still don’t have the answers, as a

society or as scientists, to sustain forests. All we know how to do is take

them apart albeit at a slower rate than we used to, and we’re not making as

many mistakes. But we’re still taking the forest apart. The end result is loss;

loss of our diversity, loss of species richness. Extinction rates are going up;

water quality is going down; air quality is going down. Deforestation is

behind a lot of that. That’s not all public lands, but that’s where we have a

body of law that we can work with, that we can stand up for as citizens.

(151)

Because current national forest management includes silvicultural treatments, which

are human interventions, environmental activist groups often monitor site-specific

activities. These “forest watch” efforts examine the intent of managers and actual

practices occurring on the ground to maintain the agency’s adherence to laws and

regulations.

Another issue for environmentalists was managing public lands for the greatest public

good. In terms of commodity uses, many felt that opportunities and businesses catering

to recreational services benefit more people and establish more sustainable economies

than does timber.

Extracting resources on the public lands doesn’t have a role. It’s not a viable

role on public lands, especially in the condition they are in and the pressures

that continue to grow....Commercial uses of the forest should be centered

around recreation. Recreation produces 38 times the revenue that logging

does. And it goes back to the treasury. And it has an incredible peripheral

economic benefit to the communities near the forest. Quality of life is difficult

to quantify. But it’s drawing all these people to this area because we’re surrounded by forests. (151)

But we have corporate welfare. The same thing is true with grazing. The

Forest Service is a net loss on both of those. If we’re going to manage it,

let’s go back and ask how the public is going to best benefit from the public

lands. I think the general public benefits best by having recreation. (156)

Some cited the need to have national forests supply more recreation because national

parks are being overused, thereby demonstrating the large public demand for this use.

Yet environmentalists were the first to caution against recreation becoming the primary

use of national forests. They felt that management needs to conserve ecosystems,

natural processes, and wildlife and habitat as well as moderate consumptive and

nonconsumptive forest resource use.

In this report, a distinction is sometimes made between environmentalists who support

a “zero-cut” policy and those who support some “light-impact” harvest activities on

national forests. Zero-cut environmentalists wanted nature to be the primary regulator

of the forest, thereby promoting natural conditions and processes to run their course
32

while minimizing human intervention. In their opinion, long-term environmental integrity

and society’s future well-being were in jeopardy based on current resource management practices. Thus, drastic changes to more conservative resource use and increased protection of the environment were called for.

Zero-cut environmentalists believed that these changes need to occur immediately,

including putting a stop to all timber harvesting and associated road building on public

lands, which they perceived to be a fundamental cause of environmental degradation.

Furthermore, other types of human intervention in the ecosystem, which are part of an

active management philosophy, were perceived to be unnatural, and preemptive of

nature’s own processes and time schedules. Human intervention, according to zerocut environmentalists, assumes a certain liberty to use and alter the environment. This

practice had negative connotations because it was largely viewed to be motivated by

short-term incentives, such as market values.

Zero-cut environmentalists felt that the only policy solution that would conserve and

protect vital forest resources would be banning commodity extraction of timber resources from the national forests. Common arguments appealing to this management

direction claimed that (1) only 4 percent of the Nation’s wood fiber comes from national

forest supplies; (2) such a small percentage is willingly sacrificed by consumers; (3) the

national forest timber sale program is a money loser; therefore (4) American taxpayers

lose not only tax dollars but also quality forests and ecosystems; and (5) the direct

benefactors of timber sales from public lands are industrial timber corporations.

The general feeling is that the forest is not managed for anybody except the

lumber companies. There’s some campgrounds, some wilderness areas.

But other than that, it’s whatever the lumber companies want, they get.

(155)

Our national forests are for the people, not just a tiny sector of the people

that’s providing 4 percent of our wood supply. (168)

If you keep the idea of public land in the public, then it’s not to be divided up

by whoever bids the highest price. (122)

This subgroup’s key concerns were biodiversity, retention of genetic heritage, society’s

long-term quality of life and survival, and naturalness of the environment’s species,

structures, and processes. Without immediate and drastic changes to the status quo,

zero-cut environmentalists believed that society and the environment would face

unrecoverable losses.

Light-impact environmentalists preferred a less extreme change in management direction for national forests. In their view, current environmental conditions are so altered

by previous human intervention, that if it is left to nature to remedy, further damage

might occur. Restorative measures are needed to help nature return to a more naturally

resilient state.

We’ve been managing these ecosystems for too long now to just walk away.

Again I’ve come to that conclusion reluctantly. I believe in some instances

we’re going to have to do something. (118)

They felt that timber harvesting and other silvicultural practices are part of restoration

activities but may not have a long-term future. This would depend on identifying sustainable levels of multiple resource use. Light-impact environmentalists argued that

prescriptive treatments must be ecologically motivated rather than market driven. They
33

cited the Forest Service’s history of “getting the cut out” to make annual sale quantity

(ASQ) targets as a policy that overlooks ecological needs to satisfy economic gains.

Instead, harvests, thinnings and other active treatments in the forest should occur only

to improve environmental conditions or alter its current state to better prepare it to respond to naturally occurring events. Some, for example, believed fuel levels to be

abnormally high. By intervening with light-on-the-land treatments, the fuel load could

be reduced; thus when fires started, the forest would experience low- to moderateintensity burns instead of stand-replacing fires that can sterilize soils, cause extreme

erosion, and eliminate habitat.

Light-impact environmentalists shared concerns with the zero-cut environmentalists but

disagreed slightly on the means to achieve changes in national forest policy. Similarly,

the urgency of such changes was believed important, yet light-impact environmentalists

felt that their approach was more realistic given the organizational culture of the Forest

Service and societal pressures placed on natural resource consumption.

For this study, nonindustrial private forest landowners (NIPFs) comprised a group of

people individually owning as little as 5 acres to as much as 3,000 acres of private forest land. They were a heterogeneous group whose level of management ranged from

none to intensive silvicultural treatments. Their management objectives were as diverse

as their interests. Some NIPFs had no interest in managing their stands for timber production, other than an occasional Christmas tree or firewood cut. Others wanted to encourage hiding cover for deer and elk or keep a few snags around for cavity nesting

birds. Others just preferred a forested view from their family room windows. For the

more intensive NIPF, some silvicultural practices were applied to extract timber or alter

the structure of their stands.

The NIPFs drew on various resources for their knowledge concerning forestry. The

USDI Natural Resource Conservation Service, Washington Department of Natural

Resources, and Washington State University Extension Service provided a wide range

of services to help NIPFs learn about forest stewardship, identify management objectives (if so desired), understand applicable regulations, implement forest management

practices, and attain available funding.

Most NIPFs want to do the right thing–they just need to know what “right” is

and how to do it; they honestly want to learn. (119)

Some NIPFs consulted with or hired private foresters to manage their lands.

One aspect of the CROP program directed toward NIPFs is technology transfer

(Quigley 1997). Through Washington State University Extension Service, funding is

provided to aid NIPFs in managing their own small-diameter trees. Extending technology to these landowners benefits not only their lands but potentially the greater landscape as well.

Typical ownership of private nonindustrial forest lands was fairly young. Many purchased their lands, especially the small-acreage parcels, within their own generation.

One common occurrence on these types of lands was stands that suffered frequent

thinnings or harvests, leaving only submerchantable timber with deteriorated ecological

properties. This added to confusion and frustration for the NIPFs, because their lands

might require more active management than they thought at time of purchase to sustain desirable conditions.

Nonindustrial Private

Forest Landowners
34

I knew there would be some management involved [when we purchased

this land], but how we were going to manage, I did not know. (112)

What you see a lot more in the private sector in the last 5-6 years, the

overall condition of the stands on NIPF lands has declined. That’s where

all the wood’s coming from since the national forest’s curtailed their sale

programs....And there’s been pressure because of the increasing regulatory

burdens. Those fears and the cycle right now of this area being popular to

move to–you see a lot of ground converted in one way or another. It goes

from a 160 acre timber land block to a whole bunch of 20 acre home sites.

(171)

It therefore is up to each NIPF’s discretion to manage (including no active treatments)

his or her own land. The only legal constraints are county zoning and state forest

practices regulations.

Adjacency to national forest lands posed an interesting dynamic to some NIPFs. Activities, or the lack of, occurring in the CNF could have direct impacts on neighboring

NIPF lands. Insect, disease, and noxious weed problems, for example, easily can cross

ownership boundaries. Similarly, a particular vegetation type and physical structure of

one owner’s stand could directly influence wildlife, riparian characteristics, fuel loading,

and tree mortality for an adjacent landowner.

Reducing causes of tree mortality, on their own lands as well as in the CNF, was the

key concern for most NIPFs. They preferred a visually appealing forest providing a

variety of resources (commodity and noncommodity). Resource losses from natural

and human-caused disturbances were viewed typically as negative impacts.

A variety of recreational opportunities exist in the national forest, including hunting and

fishing, hiking, trail riding, snowmobiling, skiing, huckleberry picking, birding, biking,

camping, all-terrain vehicle use, wilderness exploring, and more. The recreationists

stakeholder group was quite diverse and voiced competing positions on forest management policies. One way to characterize the subgroups was to look at consumptive and

nonconsumptive recreation: Hunting, fishing, and berry gathering corresponded to the

former; hiking, trail and road use, and wilderness exploring corresponded to the latter.

Nonconsumptive recreation could be subdivided into different levels of resource impact;

e.g., low impact birding, moderate-impact horseback riding, and high-impact snowmobiling. The result of various impacts on and consumption of forest resources led to

some conflicts among recreational subgroups. Most recreationists enter the forest to

seek fun, adventure, and relaxation. But contact with people who enjoy one type of

activity may disrupt the activity of others.

Conflict among recreationist subgroups was further exacerbated by other stakeholder

groups. For instance, hunters objected to political activism by some environmentalists,

and backpackers disapproved of some silvicultural practices used by timber

harvesters.

Despite the diversity within this stakeholder group, most shared a common interest:

Recreation on the national forest provides many enjoyable experiences for many

people. Often, these recreational opportunities are not available to people unless they

come to public lands such as national forests. Many local residents use the forest as

well, often viewing it as an extended backyard. Thus, access to these lands was a key

concern, especially because the national forests are public lands.

Recreationists
35

It’s federal land, the federal government is us; and the people feel that we

should be able to walk in the forest, ride our bikes, hunt, camp....This $5 fee

and road closures are real negative from a lot of people’s perspectives.

(124)

Then they want to block off all these roads. I know a lot of people who are

disabled. They can’t go out and hike, but they like to drive out in the national

forest and look. (165)

My only complaint about it is that they close so many of the roads. I know

they have reasons, but it irritates me. The gates are locked, and they

prohibit us natives from doing what we like to do. (116)

Other concerns included maintaining trails, roads, and facilities; transferring information

about the forest and its management to recreational users; enhancing recreational

opportunities without sacrificing environmental integrity of the forest; and keeping user

fees at an appropriate level.

Native American tribes have sovereign nation status and therefore were categorized

differently than the aforementioned stakeholder groups. Sovereignty grants different

legal and consultation rights to tribes with respect to national forest land management

decisions. Three tribal governments had interests in the management of the CNF:

• Colville Confederated Tribes

• Kalispell Tribe

• Spokane Tribe

Although each tribal government is unique and had individual agreements with the

CNF, they share some common interests in national forest activities and policies. For

example, the tribes identified their key concerns as resources associated with their

traditional use and ways of life; areas of cultural and spiritual importance; hunting,

fishing, and plant gathering; and water quality.

[Our interests include] attempting to maintain, or preserve, or reestablish as

much of the traditional uses as [we] can. (115)

The policymaking process, per se, was a more fundamental issue than specific on-theground activities. The national forest comprises lands held in trust for the tribes; certain

legal rights apply to these lands.

The Colville National Forest is inside the first Colville Reservation....In the

process of losing that reservation, the Colville tribes never did abrogate their

rights on that land. (173)

Consultation between each tribe and the Forest Service was preferred, rather than

each tribe being considered as a typical “public” in the public involvement process.

Tribes have legal rights through federal laws, treaties, and agreements for lands held in

trust. One aspect of these rights is consultation government to government. Therefore,

if any agency, such as the Forest Service, fails to consult with a tribe in this manner, it

has not met its legal obligations.

Even though some of the ranger districts and the supervisor’s office had informal links

to tribal representatives, a formal consultation process with each tribe was not, and is

not, in place for the CNF. Each tribe wanted to develop a more collaborative relation

Tribes
36

with the Forest Service to increase the agency’s understanding of tribal rights, interests, and views on forest management. Several tribal advocates cited a general lack of

understanding on the agency’s part of tribes’ traditional use and spiritual connection to

the forest. Thus, consultation before drafting of management alternatives and decisionmaking would allow more flexibility to design options incorporating tribal interests. In

addition to the tribes desiring the agency to actively fulfill consultation obligations, the

tribes also were working to formalize this process by developing an organizational protocol within each tribe for this purpose and forming relations with the Forest Service.

Line officers and staff of the CNF comprised this stakeholder group for the purpose of

this report. Residents of local communities were familiar with employees at the district

and supervisor’s offices. Their references to the Forest Service typically concerned

these employees, whereas distinctions were made for Forest Service employees at

regional, national, and research station offices.

The Forest Service’s stake in the CROP program differed from other stakeholder

groups, in large part, because the Forest Service is the lead decisionmaker for management directions in the national forest. With this role come responsibilities: some

formalized through laws, regulations, agency directives, and case law; and some

through informal, cooperative relations with adjacent communities, landowners, and

other public land and resource managers.

Forest Service personnel span a diverse range of expertise. For example, the CNF

staff included foresters, silviculturists, timber sale planners, reforestation planners,

wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, botanists, ecologists, hydrologists, landscape

architects, geographic information system specialists, trail coordinators, recreation

planners, wilderness specialists, archaeologists, range conservationists, geologists,

mineral managers, civil engineers, fire officers, law enforcement officers, and various

administrative support specialists.

Disagreements can arise over preferred management directions among different specialists. A silviculturist, for instance, may have one set of concerns about a unit and a

fisheries biologist another set. To some degree, these differences are constructive in

achieving interdisciplinary management goals. In other cases, rifts can occur that are

damaging to the resources and to the credibility of the Forest Service. As with members of previously described stakeholder groups, the Forest Service staff shared many

commonalities; however, variability–professional expertise and individual values–

existed within the agency.

The CNF has five ranger districts; two districts share the same ranger and about half

their staff. Each district has CROP stands, but the Kettle Falls and Colville districts

have higher concentrations and focus more resources on managing these stands. The

Forest Service often targets management activities at CROP stands because biological

and physical characteristics fail to meet management objectives. Historic vegetation

and habitat types factor into management objectives, as do riparian conditions and

resiliency to disturbances, to improve vigor, minimize mortality, and increase structural

diversity of the forest. Actual treatment—intervention in a stand—typically occurs on

small patches across the larger landscape and over long periods.

Some folks get this mind set that we treat every piece of fiber....Within a

watershed there’s more happening that’s unimpaired than what’s getting

treated at any time. (157)

Forest Service
37

These objectives and treatments differ by district and across the larger landscape.

The Forest Service’s motto is “Caring for the land and serving people.” Thus, in addition to variables concerning the land, other decisionmaking variables included in management planning processes and treatments are of social, economic, and political

natures: laws and regulations, standards and guidelines, public involvement, budget

allocations, and overall political context. As forests and forest resources continue to

have significant importance to the public, line and staff officers often find themselves in

the middle of contentious management policy debates. Owing to the scale, multiple

uses and values, and symbolic meanings attached to CROP stands across the CNF,

the Forest Service recognizes that competing stakeholder interests further complicate

management directions for an already complex ecological situation. Their key concerns

in making decisions on why, what, where, when, and how to treat (or not treat) particular CROP stands integrates forest resiliency, watershed conditions, habitat types, biological and physical ecosystem characteristics, biodiversity, timber variables, silvicultural tools and harvesting variables, road issues, and other resource considerations.
38

Small-diameter stands, with the characteristics of slow growth, low crown ratios, and

high trees-per-acre densities, are a familiar condition to many CNF stakeholders. Public

forest managers, foresters from industrial lands, and NIPFs have attempted to manage

these stands for several decades; thus, various strategies to achieve management

objectives on these stands have been tested. With the CROP legislation telling the

CNF to initiate silvicultural treatments through adaptive management, public discourse

concerning these small-diameter stands has begun to occur.

One objective of the social assessment was to explore this discourse and learn about

various stakeholders’ perceptions of the CROP program. This section takes an indepth

look at salient issues that stakeholders associated with the CROP program. Five broad

issues comprised their interests:

• evaluating CROP research program objectives

• CROP stands: value definitions and perceived risks

• preferred stand treatments

• economic considerations

• social dynamics

Each issue involved various points of contention exemplified by the differing values

attached to CROP stands by stakeholder groups and perceived impacts of the CROP

program. To understand the debates surrounding the CROP program, a brief description first summarizes the issue.13 Then, a discussion section explores the similarities

and differences among the values, attachments, and positions on the issue held by the

Issues

13 Positions identified in this chapter that correspond

to stakeholder groups, tribes, and the Forest Service

are somewhat generalized. This tactic focuses on commonalities rather than individual differences of members

within a particular group. Differentiations are made by

subgroup when significant differences surface. Some

variability exists within each group.
39

impacted stakeholder groups. A summary matrix provides a snapshot of the complex

debate over each issue by juxtaposing each group’s key concerns, belief statement

about the importance of the issue, and position on desirable management directions.

The section concludes by noting the different emphases placed on issues by communities within the tri-county region.

All discussion of the issues and positions of the social groups emerged from inductive

analysis of the social assessment data. Quotations are generously used to validate the

authors’ understanding of the social situation. This qualitative approach exposed various layers of social complexity surrounding the issues and the local knowledge about

the CROP program and CNF management and policy.

The main objective of the CROP program is to implement silvicultural treatments on

“over-crowded, slow-growing, fire-originated stands of small diameter trees” (USDA

1994). Owing to concerns about stand productivity and vigor, attention is focused on

thinning, harvesting, and reintroducing fire. Silvicultural treatments are intervention

strategies, ranging from no treatment to letting nature “run its own course.” The following discussion outlines different preferred management directions, including perceptions by the stakeholder groups of the general CROP program and identification of their

underlying concerns. Aspects in the debate included the natural evolution of these

stands; the costs and benefits evaluated in terms of economic, ecological, and social

measures; and the motivation to take an active management approach.

Commodity users generally supported the CROP program and cited benefits that

included improving forest conditions, diversifying timber production, increasing wildlife

habitat, reducing risks of fire and insects, promoting mature stands, and generating

more recreational and aesthetic opportunities. Many commodity users believed that

CROP stands, if left on their own, would not realize these benefits or at least not at the

magnitude possible with silvicultural treatments.

We will modify those stands so they continue to change in structure toward

an older, more mature stand. That’s one of the primary objectives. This has

several advantages. One being that you develop that particular stand’s

structure into some particular habitat a critter needs. The second reason is

that we’re developing some high quality wood products in the process. At

some point in time, those stands will be taken back to zero and the cycle

repeats itself. If we understand the environment, and I’m not sure we do,

but the researchers do think that we need a certain percent of those stands

in older, mature states....To do that we have to manage the stand because

they’ll never get to a mature state and develop into that specific habitat.

(154)

So if you thin and [do] other management, you’re apt to have a healthy

stand that will be there much much longer. It supplies wood, material and

products. Your opportunity for fire is lessened if you manage it, keep it

healthy. You’re protecting your watersheds that way than leaving it to fire.

There’s a lot of positive trade-offs, and yes there are some negatives. (172)

We have a choice to let them burn or try and get something out of these

lodgepole and tamarack stands. (166)

It’s a good idea. We need to manage these stands; turn them around and

make them more productive. Either by thinning or if that’s too far gone, then

wipe it out and start all over again. (146)

Evaluating CROP

Research Program

Objectives

Description

Discussion
40

Even though they generally agreed with CROP program objectives, this stakeholder

group vented their frustration with the timely need to treat these stands, citing the many

years that the Forest Service has been studying small-diameter stands and, in their

opinion, not accomplishing much on the ground.

You can throw dollars at it forever while you try to figure out what to do.

But there’s a lot of consensus within industry, non-industrial foresters and

agency people that this needs some treatment. So let’s start treatment and

generate some revenue. A lot of these stands don’t need to have complicated, convoluted timber sales. They can be laid out relatively simply and

start generating some revenue and get something done to improve the

situation. (171)

I’m simple. If it needs fixing, you go do it. You don’t go through four years of

study and pay 500 people to argue over how it needs to be done. There’s

just way too much government, and it’s gotten so out of touch. (130)

The CROP program is a good program for the forest. It’s been 20 years

they’ve been thinking about it. If the [stands] were bad 20 years ago, can

you imagine what they’re like now? If they keep messing around, the little

bit of material that can be recovered is not going to be usable for anyone.

Waste not, want not. We want it, we don’t want to waste it. (143)

Although most commodity users supported the CROP program, there were some

concerns about which wood product processors would benefit the most from largescale implementation of thinning and harvests. Vaagen Brothers operated a sawmill for

small-diameter logs in Colville, and a Ponderay Valley Fibre chipping operation was

located in Usk. Most likely, these processors would consume a larger proportion of logs

and chippable material from treated CROP stands. Other processors, citing short- and

long-term supply needs for their operations and ecological benefits to the forest, would

need to maintain some level of large log sales in addition to small-diameter stand

treatments.

I’ve got a lot of concerns about this is all they’re headed for. And we’ve got

these other older stands that are starting to fall apart. We’ve got bugs in

them and lots of other problems. All they’re going to promote is a forest

health problem. The bugs are going to keep spreading. And we’re leaving

those trees. We should concentrate on those stands in addition with this

small stuff. That’s one of my concerns as a forester: What are we accomplishing? Are we doing anything good for the stand or are we just making a

timber sale? One that benefits one mill, a few loggers? But is it really helping

the forest? I don’t know. I don’t think so. It’s not releasing the stands to

grow. So I’ve begun to have the opinion that the Forest Service is not out

here to grow trees. And that’s what a lot of people around here feel. (136)

The CROP program is a good program. They can sell small trees...[but]....

it’s senseless to put up a timber sale that has four units of harvestable

volume and six units of 4" material and trying to sell it on the open market.

They’re catering to only one facility in our area: Vaagen’s. I would say all the

sales are designed for Vaagen’s. (172)

Environmentalists were more skeptical of the CROP program, thinking it a furtive effort

to maintain or increase timber production levels in the national forest. This timber emphasis was perceived to be another attempt to ignore the importance of conserving
41

nontimber resources. Biodiversity and the natural successional role of CROP stands,

they believed, cannot be attained through large-scale human intervention in the forest.

The CROP program symbolized human manipulation of ecosystems without regard to

nature’s processes and inherent values. The real question at issue seemed to be

whether treating small-diameter stands would be motivated by economic desires or

ecological needs.

The whole CROP program emphasis, whether it’s thinning from below or

salvage, is a futile attempt to bring back the past. An attempt to capture the

glory days. Failure to recognize that–anything in that direction–is short term;

it’s nothing that can be sustained on any level. (118)

The CROP report is skewed toward commercial usage of the forest, of doghair stands. Commercial use is one use of a multiple use paradigm. It’s

supposed to be in place, but it is the dominant theme: “If we can make any

money off this stand, then it’s useful. If we can’t make money off this stand,

then we’ve got to do something to it to make it commercially useful.” That

doesn’t make sense to me. As a citizen, an owner of those lands, I watch

the money go upstream, over the ridge, and then into some stockholder’s

pocket someplace. I don’t see the money going back into the local community. I don’t see progress being made. (151)

If you can find a biological reason to go in and do a small amount of logging

or firewood cutting, then you can do it. But it’s not a situation to make money

off it—no commercial cuts. (122)

For me it’s the philosophical reason why one does it. If the goal of CROP

is to produce board feet for timber harvest, I don’t know if I’m absolutely

in favor of that. If the goal is to mirror natural management by fire, because

fire is very mosaic as it burns the forest, then there might be reason to thin,

open up some areas, and in other areas to leave that post-fire climax

species. (156)

In response to environmentalists questioning the motivation behind the CROP program,

the Forest Service tended to emphasize healthy forest conditions as its primary management objectives.

The focus is forest health....We’re trying to move the stands toward an

older, more mature stand which have a lot of ecological value. You could

also argue they have a lot of economic value if it’s done right. So both, but

the driver is definitely forest health not economics. We wouldn’t compromise

the forest health to achieve some economic goal. (157)

Furthermore, the CROP program, although it corresponds to over 110,000 acres, does

not aim to treat every stand. Ecologically an aggregate conversion is not desirable;

economically it is not feasible.

It’s never been our objective to eliminate all these small diameter

stands....Our assumption is that we can probably tend to the stands that are

relatively close to a road, not too steep. We need to use ground-based

equipment. We’ve been operating from that perspective for about 10 years.

(176)
42

But caution was recommended. The Forest Service stressed a need to keep the CROP

program grounded in site-specific objectives for each stand, thereby preventing a “one

size fits all” implementation strategy.

The milling structure of this area makes it fairly conducive, but the biggest

concern I have is that it doesn’t become a runaway snowball. (111)

Civic representatives raised concerns about how the CROP program would impact

local communities. Quality of life issues, such as aesthetic surroundings and economic

dependence on forest resources, topped their list. Moreover, because the Forest Service is a federal agency, they questioned decisions made in Washington, DC, and

Portland, OR (headquarters for the Pacific Northwest Region). Fears arose over nonlocal policies and authorities dictating decisions affecting local lands. For example, civic

representatives believed that the voices of local residents are discounted and unique

ecosystem characteristics and site variability of the CNF are overlooked. Thus, eventual on-the-ground activities may not meet local social acceptability or achieve desired

ecological objectives.

Main concerns for tribes about the CROP program revolved around legally mandated

consultation rights: to involve each tribe in the decisionmaking process. They viewed

themselves as groups distinct from public citizens and as having unique land trust and

treaty rights. Their traditional uses of the national forest often integrated cultural, spiritual, and material aspects of resource use and stewardship. Although incorporating

tribal interests into forest policy is mandated, several tribal advocates felt the Forest

Service was not completely complying with legal directives.

They’re in absolute noncompliance. There is no official consultation process

between the Okanogan National Forest and the Colville National Forest and

the tribal government. (173)

Table 16 summarizes stakeholder groups’ general concerns and positions about the

CROP management and research program.

CROP stands can have multiple attributes depending on views by stakeholders of

CROP stands within the larger context of the national forest landscape and society’s

dependence on natural resources. The key issues framing the debate over specific

stand treatments question whether these small-diameter stands contribute or detract

from the forest in terms of ecological value (e.g., providing wildlife habitat, structural

diversity, successional role), resilience to disturbances, and social impacts. The

valuation by stakeholders–the relative importance of the presence and function of

CROP stands–varied. This section identifies competing value differences that factored

into stakeholders’ preferred management directions to silviculturally treat or not treat

those stands. One component that influenced the stakeholders was the perceived risk:

What would communities, society, the forest, and environment risk by leaving stands in

their current state? What would be risked by modifying the biophysical structure of

stands? Many stakeholder groups believed CROP stands to comprise an unusually

large percentage of the forest landscape. Yet, this shared recognition led to differing

beliefs about how the Forest Service should proceed.

The concept of forest health was generally believed to be a positive condition, although

specific definitions of what this would mean on the ground differed by site, time span,

appropriate resource use, ranges of historic ecological deviation, and so forth. Thus,

different stakeholder groups often proffered competing definitions of forest health, depending on their values attached to the forest and beliefs about desirable forest management. Identifying stakeholders’ perceptions of risk–what threatens maintainance or

restoration of forest conditions–clarified these various definitions of a healthy forest.

CROP Stands: Value

Definitions and

Perceived Risks

Description

Discussion
43

Table16—General concerns of stakeholder groups about the CROP programStakeholder group Key concerns Belief statement PositionCivic representatives Quality of life, Local forest conditions differ from other PNW Make local decisions based on local

cultural values Region national forests and within the CNF.a conditions, variability, and impacts.

Local residents often feel alienated bydecisions made in Washington, DC, andPortland, OR.

Commodity users Forest health, Forest and timber resources are limited, yet The Forest Service should actively manage

timber the demand for wood products continues to these stands to enhance timber and other

grow. Efficient use of these resources means resources. Local timber supplies can beimplementing practices that promote forest harvested in conjunction with ecologicallyhealth. sensitive practices.

Environmentalists Biodiversity CROP is another attempt to reach allowable The Forest Service needs to respect nature

sale quantities. If there really are too many and natural processes; thus, they shouldsmall-diameter stands, let nature regulate preserve the precious resources andchange biodiversity left in the national forests.

Forest Service Forest health, The feasibility to implement CROP depends on Prescribe treatments based on site-specific

ecosystem many variables: site-specific characteristics, characteristics and grounded in largerelements technologies, forest health conditions, program and landscape objectives.

management objectives, and funding. And itmust be socially acceptable.

Tribes Cultural values, Tribes have unique standing and mandated The Forest Service should formally consult

spirituality consultation rights with federal agencies. with tribes on proposed actions. Traditional

uses should be preserved for tribalmembers on the lands held in trust.

a CNF = Colville National Forest.
44

Commodity users believed that CROP stands handicap the forest’s multiple-use resource base. In their assessment, CROP stand conditions yield marginally marketable

timber resources; are underproductive, thereby reducing future merchantable timber

supply; and are strongly susceptible to catastrophic losses and damage, which jeopardizes not only timber but also recreation, habitat, soil, water, air, and wilderness resources. This stakeholder group defined CROP stands as having low economic value

and posing serious mortality risks. Thus, they would like the Forest Service to intervene

with active management to encourage higher growth rates and minimize the likelihood

of losses from insects, disease, storm breakage, and fire.

These fire-generated stands, most of them are 50-90 years. They are

stands that have not progressed as rapidly as they should have. They’re

stagnant stands for the most part. Few trees are showing dominance. These

stands are subject to fire all over again. If we don’t treat these stands some

way, they’re going to go back to zero age. My guess is in the next 30-50

years, these stands will all go back to zero age class. Catastrophic fire is the

most imminent and probably [will] be affiliated with an insect epidemic. (154)

All of those acres aren’t good for anybody; the timber’s not growing, it’s not

good wildlife habitat. A lot of it’s in good hydrological health, providing watershed protection, but that is in danger of disappearing at any moment if we

get another catastrophic fire in those stands. I don’t see anything positive

in that situation. Something needs to happen, or something will happen

sooner or later. Fire–there’s no question. That’s the history in this part of the

world....The classic science tells us that when lodgepole gets to be 80 years

old or this big around [gestures 6 to 8 inches], then it’s ripe for bark beetle

infestations. We’ve got thousands of acres of that on the Colville National

Forest that’s just coming to that stage. That will make a very hazardous fire

situation–making what already exists that much worse. If this stuff is all of

sudden dead and laying on the ground, it’s a bad deal. (171)

The stands are totally unproductive, and they’re going to be that way until

the next fire comes through. (142)

...when they did logging in the early 1900s, what came back was Douglas-fir

and a bunch of these small diameter stands....The Doug-fir would cause a

drought stress even in the good years. And we’re in a moisture limiting

area...,so our pines were stressed and susceptible to beetles. (166)

Many commodity users defined disturbances that threaten resource productivity, commodity values, and resource mortality as risks jeopardizing forest health. If these disturbances were severe, resulting in large losses of resources, they would be viewed as

catastrophic to the forest as well as to the people, fish, and wildlife dependent on the

forest.

I’m just concerned with what they’re [the Forest Service] doing forestry-wise.

We’re going to end up with a fire up here like people have never seen. I

think it’s going to happen. One of these years will be our year. This is a fire

ecosystem and in all those stands where it happened before, it’s going to

happen again. And the funding for fire fighting has gone down....And we

have a lot more people living out in the woods so they concentrate their

efforts protecting homes. The timber burns....I just know what’s going to

happen—there’s so much dying stuff out there. And it’s not that far from

Colville. (136)
45

It will burn again. The Forest Service knows this. It has to turn over. You

can’t have a lodgepole stand forever, it’s a cover crop then you have the

next generation. It’s either going to come by fire or get all sick and die. (130)

Commodity users believed that active management grounded in silviculture could

mitigate these risks and, thus, reduce resource losses.

The main risk is that the entire forest dies and goes through that cycle like

any garden at your house would if you let the weeds take over. Your desirable material, in this case trees, is squeezed out, you have an unhealthy

forest that dies. In one sense it burns, or in another sense through bug kill.

It’s going to die one way or another....If it’s a managed forest, treated with

prescribed thinning treatments, that forest is going to be healthy for generations to come. Your wildlife is going to be thicker, everything is going to

flourish. Whereas in an unmanaged, untreated forest that is left to nature,

there will be little to no life there. (128)

If the timber is thinned out, then if a fire does come, it goes through fast and

it doesn’t do too much. But if you’ve got too much of a fuel load, it will just

devastate it. (165)

There’s real obvious risks. Wildfire: when you allow stands to develop to

the point they’re going to burn, they will burn....Sooner of later the trees

die, whether it’s disease, infestation....That’s what sets the stage for fires.

There’s a natural thinning process that can be emulated. That’s basically

what forest management is all about. An active emulation of getting the

trees to grow and keeping them healthy. (172)

Environmentalists, however, placed more value on the intrinsic nature of the forest

rather than resource productivity when compared to commodity users. Healthy forest

conditions, according to environmentalists, involved nature-regulated systems, which

they believed would allow for appropriate species and density stocking levels, landscape and temporal vegetation and habitat patterns, and disturbance resiliency. This

nature-regulated system may at times experience low resource productivity episodes

but, they felt this would be “natural” and would have a function in succession.

The concept of forest health had some negative connotations in the policy arena

according to environmentalists. Due to the wide use and association with tree mortality,

forest health initiatives often were viewed as a ploy to extract more timber from the

national forests. They perceived forest health initiatives to be motivated by economic

gains rather than by ecological improvements to the forest.

The Forest Service also was concerned about the forest health character of these

stands in terms of their contribution to watersheds and the greater landscape. As an

individual component and as part of the landscape, a CROP stand was valued by its

ecological properties and functions. Many believed the Colville National Forest to have

an abundance of CROP stands and referenced historical data on disturbances and

ranges of variability (HRVs). More variability in age, size, and structure within these

stands and across the landscape, therefore, would encourage higher levels of biodiversity, thereby benefitting wildlife, recreation, timber resources, and forest health.
46

We’ve always recognized that there’s more CROP stands out there now

than there ever have been historically. And it is out of alignment with what

ecosystems should have....The main motivation is the ecosystem restoration. These stands have stagnated, they’re dying....They just don’t contribute a lot; they do contribute some. But they don’t contribute a lot of the

diversity, habitat for species. So we’re trying to convert them to something

that provides more habitat for a greater variety of species. That along with,

to a lesser extent, silvicultural objectives–these stands are stagnated,

they’re not producing the growth. (176)

They’re basically very overstocked and starting to get suppressed—growth,

vigor. There are stands that are not suitable for larger wildlife species

because there’s a lack of ability for animals to develop trails in them and

forage. They are slowly losing stability—the trees are losing the amount of

crown on them—the tops are starting to break out, allowing for snow damage. They are also reaching the age and character that even if we treat

them, they may not respond to treatment. So if we don’t do something fairly

soon, we may end up with these stands for a while. (114)

...many of the areas where we have CROP stands are where we have

concerns about insects and fire. They’re overly dense so their growth is

slowed down....A lot of those stands tend to break up at an early age, things

die and fall over; a lot of slash buildup....The other thing is low crown ratios,

maybe 30 percent or less in crown. Then the vigor of the tree drops off over

time....So a lot of the CROP stands have this structure where you have

these tall, whippy trees. It doesn’t take much of a disturbance to get insects,

disease, fire or weather in there. So there are many silvicultural reasons

why these stands come up a high priority for treatment as opposed to other

stands. (157)

Environmentalists similarly focused on the importance of forest biodiversity, but they

believed that CROP stands play important ecological and successional roles to this

end. They would like forest managers to recognize these roles even though timber

resources may not be highly productive in this stand type.

I look at dog hair as...a response to location, an initial response to a

stochastic event like fire or clearcutting. What happens is the lodgepole pine

serves as a nurse crop to late seral and mid-successional species; it preps

the soil, it holds the soil in place, it provides nutrients, habitat. To me, that’s

a higher value than pulp. It does everything it’s suppose to do. It preps the

location for the next stage in succession, which is its function. (151)

Environmentalists also valued natural succession as opposed to managed forests,

which they perceived as manipulations to naturally caused changes. They felt that the

quality of naturalness would be partially compromised when humans intervene with

silvicultural treatments intended to quickly move dense, stagnated stands to ones with

higher growth and different biophysical structures. Many argued for forest managers to

have patience and let nature run its course.

The lodgepole is falling over, the cedar and hemlock are coming in. It takes

a long time. Those trees are slow growing and it’s pretty tight. When you’re

managing you’d like to see a big tree in 60 years, but those trees, the way
47

they are, [are] probably going to take over 100 years. Not quite doing it quite

the way the PhD’s would like it to happen. It’s still going to happen. There’ll

be a more mature canopy there one day. I’m not worrying if things aren’t

happening as fast. (122)

Civic representatives and NIPFs both evaluated CROP stands by using multiple

values, including aesthetics, timber, forest cover, habitat, and other ecological properties. Civic representatives placed a high priority on deriving jobs and developing profitable, resource-dependent community economies from the national forest. CROP

stands, therefore, were less desirable to them than larger diameter, higher growth

stands, which were perceived to provide better recreational opportunities, quality timber

production, and more visually appealing surroundings. Civic representatives believed

that CROP stands do not fulfill the forest’s potential to generate productive and ecologically beneficial stands. Furthermore, they associated a host of risks with CROP stands,

which would jeopardize long-term community economic stability and environmental

biodiversity and health.

The concern of NIPFs over CROP stands was twofold. Many NIPFs had similar stands

on their lands, which were proximate to the national forest. Aesthetics, habitat, and

forest health issues, therefore, often directly impacted them. Depending on each NIPF

landowner’s interest and management intensity, the concerns about potential risks

associated with their CROP stands and those on the CNF differed. However, some

NIPFs had already used silvicultural treatments on their small-diameter stands, ranging

from thinning to reestablishing stands with different species. These private forest land

owners offered their treatments as working examples that the Forest Service could

evaluate and integrate into the CROP program. Part of the CROP program is to offer

technology transfer to aid NIPFs in managing their CROP stands; thus, collaboration

potential exists, helping both NIPFs and the Forest Service.

Few recreationists placed a high value on CROP stands: riding and hiking are practically impossible through such dense stands; huckleberries do not grow in closed

patches; and, with the exception of lynx and their prey, most wildlife avoid such thick

cover. As insects, disease, and breakage occur, these stands become even less

appealing to recreationists. If wildfire were to occur at catastrophic levels, long-term

recreational opportunities might suffer major losses to trail systems, road access, and

wildlife and scenic appeal.

Yet, some recreationists did not recognize CROP stands as anything out of the

ordinary:

I may have seen them, but not known what I was looking at. We just ride the

trails. If they’re there, I haven’t noticed them. If there’s [a] clearcut, that’s

what I notice. (116)

Ultimately, many stakeholders agreed that fire is inevitable. But the magnitude, intensity, and frequency of acceptable wildfire raised a debate. Although most components

of wildfire origin are not controllable by humans, fuel levels and stand conditions can be

manipulated. The debate arose over defining specific objectives for altering or leaving

conditions unchanged: the value of fire, even if of phenomenal proportion, and its material impacts. Various assessments of fire’s role in the ecosystem emerged. Some referred to local fire history with the goal of mimicking fire pattens prior to large-scale
48

suppression efforts; others assessed current forest conditions, demands placed on forest resources, and society’s level of tolerance of wildfire to analyze costs and benefits

to develop appropriate preventative, suppression, or let-it-burn strategies; and yet

others attempted to define natural versus unnatural aspects of fire that restore a

nature-regulated fire system.

Commodity users believed CROP stands to be ripe for disturbances fostering catastrophic fires. They feared that fires could burn large portions of the forest, repeating the

fire history and resource losses of the early 1900s.

If you want to take a worst case analysis, if you’re moving to fireproofing

the forest, and you may have lost the same acreage that was lost during

the 20s and 30s, you’re talking about reducing the Colville’s million acres

by 15 percent. If those fires occurred again exactly as they had, [they]

would drastically affect the economy, fish, everything. (101)

Civic representatives also worried about the impacts of large, intense fires on communities dependent on timber, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities derived from

the forest as well as potential losses to homes, infrastructure, and public safety.

The focus has to be on the community that lives in the forest. When you talk

about the small diameter timber cut, and a lot of it’s not going to grow from

what I’ve been told; it’s just there. And it’s also building up to be a tremendous problem in the future. We’re seeing that as extreme fire danger. But

with the bureaucracies and policies that we have to go through, nothing’s

going to be done in 5-10 years on it. And this is not 1910, this is 1997 and

we have some real serious problems because of the number of people living

in the area. (105)

Several large wildfires burned on the CNF in the recent past. Civic representatives

viewed the low timber salvage efforts after the fires as exacerbating the fire damage.

Taking a more proactive management direction, as the CROP program proposes, appealed to this stakeholder group, because fires are inevitable but resulting losses may

not need to be so severe. The CROP program would act as an insurance policy to

minimize risks to the national forest’s adjacent communities.

Environmentalists often attributed the origin of these stands to the large, intense fires

in the early 1900s, but they also looked at the logging and forestry practices that prepared the sites for those types of fires. Thus, they felt that by letting nature, rather than

humans, attend to the future condition of the forest, long-term results would be more

ecologically appropriate.

Some of the fires that occurred here are directly attributable to the extent

and intensity of past logging activities. (111)

Part of the problem....is that we’ve been in there too often. (106)

Environmentalists defined catastrophic losses from fires as the destruction of unique

and irreplaceable gene sources, ecological history, and species extinction.

You can’t let a crown fire get going because you’ll lose that legacy in that

structure. You’ll either lose it to competing species or to fire. If we do

nothing, we’re most certainly going to lose that component, that legacy....

We know that the trees, the fish, etc., have developed site-specific traits

over the years. If we don’t try to protect those remnant stands, we may lose

that whole genetic link. (118)
49

Environmentalists supported less intensive strategies to reduce losses associated with

fire. Realizing that large, high-intensity fires could be devastating to the environment as

well as communities, they preferred some mitigation strategies to reduce fuel loads.

This position focused on carefully reintroducing fire into ecosystems where suppression

efforts in the past decades were too effective, in their opinion. Wildfire was defined as a

natural part of the ecosystem and should be encouraged. Efforts to prevent fires were

perceived to be motivated by concerns for something other than the environment.

With do nothing [management alternatives], the thing that humans fear the

worst is catastrophic fire, which used to happen every 100 or 200 years.

Granted the structure in the forest is different now, all the Doug-fir has come

in, again it depends on the stand....If they didn’t do anything, I don’t see it as

a huge risk. Yeah you could have some big fires come through, but once

they’re done, they’re done. Again it’s not a forest issue, it’s a money issue.

(106)

There should be some natural fire, and if they need to protect people’s

homes that’s fine. But we don’t need to destroy the whole forest for fear

there’s going to be fire. (121)

Environmentalists’ positions on encouraging fire or not taking preventative tactics to

reduce fire impacts, were seen by many commodity users, NIPFs, and civic representatives as wasteful of resources, damaging to the environment, and having severe

impacts on communities adjacent to fire-prone forests.

This idea that we’ve got to let mother nature do its thing–but going back to

bare ground, to me is not an environmentally sound approach. What

happens to any endangered species in that area? What happens to their

habitat? It’s gone. We’re looking at 150-200 years to reestablish that. (152)

If the environmentalists would just shut up and let us go in there and get that

timber off the ground, it would eliminate the risk of fire. When we had a big

burn over here on White Mountain 7-8 years ago, that [would] never have

grown as fast as it did. If the Forest Service had been allowed in there to

fight it and put cat roads in there, but the environmentalists wouldn’t let them

do it. So they let it burn. (110)

Fire’s the big one [risk]. Decrease of the ability of this timber dependent

community to make a livelihood. With that would go all the social implications: divorce, alcoholism, wife beating, children abuse, all that kind of crap.

It makes no sense to have over a million acres available and not be able to

utilize it in one sense or another. (101)

People look at forests and say “it’s pretty today and always going to be that

way, so don’t touch it.” It’s just a fallacy....Mother nature is not that kind and

pretty all the time. (108)

The Forest Service also anticipated a serious fire risk associated with CROP stands,

past and present.

Fuel accumulation is certainly a contributing factor of what got us here.

There was a lot of logging where a lot of fuels were left on the ground, contributing to those fires getting started and being uncontrollable because of

the intensity. If we don’t do something to change those dynamics, we’re

going to be in a cycle where those fuels build up again with the same sort of
50

intense fire. The same sort of stand will come back. To some extent, that’s

the way things are supposed to work out there. But the spatial distribution

of it; there’s too much. So we’re trying to get it back to where it should be.

(176)

They’re tall skinny trees that are overstocked, if they don’t develop the

diameter when the insects come in and they keep getting taller, then a good

windstorm or snowstorm is going to break off the tops. It will start thinning

that way. And if enough fuel builds up underneath it, it could be a fire

hazard....It’s an overstocked stand, as it gets older, it loses health, trees

start losing their tops and fall over, buildup of fuel load, lightening comes

through and starts a fire, so much fuel is going to regenerate the stand.

(114)

To reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and other severe disturbances, the Forest

Service preferred focusing on improving stand vigor and resiliency.

Generally, the goal is to have mixed species as opposed to pure lodgepole

stands. And in a lot of areas, the bigger the tree the better. There are some

species, like lynx, that like lodgepole for rabbit habitat. But that’s not a very

big portion. We want to keep some lodgepole, but when you have large

areas of pure lodgepole, that’s when the risk factors start going up. (114)

Wildfire, especially at catastrophic levels, and stand conditions exacerbating wildfire

were typical concerns associated with CROP stands. Forest health was a common

concept used to assess factors of growth, productivity, and resiliency. Poor forest

health, in many stakeholders’ opinions, could set the stage for catastrophic impacts

from disturbances such as fire, insect and disease epidemics, and wind, ice, and snow

storms. The degree to which forests were termed resilient and the acceptable level of

the aforementioned disturbances differed by the values placed on using, experiencing,

or cultivating multiple forest resources. Stakeholder groups differed in their valuations,

perceived risks, and assessments of acceptable impacts. Thus, their positions on

desirable forest management varied accordingly (table 17).

Many variables factor into decisions on how to silviculturally treat CROP stands. The

large expanse of CROP stands throughout the forest are situated on a variety of sites

with respect to road proximity, slope, riparian areas, species habitat, and soils. Furthermore, diverse microsite and stand characteristics differentiate the CROP stands as a

whole into a heterogeneous mix of age classes, species, and vegetation types. Treatment, thus, cannot be “one size fits all.”

Many stakeholders recognized this diversity and favored site-specific treatments,

ranging from thinnings from below to complete stand conversion and sometimes in

combination with prescribed fire. Debates about clearcutting stands, the capacity of the

trees to release when thinned, profitability in the short and long terms, fuel loading, and

long-term resource sustainability factored into various treatment scenarios.

Commodity users advocated for active intervention and management of CROP stands,

emphasizing the need to reduce mortality causes and increase forest resource productivity. Timber production was a major concern; however, they believed that other resources such as wildlife habitat and hydrological conditions could benefit from silvicultural treatments. They suggested various treatments for stands viewed as stagnated

and those unlikely to respond to thinning.

Preferred Stand

Treatments

Description

Discussion
51

Table 17—Values attributed to CROP stand, by stakeholder groupStakeholder group Key concerns Belief statement PositionCivic representatives Quality of life, Communities are dependent on neighboring The Forest Service should prevent a

timber, national forests for the quality of life and forest health crisis and subsequentbiodiversity economic livelihoods of residents. CROP stands economic and social crises by treating

provide little economic value as is and pose CROP stands and keeping the forestpotentially catastrophic risks. If forest conditions productive.threaten current or future dependence levels,communities could experience a multitude ofimpacts or crises.

Commodity users Timber, CROP stands are stagnated, reduce growth, and Foresters and industry can mitigate risks

forest health, hinder natural regeneration, thereby posing cata- by implementing prudent managementbiodiversity strophic risks. Forests could be irreparably to promote effective and efficient use of

damaged in their capability to provide habitat, forest resources rather thanhealthy streams, timber, etc., if catastrophic accumulating waste or loss. Intervenefires occur. Active management can lessen the with thinnings and harvests to stimulateseverity of catastrophic disturbances. or regrow productive forests while

extracting a merchantable product.

Environmentalists Biodiversity, CROP has its own place in forest diversity. How CROP stands and forest health crises are

naturalness can humans define forest health–an unknown, more accurately economic crises. Don’t

ecologically determined stage–and whether let market demand for timber resourcescurrent conditions are a crisis? Crises are cause or encourage the Forest Serviceanthropocentric evaluations. Nature should be to harvest small-diameter stands. Letits own regulator, not social economics. nature run its own course.

Forest Service Forest health, CROP stands, in acreage, exceed HRVs;a they Bringing the forest back within HRVsa

biodiversity are stagnant and provide few benefits to other reduces catastrophic risks to other forest

forest programs. programs and surrounding communities.

Plus, the CROP program is a legislativedirective.

NIPFsb (Individually CROP stands may or may not fulfill private forest The Forest Service can learn from and

defined) landowners management objectives. Concerns provide knowledge to NIPFs about

about their own forest and CROP stands in the treating CROP stands. CollaborativeColville National Forest can directly impact interaction benefits all parties.NIPFs.

Recreationists Recreation CROP stands provide little recreational value, look Current and future recreation may be

unappealing, and accumulate dead and dying jeopardized.snags.

a HRV = historic ranges of variation.b NIPF = nonindustrial private forest landowners.
52

In a lot of these acres, the stands are in too poor of condition for thinning to

provide any benefit. They’re too old, too stagnant, not enough crown ratio. In

some places, thinning can be utilized, something less than a large-scale

clearcut. But in others, you have to start over. (171)

Take out everything that is possibly commercial–6" dbh and above–and

then burn it. Slash and burn it, if you want to get back to any type of

manageable stand, productive stand. (142)

When you’re in a 120-year-old stand of lodgepole and you want to make it

more productive, the thing to do is clearcut it and replant it...if you want to

get production out of lodgepole, you have to manage it from when it’s real

young. (107)

You have to have a 1-2 punch. First, you reduce the fuel loading, through

thinning or harvest and deal with the slash you generate. Next, you come

along with prescribed fire...and start the evolution process that these stands

have gone through over time. You cannot introduce fire in these stands

without reducing the fuel. It’s just too thick. (154)

You can use selective logging. There’s no need to clearcut. [I] never could

understand why they used so much clearcutting. I know of a few places

where you use that, but no giant clearcuts. In root rots or other problems,

you can use clearcuts as a tool on 2-3 acres. There’s no reason they

couldn’t sustain timber. They could run a mill here forever. (130)

Clearcutting was extremely contentious because of the immediate, drastic changes to

visual aesthetics and cumulative ecological impacts. Also, because of the checkerboard pattern of ownership of national forest and forest industry lands, with the latter

often employing clearcutting, additional clearcuts on the former would compound

impacts on other forest resources. Because of the negative connotations of clearcutting, many stakeholders preferred that this silvicultural tool be used only in small

patches to treat cases of insect- and disease-infested sites. Using clearcutting to convert stands unable to release with thinning from below was a less favorable position.

Prescribed fire had several benefits according to some, but only after steps would be

taken to reduce some of the fuel in these dense stands. Fire contributes to regeneration, as some NIPFs stated:

In thinnings, my feelings are to do it like nature does. Go through and take

out the merchantable wood, wait 2-3 years and run a fire through it. It

mimics nature. That gives it time for the potassium from the needles to leach

back into the system. (152)

And, some environmentalists believed fire to be the most appropriate silvicultural tool:

There are some areas that the best thing they could do is torch it and stay

out for 60 years. A lot of those stands, we’ve made such a mess of them.

That’s the only thing that wouldn’t compound the issue. (106)

This issue was not wholly agreed upon by all members within stakeholder groups, as

some raised concerns about smoke generation and burning potential usable wood

products:
53

This discussion about increased prescribed fire is interesting, but it won’t be

pulled off on a large scale. The social impacts of the smoke production is

going to be a problem...,especially when they know their tax dollars are

paying for it. (171)

A lot of the small timber should be thinned out and even take some of the

bigger trees. Just manage it like it should be managed. Instead of burning it.

No prescribed burning whatsoever....They tell you that smoke isn’t good for

the health of the people, then they want to go and set a bunch of fires and

cause a bunch of smoke. That really makes sense. (165)

Civic representatives supported a general management strategy to employ silvicultural

treatments. Continuing harvests and promoting productive, multiple-use forests were

the direct impacts that they perceived would result from this strategy. Thinning would

produce some merchantable wood and fiber with economic benefits for local communities; timber sales would benefit the counties and general school fund; improved forest

productivity would benefit long-term resource sustainability and would be conducive not

only to timber but also to recreation, wildlife habitat, visuals, and aesthetics. Silvicultural

treatments, in their opinions, would be proactive tools to maintain community dependence on forest resources and enhance forest conditions. Quality of life for residents in

these communities adjacent to the national forest would improve and the source of

many residents’ livelihoods would not be interrupted with drastic changes.

Zero-cut environmentalists questioned intensive use of silvicultural treatments, equating thinning with the philosophy to manage national forests for timber as the primary

goal. Instead, research and stand treatments, they believed, should focus on restoration. If any intervention were to occur, they favored stopping all logging and road building in the national forest and then concentrating on ecosystem enhancement projects.

So what they should be doing is: they can be decommissioning roads; they

can repair damaged watersheds; they can thin in stands, e.g., lower elevation ponderosa pine and get those stands back into equilibrium....There’s a

tremendous amount of work to be done. And it doesn’t have to be this

dominant paradigm of moving forward with the same old project, just with a

new sugar coating on it. “Now we’re doing thin-from-below, but we’re still

taking out 70 percent of the basal area!” How can they say it’s thinning when

you’re taking that much out? (147)

Light-impact environmentalists recognized effects of past management on the forest:

Consistent with ICBEMP, the science is pretty compelling that fire suppression and management direction over the past several decades has

created abnormal stands as far as historical structure. In some instances I

would support trying to thin some of those stands to restore the HRVs. But

I’m not convinced that that mimics in any way natural successional regimes.

(118)

To return the forest to a more naturally resilient condition, light-impact-environmentalists favored some silvicultural intervention. The key would be to design

treatments minimizing impacts on other resources, such as reducing soil compaction and erosion, maintaining stream integrity, promoting diverse habitat, and preventing noxious weed spread. Their goal was to use light-on-the-land practices to

return CROP stands within HRVs, yet maintain biodiversity and the natural ecological

complexity of the environment.
54

They’re [the Forest Service] saying they want to move the structure closer to

old growth, to put the forest back into commercially viable species which is

the overriding goal of the management regime on the forest, and to reduce

the risk of fire, which is extremely problematic in view of a lot of the science

emerging. There’s very little proof that thinning reduces the risk of fire.

Thinning not only compacts the soil, it reduces biomass, it increases the

desiccation rates of the soil, it makes the fuel that much more volatile. Again,

because of the habitat component it provides for prey species, there’s a

viability factor there that’s not addressed properly in my view. (151)

Much of the debate for environmentalists on whether to intervene centered around the

ecological value of CROP stands, crop stand frequency of occurrence, and inherent

differences across the larger landscape; timber sale motives; and, more abstractly, the

prerogative of people to intervene in a natural system.

I’m not a big proponent of cutting a lot of these stands. They have a purpose

too. There’s all kinds of animals that live in those stands. It’s a different

biological condition than the larger stands. (122)

The Forest Service’s desire to thin, harvest, prescribe burn, or regenerate CROP stands

was founded on a broad objective to enhance structural, age class, species, and size

diversity within these stands. This general objective, however, does not necessarily

translate into a single treatment applied to every CROP stand. Each stand is unique;

thus, treatment prescriptions must accommodate stand characteristics and meet site

specific objectives as well as the overall objective. Site, watershed, and landscape

issues add up to a complex set of variables to be considered in treatment options and

decisions.

NIPFs also were implementing silvicultural treatments on their small-diameter, dense,

and stagnated stands. Management intensity differed greatly across these lands, as

some owners were doing active and large-scale treatments and others were doing little

or nothing. Time, knowledge, and money often were limiting factors. Agencies such as

Washington State University Extension Service, the USDI Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources offer training and

resources for NIPFs; however, each landowner has primary decisionmaking authority to

use discretion about treatments within the state forest practices guidelines.

Some NIPFs, who were actively treating stands with CROP characteristics, chose to

encourage fire-adapted species and to thin dense stands for greater growth and

resilience. These lands could be examples of successful and failed attempts to treat

CROP stands. The Forest Service could explore these treatments, according to some

NIPFs, to better understand the ground-tested results they proposed for the national

forest.

Recreationists often claimed their knowledge about silvicultural treatments to be limited.

Yet, they hoped the Forest Service would consider the impacts these treatments could

have on recreational use of the forest. Huckleberry gatherers, for instance, stated that

open patches in the forest enhance berry growth; trail users preferred to avoid heavily

thinned and clearcut areas; hunters liked appropriate habitat maintained for deer, elk,

and bear; wilderness users preferred no signs of human intervention in these natural

areas; less physically able people required adequate road access to the forest; and

campground users wanted aesthetically pleasing sites.
55

Specific treatment prescriptions were less of a concern to local tribes. For them, adherence to federally mandated consultation, government to government, was extremely

important. Use of that process would provide an appropriate mechanism for identifying

preferred treatments.

Preferred silvicultural treatments, if any, are summarized in table 18. Variables that

factored into the beliefs and positions held by stakeholders included assessing the

contribution of CROP stands to biodiversity and natural succession, reducing mortality

rates, extracting a merchantable product, and mitigating impacts on other forest resources (e.g., aesthetics, watersheds, recreation).

Three aspects of the complex economic context in which the CROP program is situated include local community economies, the role of local timber industry, and the costs

involved in treating CROP stands. Each aspect is discussed separately.

Description—Communities in Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties have strong

economic ties to their forested lands (Kettle River History Club 1992). Timber, as with

mining and grazing, enticed Anglo settlers to this region to establish core industries

that continue to play a significant role in current economies. Since their settlement, tricounty communities have experienced boom and bust cycles in all these natural resource based industries. Developing coping strategies to survive short-term market,

technology, and policy fluctuations are common responses (Carroll 1995); however,

these responses do not often result in large changes. Today these communities still

are timber dependent.

Depending on industry specialization, isolation from trade centers, and economic

diversity, each community differs in its level of timber dependency. In addition, the

proportion of public land proximate to communities affects economies in property and

excise tax revenues. With reductions in national forest timber sales, local economies

face multiple impacts:14 fewer people are employed in primary timber jobs, less income

is generated from this sector, secondary industries do not benefit from the rollover of

these dollars, secondary employment decreases, the Forest Service payments in lieu

of taxes (PILT contributions) decrease, and county treasuries are reduced. Without

other industries to absorb these declines, community economies struggle.

Key themes raised in discussions with local communities about their economies and

forest dependence were surviving changes in the timber industry, exploring other industries to diversify and accommodate growth, and preserving unique and desirable

characteristics of this region.

Discussion—Civic representatives strongly stressed the significance of timber dependence for individual communities and county services.

Not to be trite, but realistically every business here [is dependent on the

timber industry]. Not directly, but of course retail is absolutely. Our resource

base is and has always been the traditional industry.... (127)

With the newsprint mill, there’s far far more jobs in the area. The mill itself

has doubled the valuation of the county. (117)

Economic

Considerations

Community Economies

and Dependence on

Forest Resources

14 This description identifies only impacts on local timber

workers and communities. The local timber industry does

not operate in geographic isolation; thus, other contractors, processors, and communities may experience

similar impacts.
56 Table 18—Desirable and appropriate silvicultural treatments for CROP stands, if desired, by stakeholder group

Stakeholder group Key concerns Belief statement PositionCivic representatives Timber, Thinning and harvesting continue the Use proactive silvicultural tools. Don’t wait for

forest health renewability of timber resources and provide large, catastrophic fires to consume

jobs, tax base, and school funds. merchantable timber and diminish other

forest resources.

Commodity users Timber, Silvicultural tools such as thinning, harvests, Thin for species and in areas that will grow upon

forest health and prescribed fire can actively reduce risks release. Harvest and regenerate in areas

and improve forest health. Leaving it “as is” beyond release. Use prescribed fire sparingly.will mean only catastrophic results in time.

Environmentalists:

“Light harvest” Biodiversity Thinning and harvesting have negative impacts A thorough assessment must be undertaken to

on soil, water, and vegetation. Treatments not jeopardize the ecology. Thin areas thatalso disturb habitat and increase noxious bring forests back into HRVs.a But this should

weeds. But, the proportion of CROP stands not include new road building or significantacross the Colville National Forest poses changes to current roads.risks unless some intervention occurs.

“Zero cut” Naturalness Thinning and harvesting have severe impacts Silvicultural practices are too much of a gamble

on soil, water, and vegetation. They also and risk irrevocable loss of what habitat,disturb habitat and increase noxious weeds. species, and natural conditions remain on

public lands. This is our legacy to futuregenerations. Definitely no new roads or roadimprovements.

Forest Service Forest health, To provide structural, age, species, and size Use some combination of these treatments to

biodiversity diversity–some silvicultural treatment in the achieve management objectives suggested in

form of thinning, harvesting, regeneration, the CROP legislation.and prescribed fire is necessary.

NIPFsb Forest health, Private lands have been cut over repeatedly Learn from private lands; don’t high-grade

leading to less resilient species and species, keep fire-resilient species, and usestagnation. selective harvest practices rather than

clearcuts.

Recreationists Recreation, Silvicultural treatments can improve some Small entries, no clearcuts and cleaned harvest

aesthetics recreation (e.g., huckleberry picking) in the areas reduce impacts on recreation. Close

short term and increase overall aesthetics in access temporarily, but reopen when safe tothe long term. reenter area.

Tribes Cultural values, Tribes have unique standing and mandated Consult with tribes to verify that traditional uses

spirituality consultation rights with federal agencies. are not impacted by silvicultural treatments

and management objectives.

a HRV = historic ranges of variation.b NIPF = nonindustrial private forest landowners.
57

Little doubt surfaced about the importance of primary timber jobs and the rollover effect

on secondary service industries.

When the action on the forest slows down, the action on Main Street slows

down. (124)

...the rollover effect is 21⁄2 or 31⁄2 here. (103)

The average worker doesn’t have as much in his pocket and isn’t spending

as much as they were. That’s just because the timber related industry

closed up. It basically runs the entire community. (109)

Every little bit that happens in that industry affects not only the people that

work there, but also the people that have secondary businesses: clothing

stores, groceries, service stations. It’s greatly impacted. (148)

We don’t really have anything economically in north Pend Oreille County

to support our businesses. Since we’ve been pretty well closed out of the

forest. (138)

The CNF plays an important role in county economies because of its forest resources

and large share of land base (and tax base) in the region. Changes in PILT contributions from the Forest Service and other land management agencies directly impact

funds for county schools, utilities, and roads.

One of the problems as a county with a large percentage of property owned

by the government, there’s very little money that comes in for taxes. And

with so little logging done, there’s little in lieu [payment in lieu of taxes]

money coming in. It’s a real burden for a county as small as ours. (105)

The whole county is impacted by the national forest because all the industry

we have in the county depends on the forest. (138)

The whole county is impacted because three-quarters of it is national forest.

So when they don’t put up very many sales, and we’re a timber dependent

economy, it’s not good. The other things is now we don’t have any mills in

the county. So anything cut in the county is exported....Without timber,

there’s really nothing. (123)

Recognizing the large degree of timber dependence and the lack of industry diversity in

nonnatural resource-based sectors troubled many civic representatives, particularly

those in city government and community economic development positions.

It’s a scary deal. To sit in this little community [with] 2-3 years left in mining

and then totally logging. (148)

Gold and timber are the absolute cornerstones of that economy. But gold is

a finite resource. And timber, the challenge there is–what keeps me awake

at night is technology and trucking. The mill there is on borrowed time. It’s

not overly bleak if we only have small hiccups. (127)

When you took a mill out of each town, you pretty much just took the life out

of the town. (102)
58

Economic development takes on an important meaning to these communities, which

typically struggle with some of the highest unemployment rates in the state. Stimulating

economic growth, diversifying, and stabilizing therefore were primary goals to bolster

employment. A twofold approach was stressed: minimize losses to current levels of

employment in timber and other natural resource industries, while stimulating growth in

other industry sectors.

We’re also recognizing that this is a transition period so we’re looking

beyond those issues....Timber is not a growth industry. (105)

Tourism is and will be our big growth industry. It has to be. The timber is not

going to be here forever. Boise Cascade is not going to be here forever. I

hate to say that, but it’s something we have to face. (134)

One logical option for economic development in this forested region would be to expand nontimber forest resources, such as recreation and aesthetics. Promoting tourism

and associated services—motels, restaurants, specialty shops, recreation outfitters and

entertainment—would capitalize on the tri-county region’s unique forest resources and

rural character. Although this economic development seemed to offer hope to communities in the form of diversified industries and increased labor demands, it was viewed

skeptically. Residents worried about lower paying jobs in the service sector, which

really do not help families maintain or increase their standard of living from timber

industry declines.

Service jobs are not in a livable scale income. (102)

Let’s not kid ourselves. Tourism is not high paying jobs traditionally, unless

you’re the owner of the establishment: a bed and breakfast, a restaurant, a

gallery. (127)

The whole community is timber dependent. And without it, we’re obviously,

everyone’s not going to be able to make a living on tourism here. We need

to strive for a balance.... If [the timber] industry is removed, there’s nothing

here to take its place. Service type industries don’t cut it. Wal-Mart can only

hire a certain amount of people for 12 hours/week [laughs]. (126)

Others cited the difficulties in drawing tourists to the area. Spokane and Coeur d’Alene,

the nearest urban centers and potential tourism sources, are a 2-hour drive to Stevens

and Pend Oreille Counties and a 3-hour drive to Ferry County. Providing destination

tourist opportunities would be the key challenge to benefitting from increased economic

activity. Furthermore, tourism development must accommodate typical weather patterns, which often hamper winter access to the region.

What’s the future of the community? Tourism? It’s not here. We’re not a

destination. You have to have an attraction. Sure you can stop and have

lunch but then you’re on your way. It doesn’t keep the economy going....The

jobs are seasonal and tend to be low paying. (146)

And tourism will never ever replace [timber jobs]. Not in this part of the

world. How many people truly will choose to come here over Yellowstone?

(153)

Northern Pend Oreille and northern Ferry Counties have more challenges in developing

economic opportunities than northern Stevens County, which has Colville (pop. 6,000).
59

You wouldn’t believe how much time we think about [northern Pend Oreille

County].... The answers are not quick and coming. Tourism is definitely a

piece. It’s a beautiful area; the river has some fun things to look at. (127)

Southern Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties border Spokane County and are closer to

trade centers, they have bedroom commuter communities and lowering unemployment

rates.

[Newport] is a bedroom community for the city of Spokane...a third of them

commuting to Spokane daily. (102)

Successful economic development, however, is difficult to accomplish; there are neither

straightforward methods nor surefire results. Furthermore, these communities struggle

with other variables that complicate economic well-being. For example, enticing more

private enterprise businesses to the tri-county region and overcoming infrastructure

deficiencies that limit growth and access are two major obstacles for these relatively

small, isolated communities.

For a while we tried to attract industry....But we’re pretty much off the beaten

track as far as international airports and interstates.... (134)

Worries about preserving cultural norms and rural landscapes also complicate efforts to

draw new business and people to the region.

Growth of new people moving in can really change these small towns. We

have new mayors, new city councils, and that scares people. That they’re

losing control, that their lives will change, that they will become the victim of

these changes. (127)

This county has many options, but getting more people in is the challenge.

The old folks especially have a hard time. They like to keep it the way it is.

We would like to see the influx of new people and money. But it’s a hard

decision. That’s the reason we moved to this county is because we love it

and would like to keep it pristine....And it’s probably not going to stay that

way if we get hoards of people coming in. (134)

Half the cattle ranchers have disappeared. They’ve been replaced. Just the

private developers. In each area where there was one rancher per two miles

stretch, now there’s over 30 homes....It’s not good or bad, it’s a change. If

we want to stay in business, it’s a challenge. (163)

And, in efforts to stimulate growth and increase employment rates, the prevalence

of public assistance programs raise confounding complications (see table 5 for a

summary of published data on transfer payments; e.g., income maintenance,

unemployment).

Eighty-plus percent15 of them don’t work. They’re going to welfare or

disability or some type of assistance. The bedroom community doesn’t

really work for us, because they basically just don’t work!....It’s a cycle and

they don’t try, or care, or want to work. (117)

The more on assistance, [the more] they don’t want to see jobs come. They

like the way it is; they don’t want to work. (130)

15 Interviewee’s perceived measures of unemployed

people may not be consistent with published data.
60

We had such an influx of public assistance people here. That’s the industry

...that is big business in this county: to cater to those people. They buy groceries; they use the doctors; they’re in the schools; they buy gas....You can

hardly drive by a house that’s not receiving tax dollar money in one form or

another. (146)

When we have 40 percent (see footnote 13) of the population receiving

some sort of benefits, or 50 percent whatever the number is, it becomes

a culture all on its own. (102)

Welfare reform initiatives place additional burdens on communities.16 Welfare

recipients—a relatively higher proportion of tri-county residents compared to urban

counties—were nearing the end of their benefits and being forced to seek employment.

Many civic representatives deliberated the pros and cons of this situation. Reducing

unemployment and income assistance payments seemed a positive outcome; however, without jobs for these people to acquire, it was uncertain what the end result

would be.

Grazing, timber, mining: all those things add up to a significant impact. Because they’re public and national, it means that a lot of people who don’t live

here have a lot of impact. That is trying at times. It’s tough for your community to be told “Well you can be a ghost town. You have to move to find a

job.” There’s some solid trends there, and it may not be spoken. I don’t believe it’s the government’s policy, but it’s cold hard economic reality. Welfare

reforms with five year limits. We are solidly saying to people, whether they

choose to hear it or not, you can’t just live out here, exist out here, make do

out here. If there’s no jobs, then you’ll have to go find work. (127)

There’s nothing [job market] here for crying out loud. (132)

Some civic representatives looked toward the forest as a means to create jobs. The

CROP program and other resource restoration projects seemed, according to local

residents, an opportunity that would combine getting people (welfare recipients and

others) back into productive work and improving forest conditions.

The real world in America is that we don’t like people on welfare any more.

We don’t like people unemployed anymore. We don’t like to dole out money

to people anymore. Therefore, take those people and give them a doggone

axe, get them out there working, and pay them a decent wage. Quit wasting

time, because within a year, we’re going to have extreme results of welfare

reform that no one’s going to like to see. They’re not going to like to see

people begging, people moving around the country in old jalopies like Dust

Bowl days. And that’s what’s going to happen. (124)

...the young people should be out there, getting a shot at that...knock those

trees down, get them out of there. Go out there in the summer time and take

all those trees down.... They [criminals] should be out there, not sucking off

the taxpayers.... (110)

16 Pend Oreille County typically has higher

unemployment rates and thus faces compounding

factors in encouraging economic development and

raising residents’ standards of living, compared to

Stevens and Ferry Counties. However, all three counties

consistently have some of the highest unemployment

rates in Washington.
61

...pro-actively we’re missing something by not being more engaged in

creating work relative to the national forest. We see tremendous opportunities here, those of us who go out into the national forest. We’re totally

surrounded by national forest. I look at the trail system that has eroded, it’s

in need of clearing or updating. These look like jobs to me....Outside of the

park or wilderness area, the national forest land is very much underutilized.

(132)

We shouldn’t have this CROP program, we should not have overstocked

lands. We’ve got thousands of people who should be out there working to

make that land productive. Instead we put them on welfare, and pay them

more than they would earn maybe. (102)

I think they can make jobs in the woods. I’ve thought they could get these

welfare people working–buy them a chain saw, get them working out there,

set up a crew, slash things out, pay them $5-6/hour....They can take the

profit off the product brought into the mill, whether it be chips, round cedar

posts, split cedar posts. There’s a lot of product up there. They could make

money off it, get it cleaned up, and not have to burn as much. (117)

Another consequence of few local employment opportunities is the “brain drain” effect

where many youths are forced to leave the region to attain postsecondary education,

training, and employment.

We, from our educational philosophy, approach the reality that kids will not

be here. When they leave the high school, we plan that they will enter the

job market or further their education [outside the local community]. Our

premise is that they get more training, more schooling regardless what it is:

community college vocational, military, university. (132)

The CROP program takes on new meanings for communities hungry for economic

development opportunities. Although no wording in the legislation links the CROP

program to job creation or economic adjustment initiatives for local communities, many

civic representatives viewed it in this light. Some environmentalists also evaluated the

CROP program in terms of economic benefit, albeit a benefit more for industrial timber

than for communities and ordinary workers.

This transitional economic time really hurts people. There’s no doubt about

that. But I would much rather subsidize a couple of guys going out with

handsaws to load stuff into a pick-up than subsidize Plum Creek Timber

[now Stimson] or Boise Cascade....And over the longer term we pay any

number of times for [logging] to continue. We pay to build the roads; we end

up paying them to take the timber off; and then when the trees are gone and

the big guys are gone out of the community, when the mills are closed down

and we’ve got this devastated landscape that nobody can use for commercial purposes and very few people can draw a tourist industry or service

industry, then we lose again in terms of opportunities lost. It hurts people,

towns and communities. (151)

Making forest management choices that benefit local communities in the short and long

terms, that provide responsible stewardship of national forest lands, and that follow

applicable laws and regulations is a difficult, complex task. But it is within this economic

and social context that the CROP program, in part, is situated.
62

Description—The local economies discussed here were extremely sensitive to

fluctuations in the timber industry because these operations are some of the largest

private industries and employers in the region. The tri-county region has a variety of

milling and chipping operations to use raw logs (as covered in the “Introduction”) with

fundamental dependence on extracting timber for profit and deriving a merchantable

wood product.

A key point of contention in the larger debate surrounding the timber industry and tricounty economies was the role of national forest timber supply. Timber historically

played a primary role in local community development. Yet in the recent past, economic benefits derived from timber extraction, especially from national forests, clashed

severely with the environmental movement. The tri-county region is a typical example

of a larger phenomenon occurring across many western states, which have significant

numbers of communities dependent on federal lands and resources but face increasing

environmental regulation.

Key variables in the timber industry’s establishment and continued presence in the tricounty region included a long history and tradition of using timber resources, a suitable

timber-producing environment, and the precarious nature of timber supply.

Discussion—Commodity users primarily depend on timber resources to generate revenue, either at the industrial level or through independent contracting. As a renewable

resource, timber extraction and regeneration can potentially continue in perpetuity—a

fundamental belief held by most commodity users. And, as long as there is market demand for wood products, simply stated, there is the opportunity for commodity users to

remain in the timber business.

I believe the three operations in this valley could harvest continually through

thinning processes forever with a rotation cycle of 40 years. And you’d have

a forest that is healthy forever. (128)

Private industrial timber continues to take an active role in the policy arena to stress the

mutually beneficial relation it can share with the Forest Service. It sees a need for

silvicultural treatments in the CNF, especially in CROP stands but in larger diameter

stands as well.

Letting mother nature do her thing means it will be destroyed. It will

regenerate and start all over, and nobody gets any value out of it. So we’re

probably taking the best resource this area has to offer, the best economic–

jobs-wise and socially-wise and commerce-wise–and saying “we don’t want

it.” Others are saying “you can’t have it or we don’t want you to have it.”

(125)

Industry has a market demand for logs; thus, it is willing to pay a price for timber

resources that provide revenue to the Forest Service, which in turn, can be used to

regenerate forests, enhance other forest resources, and contribute to the U.S. treasury.

I’m hoping that at some point in time–and it may be a ways out there–the

forest industry will be able to count on the Forest Service for more timber....

The CNF is certainly one of the forests that could use that [CROP], go out

and thin and deal with the fuel buildup, it would make our forest a lot

healthier. (153)

Local Timber Industry:

Roles and

Responsibilities
63

As the balance the budget amendments take hold, they will be looking for

revenue. Someday the forests will be looked upon favorably as a resource,

as a tool. (125)

But for industrial timber to continue its presence in local economies, it will require raw

materials, appropriate equipment, adequately skilled labor, and profitability. Available

raw materials tended to be the most limiting factor especially factoring in decreases in

log quality (i.e., smaller average diameters) or costly restrictions placed on sale contracts, according to local industrial timber representatives. Even though Vaagen’s

Colville sawmill was equipped for small-diameter logs, it still required a steady supply,

thus placing it in similar situations with its Republic sawmill and Boise Cascade’s and

Stimson’s larger log-size operations.

Supply of raw materials must be reasonably consistent in two aspects: quantity and

quality. Most mills procured logs from several sources; however, sales from the national forest had become increasingly unpredictable in terms of timber volumes, harvesting restrictions, and sale appeals.

Definitely the mills go to the private lands. You need to line up your supply,

and the Forest Service isn’t something you can count on. (166)

I do have complaints about the philosophy that says “We’re not going to cut

anything over 21" or 18" maximum diameter”...,which may not seem much

to you, but I work in a sawmill and know what 3" really is. That’s an average.

Instead of getting logs in the 8-10" range, you’ll be dropping to 6-7". It’s a

substantial drop when you average it out. (169)

It was the greatest thing in this area at one time. All this land is national

forest. When I was a kid there was 25-30 mills here. There was the big

one [and lots of small ones]. That was the salvation of this country up here.

There was never a problem with getting resource at that time. Now there’s

absolutely no resource. That’s basically why Vaagen’s packed up and left

[Ione]. They didn’t see any future, and nobody could come up with a

sustainable supply. (130)

Not all operations were able to persist through unsteady supply or stumpage prices.

Then [Vaagen Brothers] bought the mill in Ione, we had at that time access

to a lot of public timber, but it was short term. We lost Ione two years ago

because of fluctuation. (D)

When the chip market was up, they were hauling from here to Clarkston....

You’d see chippers set up all over; here one was set up at an abandoned

mill. Then overnight, the price dropped and they’re all gone. (120)

Because there were no timber sales, Vaagen Brothers left Ione. (123)

Less supply from the national forest produces a two-sided impact on private lands.

First, more timber is harvested from these lands owing to increased stumpage values.

This situation may benefit timber land owners in the short term, but many were

concerned about long-term environmental effects.

The [Forest Service] need to understand that when they tighten up, the price

gets run up, then the private timber owner is more inclined to cut. (124)
64

The forests have reduced their harvests and that impacts us because

there’s more for our timber. A positive is that it makes our stumpage price

go up....[We’re] really being hit hard, because there’s no place else to get it.

(120)

The small private owners are over-harvesting their ground to keep money

coming in. If the Forest Service was letting timber out, they could be doing

that and give the private land time to grow back. It’s going to continue to get

worse. (145)

Second, reduced supplies increase the competitiveness among those harvesting,

hauling, and producing wood products. Loggers were unable to piece enough jobs

together to have steady employment.

It’s been the high competitiveness in the logging. Hard for these guys to

know they have jobs ahead of them. (136)

Industrial timber operations had reduced shifts, closed temporarily, or shut mills down

permanently.

The sawmill is gone. Sawmills in the Priest River area have closed down.

They’ll keep shutting down. That’s not good for anybody. You don’t need

one or two big companies controlling the price of timber.... (145)

As more of the latter occurs, competition will narrow such that one mill could gain a

monopoly through its product specialization.

That’s why Vaagen’s does well. They have a niche. They’re the only ones

that can compete for federal timber sales. (172)

The difference between our operation and others is that we only do logs that

are under 12" in diameter and produce lumber out of them. No other mills in

the area have that claim to fame. (D)

The business [Vaagen Brothers] was geared for the small log processing for

this area as early as say 1966. (D)

Some individuals expressed concerns about the exclusive partnering of Vaagen’s

small-diameter log operation and the Forest Service’s small-diameter log sales.

Although other mills supported the silvicultural treatment of CROP stands by the

Forest Service, they did not want other stands and larger log sales overlooked.

To go exclusively to the CROP program is being fairly exclusive in where all

the timber goes. (172)

The Forest Service was aware of this concern and was not intentionally seeking to

exclusively supply any particular mill. Instead, they cited the determining factor to be

the condition of the forest and ecologically responsive management directions.

It is important for us to continue to supply the mills and not to play favorites.

But really it’s all about ecosystem management. That’s what the ecosystem

is supplying us right now. (176)

Timber sold from the national forest to private industry had many detractors. Environmentalists directed their concern at the historical partnering between the Forest Service

and industrial timber. A connection between these parties takes on a negative connotation, symbolizing corporate interests rather than the public’s greater good. Many refer

to the national forest’s 4-percent raw material supply to the total demand for wood fiber.
65

Environmentalists believed this relatively small supply easily could be sacrificed by the

public through curtailing demand or absorbing associated price increases in wood

products.

If four percent of the consumption level is all we need to give up, then I

believe people would make that choice. Do what little bit of sacrificing that

needs to be done to keep those lands out of the hands of corporations.

(151)

Right now it’s four percent: fiber needs met by public lands. We could recycle and achieve several times that. If we quit subsidizing timber, we’d find

alternative building materials and appropriate technologies that become

economically viable. We’re trying to prop up a certain segment of our

society, our economy at the expense of new promising technologies that

may offer a way out of this mess. It’s absolutely ridiculous. It all stems from

the fact that we’ve allowed the corporate structure in this country to achieve

such power that they’re able to exert influence, their will on public lands.

(118)

Any genuine concern for the environment held by those in the timber industry, according to some environmentalists, is lost in the industry’s production goals and the bottom

line. Although they understood and sometimes empathized with loggers, mill workers,

and industrial timber’s dependence on these economic incentives for livelihoods, environmentalists censured industry’s practices nonetheless.

Hey, I’m trying to feed my kids too. If push came to shove and I owned a big

stand of old trees and one of my kids needed an operation that I couldn’t

pay for, then I’d be out there cutting those trees down. I would have to; I

would have no choice. The same holds true for the gyppo logger who subcontracts for Boise Cascade, which demands that he has to put 500 logs a

day on the deck. He doesn’t have time to be careful. Vaagen’s does the

same thing. Production is the same. If you’ve been in Colville in the last

couple of days, I hope you’ve taken a good hard look at that deck [refering

to the quantity of small diameter logs stacked at Vaagen Brothers mill]. It’s

pretty scary. What are they going to do with all those sticks? And why are

there so many on that deck? It’s pretty appalling. (151)

Commodity users recognized the value of including some environmental constraints on

timber industry practices. This stakeholder group took responsibility for some of their

past actions.

Large industry was trying to get the CNF to get the cut out. Boise Cascade

was just as guilty as any of them. John Osborne and those folks [The Lands

Council] weren’t happy with reducing the cut to 80-100 mmbf, and settling

for something that could be perpetuated, now we’re not getting anything.

You know damn well that big industry would have installed more capacity to

use up those logs to make money for their stockholders. That would have

been wrong too. That’s how I talk to the environmentalists too. But damn it,

there has to be a middle of the road too. (135)

Most commodity users believed the environmental movement had become too extreme, especially on federal lands, preempting beneficial forest practices that improve

the forest and support local and national economies.
66

We, the industry, the Forest Service, we’ve all made mistakes, but we’re

learning from it. When you look at what industry is doing today–industry is

doing a lot more to preserve the forest than the Forest Service is. Technology has changed; we’ve gotten smarter; we’re trying to do the right

thing, but the federal government is standing in our way sometimes. (153)

Commodity users believed that resource-based industries could function in tandem

with environmental management. And they argued, to preclude local timber industries

is poor resource and environmental stewardship. In view of global economies, resource

supply and demands, and environmental integrity, commodity users emphasized the

need for local resource managers and producers to fulfill rather than shirk their

responsibilities.

It’s a world economic picture. No longer can small communities or counties

think that they operate economically independent of everything else. (111)

We’re poor managers of our resources if we’re going to chase all our resources overseas....It’s a global market...Brazil, Chile, Russia. Major companies have gone there. It’s not because the supply’s gone, it’s become

reduced. The demand is still there, pushing prices up to the point where it’s

cheaper to go 5,000 miles to get the wood and bring it back. (172)

...there’s no projections in the increase for demand in wood and paper

products globally to abate. It’s supposed to continue to climb with increases

in human populations. So, is it rational and reasonable for the people of the

U.S. to say: “Set our whole damn country aside for a park. You people over

there trash your place because we want the wood off it.” Is that reasonable

for us to do? I don’t think so....[Exporting] the demand and the impact intensifies the impact because we’re shrinking the base. That’s onerous

because I’m a forester and know that we can utilize and produce these

products locally and protect those values. I know in my heart, that it can

be done. (171)

The demand will be consistent over time–I look at projections into the future

and everybody shows our wood use is going to increase substantially. The

demand is going to be there. And the fact that we are a net importer of wood

in the U.S. says that if we can produce it here, and we should be able to

produce it as cheaply without the transportation costs, then we can utilize it

here. (154)

...we can either manage it and get some paper product–our paperless

society has actually increased its demand....We can either get our timber

products from the virgin forests in Siberia or the rain forests in Brazil or we

can manage our own. If they manage it, it may take the pressure off the third

world countries where they don’t have as much environmental oversight.

The demand’s not going to go away, so we might as well manage it rather

than letting it all go up in smoke and add to the carbon load. (166)

...it’s hard for me to stand around, watching and waiting for this stuff to die

[referring to national forest timber not being cut]. Then we’ll end up down in

South America where there’s no environmental regulations. We should be

doing things here. And that’s where it’s going. A lot of mills are going down

there, or they’re in Russia. (136)
67

The future of the local timber industry was a highly emotionally charged issue. Many

commodity users had invested a large part of their lives and careers in the industry and

local forest management. Increasing environmental regulation often was perceived to

be the primary constraint on CNF timber sales and less intensive forest practices. Not

only did this limit the business viability of industrial timber operations, but it also questioned the meaning of responsible forestry and land management. Many feared that

local timber industries would be forced to close. Then, when log extracting and processing facilities are needed again for prudent forest management, the local communities would not have the appropriate capacity.

Description—Silviculturally treating CROP stands most likely involves some commercial thinning and harvesting. Thus, designing sale contracts that attract bidders

is one task for the CROP program. Simply stated, CROP stands are not the most

desirable stands to log from a timber industry perspective, due to their densities and

small stem sizes. Many potential sale bidders are already frustrated with the bureaucracy and uncertainty they typically associate with Forest Service timber sales. This

aspect combined with CROP stand conditions makes these sales potentially difficult to

sell. Key variables discussed in this section include lumber and pulp recovery, profitability, chip markets, contract specifications, and the below-cost timber sale debate.

Discussion—CROP stands provide interesting challenges to the Forest Service, which

wants to design and sell timber sale contracts, and to bidders, who want to provide a

profitable logging service. Loggers, forestry consultants, and industrial operations (excluding those specializing in small-diameter lumber recovery) often characterized the

CROP trees as “junk,” with low recovery values as compared to larger diameter logs.

There’s some of these sales, I’ve wondered what in the heck. It seems like

they just want you to come in and clean up the junk. They got all the big timber marked, and they want you to come in and take all the small crap out.

And you have to take some big timber to make it feasible. (150)

...the type of sales they offered I couldn’t handle. The size of the timber has

gone down so much, that there’s not a lot of value to it. It’s log and pulp

wood. They’ve been offering some, but nothing you could make any money

at. (146)

The tendency has been to lay out timber sales addressing those stands but

they end up making a whole sale out of this junk, just fiber. If there’s an opportunity to mix something better with this bad, that’s going to make it more

attractive to purchasers too. (171)

The Forest Service recognized this need,

We’ve tried to put up small sales, but there’s been no interest, no bids. Not

unless there’s commercial saw logs and enough time to harvest it. (142)

but cited forest management objectives as the driving force behind the sales offered:

If the ecosystem has the larger diameter logs that need to come out, we’ll do

that. As we look at each ecosystem, we’re going to manage it for what we

think is the right thing to do. If that’s small logs, it’s small logs. (176)

Harvesting and milling or chipping of small-diameter logs is further complicated by the

low profit margins when incorporating multiple variables.

CROP Stand Timber

Sales: Cost Variables
68

The Forest Service put up a few sales lately that nobody bid on. They put

up a couple last month, but if the logger feels he’s not going to make any

money on it, he’s not going bid. (150)

A sale involving CROP stands typically includes some combination of logs that can be

milled and chipped. With declines in chip prices, a harvester must have enough saw

logs in the unit to compensate for low-valued chipping material to make a profit. Many

loggers characterized CROP sales as either minimally producing a profit or simple

failing to meet this objective.

I’m not mechanized and so I can’t do the volume in that small timber to be

profitable. And right now, the pulp market is so low. (146)

You’d starve on chips. That’s some of the problem with what they’re putting

up. It’s itty bitty stuff. It’s okay to put some of that in, but the big stuff has to

be there to pay for it. I’ve told them that if I wanted to starve to death, I’d

stay home and do it instead of going out and breaking my butt. (130)

Working in dense stands also contributes to overall sale profitability. Labor by loggers

intensifies as they take more time and encounter more safety issues in the multilayered

canopies of CROP stands where there also is limited maneuverability. Falling trees to

the ground and establishing skid trails while leaving significantly larger trees standing is

an extremely difficult and costly endeavor.

They’re tough sales to set up...they’re thinning from below, only taking a few

trees out. The trees don’t hit the ground when you fall them. We did one

[sale] and lost a lot of money on it. (136)

It costs money to work in these stands. If you’re set up for it, you can make

it work....But it will still cost you 60 percent of what the wood’s worth to get it

to the mill. (145)

One of the things that flooded the chip market was all this storm breakage

we had in the spring. All the clean-up, there was so much of it....It’s hard to

make money on those jobs. When the trees are all broke or bent over and

crisscrossed, you have to be real careful and take your time. (150)

Timing issues also become a profit variable if volatile changes occur in the timber

market. Sale contracts require harvesting to occur within a certain time period. Yet, if

log or chip prices significantly decline, the sale purchaser may not be able to recover

his costs.

I’ve talked with the Forest Service about working with contracts to provide

more flexibility–whether that’s longer contract terms, or what–to capture

these ebbs and flows on the market. That would make the sales more

attractive to the purchaser. (171)

The timber market has been so volatile. And especially as a small operator,

it might take me months to get in there and finish the job. If the timber prices

change dramatically, you’re stuck. A lot of the small sales don’t have an

adjustment clause in them. And if the pulp market falls off, you can really be

stuck with a lot of low value logs....That’s frustrating. It makes you real

cautious on your bid–I bid real low just because of that. You have to hedge

your bet. (146)
69

Many specifications built into timber sale contracts can affect the cost of harvesting a

unit, including road building or improvements, seasonal access during active wildlife

use of an area, skid trail placement, riparian buffers, equipment requirements, etc.

Part of what they need to do is make it more attractive to purchasers. Back

off on some of the restrictions....It used to be in the sales that there was a

couple of units. Some units of junk and some of good stuff. So you could

afford to lose money on part of the sale because the rest of it would carry

you. Now what I’m seeing is all junk. And then they throw restrictions on it

that add to the cost....If they could relax those restrictions, you’d feel better

about bidding more. And I understand that we have to preserve species,

save some trees. You need to inject a little common sense also. (146)

Some of these jobs they put up, they want you to have your skid trails 130

feet apart. It’s not feasible to drag line to all those small trees. It’s slow going

and you can’t make no money. That’s why people don’t bid on those sales

....and the deposits you have to put down, $2,300. Us little guys we can’t tie

up that money for that long. (150)

I was trying to stay away from [dense, small-diameter stands] because

they’re hard to work for. They put a pretty high minimum bid on the timber

and there’s a lot of regulations on getting the timber. So it costs a lot of

money to remove it. It’s not worth working; you can’t make money on it.

(145)

Furthermore, inaccurate timber cruising and larger volumes of cull trees can directly

reduce a sale purchaser’s profit.

The loggers complain because [the Forest Service cruise] all by computer,

aerial photos ...most of the sales in the last few years have come out short,

but you still pay for what you bought. The loggers are getting fed up with it.

That’s why they’re not getting bids on very many of the sales. (144)

The loggers are concerned about the Forest Service creating these small

sales; they mark and measure the trees, determine how much board feet is

in the trees, and when the logger takes it to the sawmill, they could possibly

cull that tree....The logger has to take that loss, because he has to pay on

what the Forest Service says is there. There’s liability for the logger to

absorb the cost. And the profit isn’t that large anyway. He has to make a

living. (138)

And, with smaller volumes per sale being offered, economies of scale factor into a

purchaser’s profit.

We’ve had adequate supply, but it’s been dramatically reduced off of the

federal lands. We’ve had to go back into the private deliveries from private

land owners as the timber sales off of national forest lands haven’t been

there....We used to achieve 2-10 mmbf off of one sale, the sales that we’re

currently operating off of are less than 1 mmbf. It just takes so many of

those sales, and those sales cost so much money to both administer from

the Forest Service side and our side. It’s questionable that it’s worth it. (D)

Environmentalists viewed the Forest Service’s national timber sale program as a net

financial loss. They believed that the CNF small-diameter sales were representative of

a national trend.
70

They’re not going to make money on a small-diameter sale. So that says to

me that I’m giving a subsidy through my tax dollar to support a money losing

program that harms the ecosystem, that props up an artificial economy to

the detriment of the future. That’s short- term thinking. That mind set has

dominated the use of the forest, especially places like the Colville National

Forest. The Colville National Forest has been a production forest. (151)

Many commodity users, however, attributed the increasing harvest costs associated

with tighter restrictions and complicated administrative procedures to environmental

oversight.

My son does some logging and he says “I won’t work for the Forest Service

because of the environmentalists. You never know what they’re going to do.

And the cost of doing it is twice as much as anywhere else because of the

things that have been put on by the environmentalists.” (149)

A dichotomy arises because environmentalists, in the opinion of commodity users,

pushed for more regulation, which cost money in Forest Service sale administration

and in loggers’ compliance. But now, environmentalists protest the low profitability, in

some cases below-cost, of timber sales. Commodity users sensed a no-win situation.

The driving force to have that environmental oversight has raised the cost

up. So the public has to realize that if we want to pay for this environmental

oversight, we aren’t going to have profitable sales. (166)

I’ve read statistics that indicated that the national forests nationwide have

not made a profit since 1989. They have lost money consistently. What it all

boils down to is there is too much time spent with the in’s and out’s instead

of just getting that sale out. This isn’t all their fault. The environmentalists

have stuck their noses in it; they contested every sale that went up and that

costs money. I don’t know who’s funding them. (144)

Most [of] the expenses the Forest Service faces with the reports and all

those documents they have to write are created by the environmentalists.

They keep accusing the Forest Service of losing money, but whose fault is

it? Can’t they have a simple timber sale with a 1-2 page contract? (135)

To improve the timber sale process so that the Forest Service could accomplish its

management objectives and the sale purchasers could enter into a profitable contract,

the latter suggested that flexibility and creative sale designs be incorporated. Bidders

believed they could provide a valuable service to the Forest Service, but this service

would have to earn a profit. Many felt that timber sale contracts have evolved into extremely costly, timely, and antagonizing procedures that do not accomplish on-theground objectives.

You used to put a lot of time and energy into trying to help the [timber sale]

program...it used to be a fifty-fifty contract. It was written so it was a solution, an outcome. It wasn’t how you get there, it was that you got there. It

met everybody’s needs and satisfied the contract obligations. Now they’ve

grown in size and interpretations. It used to be the intent ruled the contract,

now whoever wins their argument on interpretation....You have a more

adversarial relationship: “Thou shalt not....” (172)
71

There are a lot of opportunities to reduce the sale cost, some [of] which

would require innovative thinking and ability and willingness to take certain

risks with regard to accountability to the basal area they leave. (101)

Another point of contention within the timber industry centered on who best benefits

from small-diameter sales. The Vaagen Brothers operation in Colville was equipped to

take logs to a 4.5- inch top; a unique capacity that other local sawmill competitors could

not match. Thus, some industrial operators perceived a questionable partnership between the Forest Service and Vaagen Brothers. The cost-effective and light-impact cutto-length harvesting equipment required in some CROP stands also narrowed the pool

of prospective sale bidders.

The Forest Service is setting a sale for one sawmill here. And that’s a conflict of interest. They’re designed for Vaagen’s; there’s no doubt about it.

And they’re also designed for cut-to-length systems. Those are so expensive and most the loggers in the area can’t afford them. (136)

Those sites are now being sold, but they’re tailored only for people with a

forwarder...if you don’t have a forwarder and cut-to-length system, then

you’re out of luck. For the small operator who doesn’t invest $1 million in

machinery there’s nothing. (130)

With attention focusing on the CROP program–silviculturally treating small-diameter

stands–many worried about conditions in larger diameter stands being overlooked.

You talk about these small diameter sales, but what’s wrong with the larger

diameter sales? I’m no forester but these larger trees get to a point where

they grow more slowly, acceptable to diseases; shouldn’t that type of tree

be thinned out especially in thick areas where they’re stunting the growth

of the trees around them? (138)

Although designing timber sales in CROP stands poses unique challenges, this task

must be incorporated into the broader context of other CNF timber sales of different

stand types, the Forest Service timber sale program, and other confounding economic,

political, and social variables. Table 19 summarizes economic considerations by stakeholder groups for the CROP program.

Another complex dimension of national forest management affecting the CROP program involved the social dynamics among stakeholder groups. The following sections

examine three aspects of this social context. First, stakeholder groups and tribes voice

their expectations of Forest Service roles and leadership. Second, relations among

each of the stakeholder group as well as tribes are described. Last, perceptions of the

Forest Service’s public involvement and tribal consultation process are identified.

Description—As the primary decisionmakers for the CROP program, the CNF line

officers and staff have a unique role in the public involvement process compared to

other stakeholder groups. As such, Forest Service decisions were perceived differently

by stakeholders based on each group’s relation with the agency, previous forest management decisions and results, and the larger political context. The following discussion examines the relations between the Forest Service and stakeholder groups and

identifies key roles the Forest Service is expected to fulfill as national forest managers,

community members, federal government employees, and professionals in their respective disciplines.

Social Dynamics

Expectations of the

Forest Service
72 Table 19—CROP wood fiber as a commercially viable product, by stakeholder group

Stakeholder group Key concerns Belief statement PositionCivic representatives Timber Local loggers and mills convert a marginal CROP has market value so let’s use this

material into a merchantable product merchantable product to create jobs,demanded by the wood products market. maintain local economies, and do someCROP also encourages higher quality wood good for the forest.fiber production in the Colville NationalForest in the long term.

Commodity users Timber Harvest technology, chip markets, and small- The Forest Service should take a businesslike

diameter saw-log technology add perspective and get some commercial valuecommercial value to CROP material. CROP out of CROP stands while there is a market.stands on private industrial lands are being But, to realize a profit, there has to be a mixconverted to more productive stands. This is of high-value and marginally valuable treesless costly because CROP material is in the sale.merchantable. It’s a long-term investment inthe forest that reduces economic andecological risks.

Environmentalists Timber, The Forest Service timber sale program Only 4 percent of the national wood products

quality of life already loses money. CROP sales are not come from national forests. Society can

profitable; they are a last grasp to subsidize sacrifice this to preserve noncommoditythe timber industry. resources.

Forest Service Timber Harvest technology, chip markets, and small- Some CROP sales are not being bid on. Creative

diameter saw-log technology add commercial solutions are needed to make sale contractsvalue to CROP material. Sales, however, more attractive to bidders.must accommodate other forest programs.

NIPFsa Timber A CROP market increases forest management CROP sales from the national forest

flexibility. A chip and small-log market makes strengthens markets for small-diameter logs.profitable the thinning and regenerating of Also, technology transfer to NIPFs improvesovercut or high-graded stands. their management practices.

a NIPF= nonindustrial private forest landowners.
73

Discussion—With five ranger districts and the supervisor’s office located in the tricounty area, the CNF staff are easily accessible to local communities. And because a

high percentage of the counties’ land bases is part of the national forest, activities occurring in the forest significantly impact counties, tribes, communities, and residents.

Thus, the CNF staff are an integral part of the local community–socially, politically,

economically, and ecologically.

In light of recent timber sale decreases and trends in less intensive management that

are often viewed as direct negative impacts on communities, some residents perceived

the Forest Service as inconsiderate of local needs.

The Forest Service was formed to manage the forest, and protect and maintain the economies of the communities that surround it. Today it’s become

the community’s enemy. And that’s not [what] it should be. (130)

Ignoring these communities is unacceptable for the Forest Service....They

are supposed to manage this forest for our safety also. But we’re not in their

formula. If a fire comes, we’re gone. (133)

The general community regards them with some suspicion. Not always sure

they’re getting accurate and straight information. (164)

Others had a more positive view of Forest Service silvicultural practices on the ground.

I think what changed my mind about logging, was just recently, there’s federal land right next to mine and they started to log it. I was just panicking, I

thought they were going to clear cut and I just absolutely hate that, but they

did an absolutely beautiful job. They left a lot of the big trees, I was really

pleased. I think that’s exciting and now I’m not opposed to, not as adamantly

opposed to logging as I had been. (141)

In addition, some residents valued the contributions of the Forest Service to the community in terms of leadership and employment opportunities.

I observe that a lot of their people are very active in community service....

They’re also a major employer in this impoverished community....They bring

into the community a body of educated people which we badly need.... (129)

Still, some residents expressed their misconceptions of Forest Service stewardship of

the national forest.

I was always under the impression that people who worked for the Forest

Service were interested in protecting the trees, preserving watersheds and

all that. I was surprised to find out that a lot of Forest Service people do

timber sales, build roads. I was disillusioned. (140)

Dissatisfaction with Forest Service practices had spurred some people into action, as

one environmentalist stated.

One of the reasons I became an activist was because of the mismanagement of public land that ended up destroying my water quality. (151)

As the managers of a national forest, CNF staff encountered a range of expectations

at the community level: employer, commodity provider, environmental protector, good

neighbor, and professional experts. Successfully fulfilling these roles to everyone’s

satisfaction is an idealistic goal. Fundamental value differences exhibited by various

stakeholder groups (and even among Forest Service staff), an imperfect understanding
74

of forest ecosystems, and a patchwork of laws, regulations, and case law complicated

the policy process. But most stakeholders, including the Forest Service understood this

conundrum.

There’s some really talented, highly trained, very capable people [in the

Forest Service] trying to manage things. But they’re so hamstrung by demands and requirements, that nothing gets done. (108)

I think the local Forest Service and local community–we kind of know they

can’t do too much. They’re governed with what they can do. They don’t

agree with what they’re doing either. But what can they do? (165)

We have some great people in the Forest Service. I’m not saying they’re at

fault. They have a monster that they’re trying their best to administer. Quite

frankly, they’re trying to satisfy all the people all the time. The only ones

they’re not satisfying are the stakeholders–the ones who really count–for

their own jobs, security over time. (172)

I don’t blame the people on the ground. For the most part, their hands are

tied. (153)

When you’re in a small community like Ione, those folks know the Forest

Service as a timber producer, an employer, as well as an area where they

can go hunt and fish. Now it’s changing and the public doesn’t know what

we do anymore. We’re not producing wood, [so people ask] “what are you

doing up there?” It would make it a lot easier if we knew what it was we

were supposed to do. (114)

Acknowledging this difficult situation, though, did not excuse inappropriate management. Stakeholders expected responsible, professionally credible leadership by the

agency.

There doesn’t seem to be that strength of leadership anywhere, throughout

the levels. (108)

I wish they’d do what they think is right, what they’ve been taught. That’s

what I ask, what they went to school to learn. (130)

The biggest problem with the Forest Service right now is the rules and

regulations handed down from Washington, DC. And everybody is afraid

of their job. They’re afraid to use a little common sense and go in there

and make a decent decision and follow it through. They’re afraid of their

supervisors. (144)

Reasons for weakened leadership in the agency ran the gamut. Some cited the

politicized decisionmaking process:

A lot of these folks went to school on government loans, they went into a

field they had an interest in. They spent their life learning these things, they

get in the field and they’re managed by politicians who’ve probably never

been in the field. That’s backwards, but that’s the direction things go now.

(130)
75

others cited the agency’s top-down structure:

It gets worse as you go up. You’re more likely to find conscientious people

at the district level then at the Supervisor’s Office, and certainly at the

Regional Office. DC is almost hopeless. You have an entrenched

bureaucracy by and large. (118)

and still others cited the tug-of-war between environmental activism and the timber

industry establishment:

...there’s good people in the Forest Service, but they’re being guided down

the path of least resistance. It’s easier to do some of the things the environmental community wants. And the environmental community has a lot of

power in the Forest Service....I understand the pressure they’re under, but

they have to take a stand. And they’re not. They’re letting themselves get

stepped on, and that might be part of their inexperience too. The old guys

might have put their foot down, but the new generation is a little different. It’s

so political. (136)

Many stakeholder groups attributed the lack of leadership among Forest Service line

officers to job security fears. The theat of job loss owing to taking an unpopular position

was thought to keep many Forest Service employees in line. This constraint not only

would limit actions on the ground but weaken the credibility of the agency.

It’s not right because professionals are afraid to tell the truth and to earn

their money. I’m paying them to tell the truth and do the right thing. There’s a

fear of not being a team player and told to do these things. The attitude that

“I have to do these things if I want to stay.” It’s a bunch of crap and a waste

of time. (133)

If you look at the different agencies in the federal government, the Forest

Service has one of the proudest heritages. Why have they chosen to wither

into a corner? I know why, they were afraid of losing their jobs, and some of

them did. By not standing up though, it didn’t do them any good anyway.

(153)

Policy decisions made at the regional and national level, were believed to supercede

local Forest Service knowledge and leadership.

One of my major concerns is that we might start legislating local solutions.

That’s not good for the Forest Service. The Forest Service has to be proactive and out in front instead of being the tail that follows the dog. (154)

But a lot of our local Forest Service people are good people. Their hands

are tied, they get their directions from above. They have a good idea of how

it should be [run], and I think they could do a hell of a job. But we manage

our national forests from Washington DC, from Portland; we don’t do it

locally, where it should be. (170)

On-the-ground actions suffered as well from nonlocal decisionmakers, according to

some stakeholders.

Old Babbitt [Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt] and a few others in the

White House, they don’t realize what’s going on out here. (162)
76

Some civic representatives were increasingly skeptical of the credibility and

motivation of policy makers in Washington, DC:

...district of criminals... (103)

Al Gore, he’s an environmental whacko. That’s not good for our country–

our county. It might be good for Iowa, but not here.... (110)

Although many local residents made distinctions between politicians and top agency

leaders in the Nation’s capital and local Forest Service staff, it remains a fact that the

Forest Service is a federal agency. Distrust of the federal government, therefore, was

directed at local Forest Service staff in their roles as federal employees.

We have these government people, who have a paycheck every month

trying to manage the county. [A district ranger] should not be doing that.

He should be managing the forest, the [ranger district] is what he should

care about–not the county or the city.... (130)

A lot of people in this county are paranoid of government. A lot of them

moved up here, into the woods and they don’t want to see a government

agent....They’re real paranoid of the government especially with the Forest

Service policy in the last 20 years. (107)

We’ve all got the idea about the government–that they’ve got their minds

already made up. It doesn’t matter if it’s Forest Service or what. It’s supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people,

but these government agencies, some of them get carried away. They’ve

got their own agendas and it don’t matter what you think.... (150)

The Forest Service and the people working for the Forest Service have the

tendency to think it’s their forest and nobody else should use it. That’s the

concept of the younger generation working for the Forest Service. (138)

Other residents addressed concerns about the composition and organizational

policies affecting Forest Service personnel staffing. Topping the list of unfavorable

policies were the frequent transfers of line officers, especially district rangers. Many

felt that this policy hinders relations between the Forest Service and communities

and keeps land management activities in the early phase of the learning curve.

They don’t know a lot of what’s out there, because they change personnel.

People are around for 3-5 years, maybe 10, and then they move on to

someplace else. It’s the seasonals, the locals who know the ground and

they’re not in a position of authority; they don’t make the decisions. They

just bring in the data and do what they’re told. (147)

The Forest Service administration is not long term. In any given ranger

district, there’s a ranger who’s supposed to run it, know what’s going on,

supposed to manage the resource. It’s impossible for any ranger to

manage a district if he doesn’t know the district. If you’re going to keep

yanking them out of here every five years, then they’ll never get my

support. (124)

Moving people around, they don’t become involved in the community because they’re looking at four years to spend as a ranger and then move

on to regional. It does not give them the heart that needs to be there. (102)
77

One problem with the Forest Service is they transfer people so much. They

are in an area for five years, they’re just starting to understand the dynamics

of the area, what works, what doesn’t, then they move on....They leave a lot

of smoke and embers burning behind them; unfinished stories. (166)

Another concern involved a perceived changing of the guard. The “old guard” consisted

of silviculturists and timber sale planners working to “get the cut out.” Now, the proponents of the old guard, typically commodity users, were expressing doubts on the efficacy of the “new guard,” or the ‘ologists (biologists, botanists, hydrologists, etc.) managing the forest.

I grew up with the Forest Service being timber related. And then this environmental stuff comes in. The whole personnel has changed. The old people are gone, they’ve brought new people in who don’t have nothing to do

with timber. They’re just writing new laws to give them something to do.

(145)

Typically, I think all the good people retired, they knew people. Now you

have a bunch of new people that have transferred in. They’re the invisible

people. I don’t know them; I don’t care about them. (143)

The foresters in the Forest Service are disappearing. The silviculturists,

the old guard, are going away. It’s being run more and more by wildlife

biologists, landscape planners. Foresters seem to be a dying breed in

the Forest Service. (136)

Environmentalists, however, believed that a transition to a more diverse set of professionals across ecological disciplines had not received its due support throughout the

agency.

We hear from on-the-ground resource experts, who are on the ground marking trees, doing wildlife surveys. Those people are very upset about the way

things are going because the engineers and timber planners are getting all

the budget. Wildlife and recreation are not getting the budget. And a lot of

these folks cannot recommend not to cut a place down because it would

damage a stream system, wildlife, recreation....They’re ignored. (151)

Staffing, leadership, and on-the-ground decisions exemplifed subjective components in

the larger management system for the CNF. Although many aspects of forest management were typically viewed as objective, quantifiable, and scientifically sound, interactions among the Forest Service, stakeholders, and tribes could not be so neatly defined. Working on these relations would require different methods to understand and

improve social situations in comparison to solving mathematical problems and determining statistical values.

Description—Opinions and expectations by the public and tribes concerning the Forest Service are an important dynamic in national forest decisionmaking processes.

However, other tensions among non-Forest Service stakeholder groups also guide

national forest policy in various forums, including public involvement meetings, the

appeals process, and federal legislative or executive directives. The Forest Service,

thus, does not retain unilateral control over national forest management, and it must

respond to these different values, voices, and influences in the policy arena. The following section outlines stakeholder groups’ ideological distinctions, which typically

factored into their different positions and led to contentious debates on issues.

Relations Among

Stakeholder Groups
78

Discussion—The dominant division of interests often was exemplified in debates

between commodity users and environmentalists. With positions that were usually

divergent, these two stakeholder groups viewed forest management from different

perspectives. Relations between commodity users and environmentalists ranged from

harsh criticism of one another, to strained tensions, to a desire to work through their

differences, depending on the issue and the individuals involved. For example, one

environmentalist describes the divisiveness between the two groups, blaming one

commodity users organization in particular:

There’s a lot of distrust in this community. There’s a lot of fractionalization

going on. To a great degree, the FCAL [Ferry County Action League] are

playing [a] major role in it. They put out literature that calls us terrorists and

of course we’re always called extremists. They don’t seem to want to work

with us. They’ve charged the issue so much that there’s this incredible

polarization that’s developed. (147)

Another categorized environmentalists as the outsiders advocating change:

The Forest Service and timber industry have a vested interest in continuing

the status quo. We represent a threat to both of their agendas. As a consequence, we’re often ridiculed. We’re a threat. (118)

Some commodity users, similarly, placed blame on environmentalists for thwarting,

in their opinion, appropriate forest management to pursue other ulterior motives:

And the real hard core environmental groups don’t want to look at [what’s

really happening on the ground]....It would ruin their whole agenda if they

had to look [at] facts and see there wasn’t destruction. They definitely have

an agenda and it’s not the health of the forest. What it is, I’m not sure. (170)

One reason these two groups have an adversarial relation is a lack of trust. Activities

surrounding the CROP program had to be viewed in a historical context as well as a

larger geographical and political context that included activities at other national forests.

Some commodity users cited previous attempts to negotiate with environmentalists on

differences surrounding CNF management activities and planning processes:

Once they [environmentalists] get a little bit, they shift their target. People

get tired of renegotiating where you’re giving and giving. (166)

And similarly, environmentalists cited examples of broken trust in negotiating policies

with commodity users:

At the time I didn’t think [the zero-cut position] was a very workable idea. But

the more I think about it, the more I think it’s the only solution. The timber

companies are never going to give an inch. Every time you make one

agreement, they turn around and do something like the salvage rider deal.

The gimmicks they come up with. They’ve forced people into the no cut on

the national forest. They won’t give anything, they just take. (155)

Both stakeholder groups often referred to the CROP program or the debates surrounding it as “another example” of a situation elsewhere or a previous similar occurrence.
79

Another variable in the differences between these two stakeholders was their values

about human use and stewardship of the environment. Environmentalists stated their

roles as conservationists or preservers of natural systems, advocating for a natureregulated system rather than a human-managed system. This position was in contrast

to their perception of the economic profit-driven positions on forest management policies by the wood products industry and other commodity users:

We truly work in the public interest, not out of self interest. That’s the

difference between us and the industry. (151)

Industrial operators did not contest their economic interests; however, they pointed out

that this is not their only motivation to support a promanagement position. Ecological

integrity for watersheds, wildlife, and vegetation as well as timber production, in their

opinion, required some level of management, which in turn would serve not only ecological objectives but also produce economic and social benefits. Thus, many commodity users considered themselves environmentalists because they cared about

the environment, yet they did not support the positions and ideologies of mainstream

environmental activism.

The definition for an environmentalist and preservationist should be a logger, because those are the people that truly believe and live what these

folks pretend to be. Because we do live here, we do work in the forest

everyday. We know what is healthy and what’s not. (128)

Everything was taken out of the Forest Service hands and put into the

hands of the environmentalists that I call extremists. There’s some rational

folks out there with good points, but there’s people who believe we should

never cut a tree again. They don’t understand the changes over time of

what trees, stands and ecosystems do and don’t do. They’d rather leave

that to mother nature to figure out instead of the rest of us. (172)

If you took the word environmentalist, I’m probably the worst one there is in

the whole world. Because I’ve lived here my entire life; I have more at stake

than anybody does. I want to raise my family here. I want my kids to raise

their kids here. I’m not here to destroy it. I don’t want to do anything to hurt

it. (130)

Environmentalists responded by reiterating their concern for conserving ecological

integrity, which cannot coexist with intensive land use. Their ties to the local environment, in their assessment, were just as strong as others who live in the same community and work in the woods or wood products industry.

We’ve been labeled as uncaring, irresponsible, insensitive to the needs of

people, over-educated elitists, radical extremists. When almost everyone

who works in forest watch, in particular, lives in a teeny tiny town someplace

out in the tules....We’re very directly affected by community health and by

what happens to people in rural towns. (151)

This isn’t the urban thinking, this is how we in the rural community can

sustain the environment here that we love so much. And we live here

because of the quality of the environment. (147)

Besides the debates about the direction of forest management and specific activities

implemented on the ground, commodity users were threatened by other changes.

Because many rural communities were founded on natural resource use, residents
80

faced changes in their ways of life, including skills used to earn a living, traditions

passed down from previous generations, and values used to assess the meaning

of “decent” and “hard” work. To many, their efforts to support themselves and their

families had somehow been vilified–a shocking, perplexing, angering, and degrading

situation.

It’s a culture here. That’s what the communities were built on: timber. Some

of the pride in that heritage is disappearing because we’ve been hearing so

many negative things about timber harvests in the media. (136)

It’s sad when you see a poster [at a child’s school]...that says “Cutting down

trees is bad” when their dad works at Boise. (126)

As communities make transitions to accommodate less resource dependent

economies, painful changes impact residents. Some lashed out at environmentalists

who were thought to be partially at fault:

...those socialist environmental whackos... (103)

Others were more subtle in their assessments of environmental activists:

We [the Northwest timber workers] are a grass roots group that comes

together out of necessity to protect or preserve jobs using sound environmental and economical forest practices....I like to refer to us as

environmentalists who work for a living. (D)

Despite this disparity between commodity users and environmentalists, a lot of middle

ground existed where many stakeholders could seek common interests and negotiable

differences:

When we get to know each other, a lot of the polarity goes away....If we just

listen to the rhetoric, the environmental activists say they don’t want to cut

any more trees. The reality is, that’s not true. There may be a few radicals,

but most say “we can’t stop harvesting the trees, we just have to do it

better.” Their perception of us is that we’re racing out there to cut the last

damn tree down and can’t wait to see a lovely clear cut. That’s not true

either. Somewhere in the middle you’ll find about 80 percent of us.... (169)

Some commodity users believed that others with shared concerns had become too

extreme, overlooking opportunities to work through differences with environmentalists:

I think their [referring to the Ferry County Action League] intentions are

honorable. And they do a lot of research. But I have concerns because it

seems they have been a major player in polarizing the community. So we

have the Ferry County Action League and we have the environmental

community. And never shall they sit together at the same table....I don’t

agree with the environmental community in some ways either. But they do

have some good points. We can work out some things. We can have a winwin on some things. We don’t have to have a win-lose situation, and that

seems to be where it’s headed. That frustrates me....They’re both working

for the same thing, but in totally different manners. And they won’t work

together at all. (164)

Other conflicts about the CROP program among non-Forest Service stakeholder

groups were less pronounced. Some recreationists expressed concern about logging

practices interfering with their forest use and enjoyment:
81

My biggest problem is with the loggers. They leave a heck of a mess. (162)

And, an interesting point was raised in one tribal representative’s observation on the

policy platform of some commodity users concerning rural community cultural

preservation:

The recent movement, it’s been the whole anti-government thing. It’s really

strong in north Idaho, Pend Oreille County. One of the ways this movement

has tried to make themselves heard is with this customs and culture thing.

“This is our culture, this is the way we manage our money off the land.” Of

course to the tribes, this is such a joke, a travesty. To those people who

have been here for 100 years maybe, to talk about custom and culture,

literally on the bones of the entire customs, cultures and civilizations that

was here for hundreds of years...it seems a little ironic.... (115)

In summary, most stakeholder groups were fully aware of the different positions within

their group and across other groups. Furthermore, they realized that the Forest Service

must contend with these multiple groups, interests, and positions. Stakeholder groups

sometimes viewed the decisionmaking process as a political tug of war between

special interest groups.

Instead of from the multiple-use or industry folks, they’ve [Forest Service]

gotten harassment from the preservationists so they’ve swayed that way.

It’s easier. (170)

Frankly they feel that they get run over. As soon as the environmentalists

pull up an issue, boom, immediately back track. (104)

They [the Forest Service] don’t change because you have a compelling

argument; they change because they think you can get them for violating

NEPA or the forest plan. (118)

Or, it was seen as a gridlocked process attempting to pacify everyone, but in doing so

would produce weak, ineffective decisions.

They [Forest Service] try to be middle of the road, but the whole exercise is

waste of a lot of money. They’ll design the alternatives so they can pick one

in the middle....It will usually lean a little bit more toward the environmental

community because they know that’s the one they’ll have the biggest

chance of getting a lawsuit from. (166)

I understand what NEPA was for, the intentions were good, but to the extreme it gets utilized on the ground and gets mis-utilized by special interests

groups, it prevents a lot of good management from happening, makes it a

lot more expensive than it used to be, and in some cases flat out prevents

things that should happen but won’t happen. There’s a real gridlock on

federal lands.... (108)

We created such a debate that nobody can make a decision or do anything.

(125)

These views may appear cynical, yet the prevalence of frustration with the decisionmaking process at the national forest was real and held potentially serious impacts for

people’s lives, community stability, and environmental integrity. Forest management

issues, such as those surrounding the CROP program, are extremely sensitive especially in the larger context of their implications for future CNF decisions and for other

national forests with similar issues.
82

Description—Since the enactment of NEPA (1969), the Forest Service has been

required by law to involve the public in its decisionmaking process. Public involvement has evolved over the years in terms of forums, participation, input processes,

and management alternatives. In addition, the appeals process to scrutinize management decisions also has targeted NEPA document inadequacies and public involvement shortcomings. As the CNF staff plan to involve the public in management activities connected to CROP stands, they must face the public’s previous experience with

public involvement. Key elements of successful public involvement include its efficacy

to improve management decisions, its openness to incorporate their knowledge and

concerns, its fairness to listen to all stakeholders, and its effectiveness to make durable

decisions.

Discussion—A variety of assessments on the Forest Service’s public involvement

meetings existed and did not necessarily coalesce by stakeholder group. For example,

one logger felt fairly satisfied with the Forest Service’s effort to gain input from the

public:

They’re [the Forest Service] very open. I’ve been to public input meetings,

they’re always very courteous and try to explain what they have in mind.

Real receptive to comments, even negative things. (146)

Whereas a mill worker believed that residents of small communities were underrepresented and their voices overlooked:

It’s always the people who live here, the rural areas, who work in the industries. We’re such a small number, that our voices are not very effective.

We’re not the west side of the state, we’re not the east side of the country.

We’re working people. (143)

Many questioned the process and its ability to actually improve management decisions

and on-the-ground activities. One industrial operator was wary:

I haven’t [participated in public involvement meetings] because I wonder if

they’ll do any good. (135)

while some environmentalists were distrustful:

...[public involvement meetings are] a farce, charade. (118)

some commodity users remembered previous attempts to negotiate differences:

We went through negotiations with them–the Forest Service and the Public

Lands Council–we spent a lot of time and money trying to negotiate a settlement. It never happened. The problem was that we were willing to give up

on things but they [The Lands Council] weren’t. They didn’t have anything to

lose. We had our jobs to lose....Nothing really got settled....There was nothing for their side to lose. Their jobs didn’t depend on it, whereas ours do.

And it’s not just our jobs, it’s our life. It’s a culture here, the way we are.

(136)

and some civic representatives and commodity users expressed their frustrations with

decisions emerging from local public involvement meetings being overridden by the

federal judicial, legislative, or executive branch:

Why spend the money on all these studies, if the politicians make the

decisions in the end? (130)

Public Involvement and

Tribal Consultation

Concerns
83

I used to get really angry at that. Almost to the point where I couldn’t speak

about it. It’s really about politics. There’s people in the Forest Service who

understand forest health, that understand animal habitat; they know what

needs to be done and the way to do it. But they’re getting directions from

politicians and appointed bureaucrats who don’t allow them to do their

jobs....[Local Forest Service employees] say “...we feel like doctors who

aren’t allowed to do their jobs. How would you feel lying on the operating

table for surgery, but before the surgeon could operate he had to go get

public opinion on whether it was a valid surgery?” (167)

The most prevalent concern about the public involvement process was the personal

time commitment. For many, their involvement was unpaid and had to be scheduled

around work, which often reduced time delegated for family, household chores, and

leisure activities. Thus, choosing to participate in public involvement processes often

entailed costs to their personal lives.

I used to spend 3-4 nights a week going to these meetings, it’s discouraging. I couldn’t have a job to really be involved. It got to the point where I

decided I just have to raise my family. (130)

I haven’t commented because I didn’t really feel I had the knowledge. I

would like to be active but with this business and having a family, I don’t

have enough time. (140)

I can’t afford to go to every meeting. (133)

Time available for public involvement also was viewed by commodity users as an unfair

advantage held by environmentalists. The former typically believed that environmentalists receive a salary to scrutinize NEPA documents, check data on a site-specific basis,

and attend public involvement meetings. Commodity users expressed their frustration

over environmentalists’ salaries and reimbursed expenses versus their own volunteered time and out-of-pocket expenses; they belittled environmentalists’ “work” by contrasting it with their “real work,” typically of a more blue-collar nature:

That’s what [loggers, mill workers] do, they work and don’t have time to be

involved in the whole thing. (136)

...the advisory board is always claimed to be diverse...but by the 4th or 5th

meeting, you’ve only agency people and environmental activists because

other people are out trying to make a living. They don’t get paid for time

they’re off work or budget to travel.... They call it public involvement, but it

ends up being real lopsided...it’s a fallacy to say we’re having all these

public involvement meetings. That pacifies everybody, but to me it’s a copout of government not trying to take responsibility for their decisions based

on their management expertise and science. (166)

[Environmentalists] have got a lot of people with nothing else to do. It’s their

job. We all have to work for a living, otherwise we’d starve to death. If we

had 8-10 hours per day, we’d be more effective. I can only work on this on

average 1 hour per day. My wife tells me I have a life. This is gratis, we

don’t get paid to do this.... (169)

Another concern was atrophy, which often reflected people’s choices in prioritizing their

time; i.e., whether to spend it on forest issues or on other personal interests.
84

Unless there’s a hot issue, people don’t show up. They have to be mad

about something. (116)

Regardless of the costs, time commitments, and issues, public involvement was necessary, according to all stakeholders.

You have to go; you have to be well informed; you have to participate. I’m

not willing to devote the rest of my life doing this. I will if I have to, but I’d

rather not. There’s other things I’d rather do with my life than tear apart EAs

[environmental assessments]. (118)

Public involvement processes raised unique concerns for tribes. Most sought a different venue for tribal input on national forest management policies. Tribes consider

themselves sovereign governments, as defined by various treaties, executive orders,

and case law. To them, consultation government to government differed from public

involvement that evolved from NEPA regulations. A formal process, however, was not

and is not currently in place.

The executive order requiring federal agencies to consult has not been

complied with. The government-to-government executive order has not

been complied with. So the opportunity to represent the tribe has been

denied. (173)

Not only was this consultation intended to give tribes a voice in the decisionmaking

process, but it also would provide a learning opportunity.

One of the tasks we have is to make it clear to the other agencies what the

resources of importance to the tribe are. Constitutionally those federal

agencies have a trust responsibility to manage those resources for the tribe.

(115)

Some tribal members expressed concern about the lack of understanding by the Forest

Service of the depth and multidimensional connections between Native Americans and

the land, culture, and spirituality.

I have concerns that if they think the wildlife or fish concerns are addressed,

then they automatically think the traditional lifestyles of the tribe are being

represented. (173)

For example:

With the Indian people and society, before the European people came,

members were delegated the responsibility of being managers for the

resources....With their responsibility, they were expected to behave. They

were expected to be knowledgeable, to consult, to coordinate. The regimental control over these people were their ceremonies. As long as they

could function inside those ceremonies and be convinced they were the

spiritual connection between that environment and themselves–then they

could maintain that spiritual level, at that social level. If they violated any one

of these, they would miss that opportunity to be that manager....That’s why

it’s so important for the tribe to work with these people, these agencies and

explain the culture–it goes beyond just looking at that stream. Because of

the spiritual connection: between that environment and the Great Spirit. If
85

you violate that, you violate one heck of a lot. You violate the ceremonies,

the religion, the customs, the traditions, the opportunities to manage....If I

was that manager, I have my song and I have that ceremony. I have that

function to make sure that I had that spiritual connection to that

environment. (173)

Without a consultation process, tribes believed that legal mandates would not be

fulfilled or their interests incorporated into Forest Service polices.17

This process involved larger issues than the particulars of the CROP program. When

asked about potential silvicultural practices implemented in CROP stands, for example,

one representative of a tribe was moderately concerned about wildlife and stream

disturbances, de-emphasizing changes to the stand:

It affects the vegetation mosaic. But in terms of it being a timber stand of

greater or lesser size, or more or less health, I think not [much of an impact

on the tribe]. (115)

Developing a consultation process was taking on a new priority, and tribes were

developing their own resources and protocols to interact with the Forest Service and

other agencies. This, in turn, would help to avoid crisis situations where tribes might

have been left out of decisions or their interests not voiced adequately.

Up to now, it’s pretty clear that the tribe has just been treated as a member

of the public. A decision is proposed under NEPA, word goes out, they take

in input, react in whatever way and come out with a decision. Up to a month

ago, this was how the tribe was being involved....We have dealt with them to

varying degrees of success. Now that’s going to change I think. (115)

Consultation for tribes and public involvement for other stakeholders was an extremely

important vehicle to input concerns and knowledge into activities occurring (or not

occurring) in the national forest. By identifying successes and failures in past consultation and public involvement processes as well as by gaining a more thorough understanding of other social dynamics in the natural resource policy arena, the Forest

Service may be able to improve subsequent efforts. Key to improving tribal consultation and public involvement processes is discerning relational and substantive issues.

Strength in relations between the Forest Service and social groups as well as among

all social groups will provide opportunity to discuss difficult issues. As relations break

down, productive discussion often disintegrates into standard rhetoric, polarized positions, and emotionally charged reactions. Table 20 summarizes the complexity of this

social situation.

17 An interesting development in the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project regarding tribal

consultation was noted by one Forest Service employee.

Because ICBEMP affects dozens of tribes, consultation

had occurred between tribes and Forest Service regional

offices. And this trend seems to continue. As activities

arise on individual national forests, tribes appear to be

contacting regional offices to voice their input.
86 Table 20—Describing the relation between the Forest Service and stakeholders, by stakeholder group

Resources

Stakeholder group of emphasis Belief statement PositionCivic representatives Forest health, Residents of communities neighboring the A cooperative relation exists to support

quality of life Colville National Forest live here for many multiple use of the Colville National

reasons that connect them to forest resources. Forest. More emphasis should be placed

on the severity of Colville National Forestmanagement policy impacts on localcommunities.

Commodity users Forest health The Forest Service has shied from active The relation has deteriorated because

timber management and bowed to environmental the Forest Service is afraid of being

pressures. Local timber industries need the appealed. Forest Service employeesForest Service, and they believe that the don’t want to lose their jobs by standingForest Service needs them. up for silvicultural practices that improve

the forest but are criticized byenvironmentalists.

Environmentalists:

“Light harvest” Biodiversity, Local Forest Service is limited in their Working relation is improving, but Forest

ecosystem decisionmaking authority by top-down Service employees are afraid of losingelements directives, especially allowable sale quantities. their jobs if they resist agency directives

But they are receptive to the public and work that overlook ecological impacts.with the environmental community to somedegree.

“Zero cut” Biodiversity, The Forest Service needs to change its mandate The relation lacks trust because the Forest

naturalness so that it can preserve unique and precious Service can’t let go of the timber sale

resources that can be found only in the national program regardless of its impacts on otherforests. They are our “lungs and headwaters” resources.and are too important to degrade for short-termeconomic benefits.

Forest Service All The public includes local residents as well as all The Forest Service can’t be all things to all

Americans. These are national forests and the people. It has to follow all applicable lawsForest Service must respond to all American and regulations. But it needs creative inputvoices. However, local residents directly from the public to mitigate negativeexperience the impacts of Colville National impacts of management activities.Forest management activities.

Recreationists Recreation The Forest Service has many informal A good relation exists, but permanently

partnerships with recreationists to maintain closed roads and the prospect of usertrails and facilities. Recreation is not always fees worry some recreationists.possible when forest access is restricted.

Tribes Cultural values, Tribes have unique standing and mandated The formal consultation process,

spirituality consultation rights with federal agencies. government to government, has not

occurred, thereby violating legalagreements.
87

The tri-county region, to this point in the report, has been treated as a whole relative to

social groups, issue descriptions, and perceived impacts of the CROP program. This

tactic has enabled the reader to gain insight into social dynamics surrounding CROP

stand management–a complexity in itself. But in doing this, variations of impacts and

interests have been overlooked according to unique community circumstances, forest

dependence, and social grouping distributions. The following summary provides some

insight to these differences by geographic clusters within the tri-county region.

The communities of Newport, Cusick, and Usk comprise this area. Issues of particular

emphasis and unique characteristics associated with this area included:

• Residents are within commuting distance to Spokane; local economies therefore

are not as self-reliant as other, more isolated tri-county areas. These “bedroom”

communities also are attractive to retirees who seek high quality-of-life amenities

from smaller, rural communities but also want access to services, particularly

medical facilities.

• Unemployment tends to be significantly higher than the state average. Public

assistance in terms of welfare, medicaid, unemployment, and other transfer

payments are a higher proportion of personal incomes.

• The Newport District of the CNF provides day trip recreational opportunities to the

Spokane and Coeur d’Alene populations but does not have destination appeal for

many tourists.

• The Pend Oreille Environmental Team is centered in this area. Members monitor

activities in this district as well as the Sullivan Lake Ranger District to the north.

This group focuses on developing working relations with the CNF to monitor

environmental impacts in the national forest.

• Overall, the southern Pend Oreille communities have a fairly friendly relation with

the Newport district staff. Residents feel the staff is accessible and willing to listen

to the public. Moreover, private timber operators are moderately satisfied with the

Newport timber sale program given recent federal public lands policy dynamics.

Local points of interest for the communities of Metaline Falls, Metaline, Ione, and Tiger

included:

• Most large private industry has left the area, closing sawmills, factories, and mining operations. In 1995, Vaagen Brothers’ Ione mill closed. The LaFarge Cement

operation also closed in the mid-1980s. Zinc and lead mining was once big business, but closed in the early 1970s; slim hopes of reopening these mines still

persist. Although, the number of these facilities was never great, they were primary

sources of income for residents. This area has ridden the wave of boom and bust

industries since Anglo settlement. Most residents are extremely concerned about

their economic future, especially in light of recent cutbacks in the Forest Service

timber sale program.

• With campgrounds surrounding Sullivan Lake, the proximity of the Salmo Priest

Wilderness, efforts to reestablish caribou populations, and grizzly bear habitat

protection, many feel the Sullivan Lake Ranger District is following a national trend

emphasizing recreation over commodity resources on federal public lands.

• Unemployment is extremely high in northern Pend Oreille County. Furthermore,

almost every household receives part of their income from the public sector–either

through employment with federal, state, or local government or the school systems,

or from transfer payments. Many point out this situation is not sustainable.

Review By County

Southern Pend Oreille

County

Northern Pend Oreille

County
88

• Frustration is high about the lack of timber sales by the Forest Service–in the

Sullivan Lake District as well as in other CNF Districts and Pacific Northwest

national forests. Some attribute this to local, regional, and national environmentalism; others blame the Forest Service or other federal agencies such

as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has lead authority over the ESA.

• Many see the CNF surrounding their communities, but feel it is not accessible–

closed roads and few timber sales. The latter, many believe, would not only help the

forest in terms of stimulating the growth and resiliency of CROP stands but also

provide desperately needed jobs.

The larger communities of Colville and Kettle Falls are located here. Farther north are

Marcus and Northport; to the south are Addy and Arden.

• The Colville-Kettle Falls-Arden area is home to Boise Cascade’s three milling

operations, Vaagen Brothers’ small log sawmill, and Stimson’s sawmill. Support for

the timber industry is strong and relatively unopposed by any locally organized

environmental groups.

• Although Stevens County has high unemployment rates compared to the state, it is

typically better off than neighboring Pend Oreille and Ferry Counties. Northern

Stevens County is characterized as a “isolated trade center” (ICBEMP 1998), which

means it is relatively self-sufficient and provides services to other outlying areas.

• Relations between these communities and the Colville and Kettle Falls Ranger

Districts and the supervisor’s office exhibit moderate tension. The timber community

has attempted to cooperate and negotiate policy changes, but it often feels nonlocal

environmental groups eventually usurp this process.

• CROP stand management has been a topic of discussion between the Forest

Service and those in private forestry and timber industries over the past 20 years.

Many are disappointed with the perceived lack of decisions and progress made to

actually implement treatments in these stands.

• Concerns about the forest’s resiliency to storm damage, insects and disease,

and wildfire are magnified by compounding forest health problems that have accumulated over the years.

• Chewelah lies 20 miles south of Colville and is more accessible to Spokane. It is

less timber dependent and has been able to market its community to retirees who,

as previously mentioned, choose proximate medical facilities and other services.

• Other communities in the southern portion of Stevens County, such as Valley,

Springdale, Hunters, Loon Lake, Ford, Wellpinit, and the Spokane Indian Reservation are not adjacent to the CNF. They most likely are impacted by the national

forest to a lesser degree than the communities focused on for this social

assessment.

• Part of the Colville Indian Reservation comprises the southern half of Ferry County.

The Colville Confederated Tribes’ priority issues were procedural rather than

substantive; i.e., government-to-government consultation was the foundation to

voicing their interests in national forest management decisions.

• Tribal members stress the need to recognize traditional ways of life, including cultural practices and spiritual connections to resource management and use. Many

feel these elements are overlooked by public land management agencies including

the Forest Service.

Northern Stevens County

Southern Stevens

County

Southern Ferry County
89

Communities in this area include Republic, Malo, and Curlew.

• Timber, ranching, and gold mining form the cornerstone of this area’s Anglo development. Many see these industries slowly diminishing, to their chagrin, which

causes much concern about their future economic stability. Diversifying this area’s

economy is difficult due to their isolation from major cities, interstates, and airports.

• Unemployment is high with little foreseeable change.

• Tensions among forest stakeholders are high. The Ferry County Action League

is centered in Republic, as is the Kettle Range Conservation Group. Additionally,

several active representatives of the Public Lands Council live and work out of

Republic. Natural resource issues quickly are polarized among these groups.

• The Republic Ranger District has drier forest types, generally, compared to the

other CNF districts. Recent fires burned in this district and the adjacent Kettle Falls

district, including the White Mountain fire in 1988. Wildfire is a salient issue; thus,

concerns about fuel accumulation and fire prone ecosystems top residents’ concerns when discussing CROP stands.

Northern Ferry County
90

The CROP research program focuses on stand treatments—a largely biological,

ecological, economic, and silvicultural adaptive management process. However, people living in communities adjacent to the Colville National Forest, forest watch interest

communities, tribes that have specific rights to these lands, the Forest Service staff

who administer this national forest, and others beyond the inland West have various

interests in the management of overstocked, small-diameter stands. Thus, a social

component was integrated into the CROP research program by conducting a social

assessment and collaborative learning public involvement activities. The result was

a multidimensional, comprehensive study and action plan for learning and managing

these stands.

The social assessment results, discussed in the “Social Groups” and “Issues” sections,

outline the complex web of people’s uses and values of the national forest as well as

their perceived impacts that future forest management directions might effect. The remainder of this section weaves together several themes emerging from previous sections to explain two fundamentally different positions that most likely will shape future

policy debates surrounding CROP stand management. Guidelines are proffered to help

resource managers foster inclusive, open, and pragmatic relations with stakeholders

and tribes.

1. CROP stands will undergo basic changes if silvicultural treatments are applied, but

outcomes are neither clear nor simple.

Silvicultural treatments change the physical structure, species composition, age class

distribution, and average diameter size of a stand. Furthermore, habitats, ecological

processes, visual appearances, succession patterns, soils stability, and more are

among a long list of potential impacts.

Because exact responses by the forest to a particular treatment prescription (including no treatment) are not perfectly predictable, various stakeholder groups foresee different scenarios as an effect; subjectivity thus enters the decisionmaking process. This

uncertainty is further exaggerated by the stakeholders having myriad definitions of the

roles and values of CROP stands. For example, these stands can be viewed as any

combination of the following: densely, overstocked small-diameter trees; wildlife habitat;

a component of forest structural and vegetative diversity; one stage in forest succession; timber with low productivity, low market value, and high harvest costs; stands with

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Themes: Making

Sense of the Social

Complexity
91

low recreational value; stands associated with high mortality risks; biota protecting

irreplaceable genetic legacies; unique areas within the national forest system that are

becoming increasingly rare and valuable to the region, nation and world; and so forth.

The expected outcomes of treating CROP stands depend on where each person starts

with their perception of CROP stands and their understanding of silvicultural

treatments.

2. People evaluate these treatments through a diverse set of individual experiences,

connections to the forest, knowledge sources, cultural influences, and fundamental

values.

Time spent in the forest, residences proximate to forest and national forest lands, exposure to media sources, cultural backgrounds, sense of community, work experiences, professional affiliations, education, family history and traditions, recreational

experiences, and more factor into a person’s view of CROP stands and the need for

particular silvicultural treatments. This background that each person brings to the situation is individualistic and multidimensional. Multiple connotations thus are attached to

particular treatments or desirable objectives. Some will view the increased chance of

storm damage in CROP stands as negative–further hindering stand growth, productivity, and resiliency to other disturbances. Others will view the same storm damage

as positive–an example of natural disturbances and responses in an ever changing

ecosystem.

The different backgrounds, understandings of the situation, and assessments of

positive, negative, or indifferent expand the complexity of evaluating treatments and

potential impacts. Ambiguity, commitment to one’s positions, and debate are to be

expected when proposals are made for changes (or lack of change) to natural resources and the environment that people strongly value.

3. Perceived risks associated with alternative treatments (including no treatment) are

significant decision variables in people’s preferred management choices.

The framing of risk is an important decision factor in evaluating potential losses:

“Choices involving gains are often risk averse and choices involving losses are often

risk taking” (Tversky and Kahneman 1981: 453). Regardless of a person’s shared

interest with a particular stakeholder group, the core of one’s position on CROP stand

treatments is centered on minimizing losses. For some stakeholders, the potential

losses correspond to reductions in the naturalness of the forest or ecosystem, preempted nature-regulated processes, extirpation of genetic legacies, less species

diversity, and resource degradations not recoverable in the short term. A no- or lowlevel intervention management strategy is viewed as a way to realize gains in environmental integrity; therefore these stakeholders’ positions reflect a risk-averse choice by

not supporting extensive silvicultural stand treatments.

Other stakeholders anticipate losses resulting from catastrophic disturbances that override the resiliency of CROP stands, such as reductions in marketable timber, increased

insect and disease epidemics, increased wildfire frequencies and magnitude, severe

economic and social impacts on natural resource dependent communities, and, similarly, resource degradations not recoverable in the short term. Lack of intervention in

CROP stands appears to yield high losses, according to this stakeholder group; therefore, their support for silvicultural treatments is risk taking to avoid or mitigate losses.

4. Two fundamentally different positions emerge. Between these two distinct positions,

however, a spectrum of mixed interests and voices exist.
92

As discussion in the previous themes exemplifies, two diametrically opposed positions

emerge. Often the two stakeholder groups, commodity users and environmentalists

(specifically the subgroup of zero-cut environmentalists), voice competing views of the

situation and therefore proffer opposing positions on forest policy. In one sense, this

polarization clarifies the discussion, illuminating distinct differences and simplifying the

discourse. But in another sense, if the focus is on the extremes, then the complexity of

the situation and those representing a spectrum of interests somewhere in the middle

are overlooked.

It is not uncommon in politicized issues to lose sight of the middle ground, especially

when issues are debated in the media. As resource managers, communities, interest

groups, and individuals attempt to shape CROP management directions, a flexible

range of alternatives representing the whole interest spectrum can be useful and

beneficial to the decision process.

5. A sense of responsibility permeates people’s considerations of appropriate CROP

management, in terms of forest stewardship, societal needs, community stability,

family, and individual livelihood.

People demonstrated sincere commitment to their positions on CROP stand management alternatives and expressed the need to make responsible decisions due to wideranging impacts. Although many individuals, families, and communities adjacent to the

CNF likely would experience a higher degree of impacts from the CROP program,

others beyond the tri-county region would be affected directly and indirectly. And, of

those interviewed for this social assessment, most acknowledged the potentially farreaching impacts and voiced the need to give serious thought to their policy positions.

6. Public participation in the forest policy decisionmaking process involves myriad factors that are of broader scope than people’s geographic location, primary forest use,

and short-term impacts.

Although the CROP program is a major research and management effort occurring in

the CNF, it is only one component of this national forest staff’s management responsibility. Similarly, community residents, tribes, and other interested parties have a variety

of obligations and interests in their lives. Thus, attention given to the CROP program,

often is prioritized.

For those with a high level of interest in the outcomes of the CROP program, time is

set aside to participate or keep informed with developments in the decisionmaking

process. Others may not participate in public involvement activities because the issues

may not be deemed as important as other events in their lives at the time. And some

may choose to participate in other forums where they feel their voice has more effective results.

To incorporate social assessment findings into the CROP research program, other

CNF management activities, and subsequent public involvement processes, guidelines

are offered. These concepts may at first seem obvious and simple. But successful implementation of these guidelines is more challenging than first appears. Including a

diverse “public” and tribes as sovereign governments in the national forest decisionmaking process is anything but easy. Therefore, learning is stressed as the overarching principal for all decisionmaking participants including the Forest Service. To begin

this process, the following guidelines are identified:

• Recognize multiple stakes held by people in forest use. Social dynamics surrounding forest policy are complex due to myriad ways forests impact daily lives.

Guidelines for

Resource Managers
93

• Acknowledge the diversity of the people . Each person interprets a situation from

his or her unique experiences, knowledge, interests, locality, and traditions. Collectively, the public and tribes will have conflicting perceptions and positions on forest

policy.

• Understand differentiated impacts for each stakeholder group. With varied perceptions, positions, and stakes associated with forest policy, management outcomes

will impact people differently.

• Strengthened relations can encourage substantive issue dispute resolution. If the

resource manager’s goal is to achieve policies that improve problematic situations,

social relations must enable productive discourse. Thus, design of public involvement processes must be inclusive and responsive to social complexity.

• Public involvement starts with individuals who collectively expand the decisionmaking process. Accommodate individuals’ contributions by allowing for their focus

on a particular issue, respecting their ability to participate (lack of participation in

formal processes does not necessarily equal disinterest), and acknowledging their

prior interactions with the Forest Service.

• Invest in long-term relation building. Public involvement processes may be projectoriented, but the public and tribes often are affected by multiple projects during their

tenure in the community.

• Strive for situation improvement rather than solving problems. Due to the situation

complexity and myriad positions, it is unrealistic to expect consensus on forest

policy decisions. However, by heightening understanding of underlying issues,

removing obstacles to the learning process, and encouraging productive dialogue,

improved communication clarifies the situation and promotes more informed and

durable decisions.

The qualitative methodology used in this report enabled resource managers and others

to immerse themselves in social dynamics surrounding the CROP program. At first, the

presentation of data was overwhelming but this was consistent with meeting people

one-on-one or collectively and listening to their concerns, expertise, experiences, philosophies, and suggestions for appropriate and desirable forest management of the

Colville National Forest. Furthermore, individuals, communities, tribes, and interest

groups were able to voice their expectations–grounded in their own experiences–of

how the CROP program might impact themselves and others. This report documents

interviewees’ voices rather than attempting to legitimize their views. By accomplishing

this goal, the social complexity is exposed and acknowledged, and resource managers

can then begin to incorporate social variables into their policy processes.

Social assessment supplements traditional socioeconomic analysis. A qualitative approach allows researches to move beyond general demographic, geographic, and

economic characterizations of a place or situation that typically use quantitative measures and statistics. Social assessment brings meaning to the numbers by integrating

contextual information for accurate interpretations. Qualitative methods expose the

complexity of a situation by examining the different levels of analysis, especially smaller

units not accurately represented in generalized statistics (e.g., individuals, households,

interest groups, and communities). Social assessment is the organizing framework to

understand social groups and salient issues of a situation. Social assessment encourages a systems approach to public involvement by including people–their voices, experiences, interests, etc.–in crafting and modifying natural resource policies.

Conclusion
94

Many people and organizations contributed to this social assessment and deserve

recognition and our appreciation.

The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, supported Washington

State University’s research proposal through a cooperative agreement supervised by

Roger Fight and Sue Willits. Their funding and professional credibility gave increasing

value to qualitative research projects, in general, and social assessments, specifically.

The Colville National Forest staff was an invaluable partner in this project by welcoming

us into their “neck of the woods;” offering field trips, publications, maps, and their time

and expertise to increase our understanding of the CROP program; and providing key

insight into local community social structures and other interested people concerned

with forest management. Our particular thanks go to Forest Supervisor Bob Vaught,

Ecosystem Management and Public Service Staff Officer Andy Mason, Ecosystem

Planning and Monitoring Staff Officer George Buckingham, Forest Ecologist Jay

Berube, and District Rangers Meredith Webster, Fred Gonzalez, Michael Hampton,

and Dan Dallas.

The many individuals who volunteered their time to relate concerns, opinions, experiences, and expertise during anonymous interviews are greatly appreciated. Without

your generosity and straightforwardness this social assessment would be useless. We

strove to have this document reflect your positions as accurately as possible by using

your own words. Thank you.

United States Congressman George Nethercutt and Shelly Short, his local office representative, require special recognition. Their continued interest and active involvement in the CROP program prompted the need for social assessment and effective

public involvement processes.

Additional thanks to the USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Laboratory, where Ann Camp and Paul Hessburg coordinated other CROP research activities

to coincide with the social assessment and subsequent public involvement processes.

Lastly, but with great appreciation, much of our work on the Colville National Forest

social assessment builds upon the research, practice, innovation, and insights of Steve

Daniels, Utah State University, and Gregg Walker, Oregon State University. We hope

to have represented you well.

Acknowledgments
95

Barbour, R.J.; McNeel, J.F.; Tesch, S.; Ryland, D.B. 1995. Management and utilization of mixed species, small-diameter, densely stocked stands. In: Sustainability,

forest health and meeting the nation’s needs for wood products: Proceedings, 18th

annual meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering; June 5-8, 1995. Cashiers, NC.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

Beckley, T.M. 1998. The nestedness of forest dependence: a conceptual framework

and empirical exploration. Society and Natural Resources. 11: 101-120.

Carroll, M.S. 1995. Community and the northwestern logger: continuities and changes

in the era of the spotted owl. Boulder: Westview Press.

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A. 1996. Using collaborative

learning in fire recovery planning. Journal of Forestry. 94(8): 4-9.

Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for

qualitative research. New York City: Aldine Publishing Company.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 1997a. Considering all

things: summary of the draft environmental impact statements. R6-P&EA-UP-007-

97. Walla Walla, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 56 p.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 1997b. Eastside draft

environmental impact statement: preferred alternative. Walla Walla, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. 4 p.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 1998. Economic and

social conditions of communities: economic and social characteristics of interior

Columbia basin communities and an estimation of effects on communities from the

alternatives of the eastside and upper Columbia River basin draft environmental impact statements. Walla Walla, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 122 p.

References
96

Kettle River History Club. 1992. Reflections of the Kettle River region. Walla Walla,

WA: Bennett Printing Company. 229 p.

Kolb, T.E.; Wagner, M.R.; Covington, W.W. 1994. Concepts of forest health:

utilitarian and ecosystem perspectives. Journal of Forestry. 92(7): 10-15.

Larsen, D.N. 1998. Personal communication, October 15. Draft Washington mill

survey–1996. Larsen is an economist, Washington Department of Natural

Resources, 111 Washington St. SE, PO Box 47016, Olympia, WA 98504.

McCracken, G. 1988. The long interview. Newbury Park, [state unknown]: Sage

Publications.

McGinnis, W.J.; Phillips, R.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Connaughton, K.P. 1997. County portraits of Washington state. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-400. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 262 p.

Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective: prospects and

opportunities for sustainable management of non-federal forests. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 249 p.

O’Laughlin, J.; MacCracken, J.G.; Adams, D.L. [and others]. 1993. Forest health

conditions in Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 244 p.

Quigley, T. 1997. Research plan for evaluating silvicultural treatments in fires—

created, overstocked, small-diameter forest stands. Unpublished document. On

file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR

97805-3368.

Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D.L., eds. 1994. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the

inland West: Papers from the American Forests workshop; 1993 Nov. 14-20; Sun

Valley, ID. New York City: Food Products Press. 461 p.

Spelter, H.; Wong, R.; Ince, P. 1996. Economic feasibility of products from inland

West small-diameter timber. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-92. Madison, WI: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 17 p.

Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, [state unknown]: Sage Publications.

Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and psychology of choice.

Science. 211: 453-458.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. CROP: a study of smalldiameter trees of the Colville National Forest. Colville, WA: Colville National Forest.

62 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2000. Regional

Economic Information System 1969-1997. U.S. Government Printing Office

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/reis/
97

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1921. Fourteenth census of

the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. 1.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1932. Fifteenth census of

the United States: 1930. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. III,

Part 2.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1943. Sixteenth census of

the United States: 1940. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. II,

Part 7.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1952. Census of population:

1950. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. II, Part 47.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1963. Census of population:

1960. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. I, Part 49.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of population:

1970. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. I, Part 49.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1982. Census of Population:

1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. I, Part 49.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Census of

the population: 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

[http://www.census.gov/].

Warren, D.D. 1997. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest

products industries, fourth quarter 1996. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-226. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

130 p.

Warren, D.D. 1998. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest

products industries, second quarter 1997. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-228. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

130 p.

Washington State University. 1996. Transportation characteristics and needs of

forest products industries using eastern Washington highways. Part 1: Economic

structure of the industry. Res. Rep. 13. Pullman, WA: Eastern Washington

Intermodal Transportation Study. 25 p.

Washington State University. 1997. Transportation characteristics and needs of

forest products industries using eastern Washington highways. Part 2: Movements

of raw logs. Res. Rep. 15. Pullman, WA: Eastern Washington Intermodal

Transportation Study. 74 p.

Willits, S.; Barbour, R.J.; Tesch, S. [and others]. 1996. The Colville study: wood

utilization for ecosystem management–preliminary results of study of product

potential from small-diameter stands. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-559. Madison, WI: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 11 p.

Wilson, K.; Morren, G.E.B., Jr. 1990. Systems approaches for improvement in

agriculture and resource management. New York City: Macmillan Publishing Co.
98

A. Attachment to CNF and CROP Program

Individuals, communities, and Native American tribes located next to the Colville

National Forest are directly affected by public forest land management policies, human

activities on the land, and naturally occurring phenomena. Questions in this first section

target learning about the backgrounds and histories people bring to their current thinking, use, and experience of the national forest. Once we understand the multiple, fundamental relations people share with the forest, we can begin to identify the roots of

different expectations and perceptions of past, present, and future management policies. Specific familiarity with the CROP program is explored, then, to begin guiding

interviews toward experiences and knowledge people have with these stands.

How long have you lived in the local area? Do you own land? If so, is it near or adjacent

to the national forest?

How are forests important to you? What type of attachment do you have to the local

forests, in general? the Colville National Forest, specifically? Resource use,

experience, etc.?

How do forest activities involve or affect you?

Have you lived near other national forests in Washington? in other states? What

experiences did you have with forest management policies or forest conditions in these

other places?

Where has your knowledge and opinions about forests come from? Where do you get

information about forests?

What experience or knowledge do you have regarding the CROP forest stands?

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Semistructured

Interview Guide
99

B. CROP Management

Questions now focus on probing the extent of people’s knowledge, concerns, beliefs

and opinions surrounding the management (including nonintervention) of CROP

stands. We want people, in their own words, to describe their perception of CROP

stands, whether these stands differ from or are the same as other stands on the CNF

or other forest lands, and the reasons attributed to any differences. Causes behind

current forest conditions may shape people’s beliefs about the directions future

management should take; thus, we quickly move to questions targeting desirable

visions of CROP stands as well as acceptable strategies, if necessary, to achieve

these goals.

How would you describe the CROP stands?

How do they compare to other parts of the CNF? to other forests in the area? How are

they different? How are they the same?

What do you think led up to current stand conditions in this area?

Looking toward the future, how do you hope CROP lands look? What characteristics do

you hope are part of CROP stands?

Should any management actions be taken relative to these stands?

Are changes needed? If so, what?

What specific management practices should the Forest Service use or not use?

What other environmental issues or natural resources are connected to CROP

management?

What goals should guide or direct CROP management?

Are there risks associated with these goals or management practices?

Are there any risks associated with doing nothing, in your view?
100

C. Impacts

Learning about the CROP program’s material and emotional impacts on peoples’ lives

and communities provides another avenue to discern fundamental positions on

management directions. We want to understand the rationale behind each person’s

self-defined appropriate management direction for national forest CROP stands. To

accomplish this goal, we investigate the perceived impacts people attach to the CROP

program.

As an example, increased commercial thinning in CROP stands has multiple impacts.

Primary jobs may result for local woods workers as well as secondary community jobs

stemming from a stronger timber economy. Higher levels of traffic and road use occur,

however, with increased harvesting activities in the forest, which may affect soil

stability, vegetation composition, wildlife habitat, recreational experiences, etc. The

resulting stand structure from a commercial thinning could alter fuel availability and

habitat source for insects and disease, thereby, changing the forest’s resilience to

wildfire. The impacts of any activity (including no action, as an option) are complex and

interdependent; furthermore, preferred management directions become contradictory

as people attach different values to perceived impacts.

To understand this variation on the meaning of impacts, we must uncover why people

feel strongly or ambivalent about CROP management—how it affects meaningful

components of their lives (jobs, families, friends, traditions, future generations, special

forest places, community stability, visions of individuals’ and society’s coexistence with

the environment, etc.).

How would CROP lands and management affect you? your family? your community?

the region?
101

D. Implementation

This last section tries to uncover factors, especially those shaping social dynamics, that

may affect implementation of CROP treatments. We want to learn about the relation

between the Forest Service and stakeholders (community members?), people’s trust in

the ability of the Forest Service to achieve land management objectives, other interest

groups that may be involved in decisionmaking processes, and perceptions of public

involvement processes. These questions identify tensions among stakeholder and

special interest groups that may influence CROP program implementation, regardless

of biophysical conditions and technological advances.

Can these goals or future conditions for CROP stands be achieved?

If yes, who or what helps the process?

If no, who or what stands in the way?

What can the Forest Service do to improve CROP management, or forest management

in general?

How would you describe the relation between the community and the Forest Service?

Have you gone to any public involvement meetings? commented on Forest Service

activities (formally or informally)?

Have you ever worked for a natural resource agency? What position did you hold?

What experiences did you have?

Are you affiliated with any natural resource or environmental organization? How would

you describe your involvement?
102

E. Demographics

Interview number Date

Current occupation

How long?

Previous occupations

Employment or affiliations with public land management agencies?

Membership(s) in natural resource/environmental organizations?

Town of residence

How long?

Other places of residence

National forest, public forest proximity

Educational Attainment

Town where attended high school

Age

Sex

Ethnicity/cultural identity
103

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Stakeholder Analysis of the CROP Program on the Colville National Forest

A research project is being conducted to investigate social and economic impacts of

the Colville National Forest CROP program on local communities. The purpose of this

project is to identify individuals and groups who have a stake in the CROP program and

describe the effects it has on their lives, for example, their daily routines, employment,

recreation, national forest use and relationship with the Forest Service. Aggregate community impacts are explored also to understand CROP benefits and disadvantages that

might affect Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties and the greater region.

The Department of Natural Resource Sciences at Washington State University supports this project. A team of researchers include Keith Blatner, Professor; Matt Carroll,

Associate Professor; and Angela Findley, M.S.

The research team will gather data from personal interviews, which take approximately

one hour of your time. If you approve, personal interviews will be tape recorded in order

to provide the researchers with accurate notes and an opportunity to fully concentrate

on the discussions.

Your benefits and risks in this project are minimal. Associated benefits may include

having an opportunity to communicate experiences and views about the CROP program. Associated risks may include participation considered to be time consuming,

tiring or revealing of your personal thoughts.

To minimize any risks, we assure the following rights to all participants:

• All participation in this project is entirely voluntary,

• You may refuse to answer any question at any time,

• You may withdraw from the interview at any time,

• All information obtained from this project will be kept strictly anonymous, and

• Complete interview transcriptions will be available only to the research team.

Final research reports may contain interview excerpts. However, the research team

will exclude all names and identifying characteristics from those excerpts to preserve

anonymity.

Thank you for your participation. Please direct any questions about the research or

your rights to Keith Blatner at 509-335-1992 or Matt Carroll at 509-335-2235.

Appendix 2:

Informed Consent

Form
104

Table 21—Comparison of demographic characteristics, selected eastern

Washington counties and the state, 1990

County

Pend

Demographic Ferry Oreille Stevens Spokane State

Total population 6,295 8,915 30,948 361,364 4,866,692

Percent

Sex:

Male 52.1 49.6 49.9 48.6 49.6

Female 47.9 50.4 50.1 51.4 50.4

Age:

Less than 18 years 31.5 29.4 31.5 26.4 25.9

18-64 years 57.9 56.6 56.0 60.4 62.3

Over 64 years 10.6 13.9 12.5 13.3 11.8

Race:

White 80.8 96.9 92.9 94.6 88.5

Black .3 .1 .2 1.4 3.1

American Indian, Eskimo

or Aleut 18.0 2.3 5.8 1.5 1.7

Asian or Pacific Islander .4 .3 .6 1.8 4.3

Other .6 .4 .5 .6 2.4

Hispanic origin:

Not of Hispanic origin 98.6 98.7 98.4 98.1 95.6

Hispanic origin 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.9 4.4

Educational attainment

(18+ years):

Less than 9th grade 7.8 7.1 6.7 4.6 5.1

9th to 12th grade, no

diploma 21.5 19.4 14.0 11.3 11.9

High school graduate,

GED 35.0 34.8 38.3 27.8 28.3

Some college, no degree 20.3 20.8 22.4 27.9 26.3

Associate degree 4.7 6.5 7.3 9.8 7.7

Bachelor’s degree 6.9 7.7 7.9 12.8 14.6

Graduate, professional

degree 3.7 3.7 3.4 5.7 6.1

Appendix 3:

Comparison Of

Demographic

Characteristics,

1990
105

Table 21—Comparison of demographic characteristics, selected eastern

Washington counties and the state, 1990 (continued)

County

Pend

Demographic Ferry Oreille Stevens Spokane State

Percent

Employment status

(16+ years):

In armed forces 0 .1 .2 1.5 1.4

Employed civilian 50.1 43.2 52.1 56.9 61.5

Unemployed civilian 10.1 7.6 6.2 4.5 3.7

Not in labor force 39.7 49.1 41.4 37.1 33.3

Unemployment rate

(16+ years) 16.8 15.0 10.7 7.1 5.6

Class of worker (16+ years):

Private for-profit workers 48.5 61.6 59.3 67.4 68.9

Private not-for-profit

workers 2.9 4.0 5.3 9.0 6.3

Local government workers 16.7 10.9 7.1 5.7 6.0

State government workers 7.5 7.4 9.0 6.8 6.3

Federal government

workers 12.5 5.5 5.2 3.2 4.2

Self-employed workers 11.8 10.2 13.5 7.4 7.8

Unpaid family workers .1 .3 .6 .5 .4

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1997.
106

ASQ Annual sale quantity

CNF Colville National Forest

CROP Creating opportunities

dbh Diameter at breast height

EIS Environmental impact statement

FY Fiscal year

HRVs Historic ranges of variation

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

IMOS Immature and overstocked stands

mbf Thousand board feet

mmbf Million board feet

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NIPFs Nonindustrial private forest landowners

PILT Payment in lieu of taxes

PNW Pacific Northwest

tpa Trees per acre

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Acronyms and Abbreviations
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is

dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the

Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water,

forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis

of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director,

Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th

and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890.
This page has been left blank intentionally.