Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): 

Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National

Forest and Three Local Communities

Northwest

Forest Plan

The First Ten Years (1994–2003)

Pacific Northwest

Research Station DEPA RTMENTOFAGRICULT URE

Forest 

Service

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-764

August 2008

Susan Charnley, Candace Dillingham, Claudia Stuart, Cassandra Moseley, 

and Ellen Donoghue
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, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Susan Charnley and Ellen Donoghue are research social scientists, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW 

Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. Candace Dillingham is a forester and social scientist, and 

a retired employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, 

1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097. Claudia Stuart is a community planner and former employee 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest, Genetic Resource 

Center, 2741 Cramer Lane, Chico, CA 95928. Cassandra Moseley is a political scientist and Director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 5247 University of 

Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5247.
i

Abstract

Charnley, Susan; Dillingham, Candace; Stuart, Claudia; Moseley, Cassandra;

Donoghue, Ellen. 2008. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 10 years (1994–2003):

socioeconomic monitoring of the Klamath National Forest and three local communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-764. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 111 p.

This report examines socioeconomic changes that took place between 1990 and 2003

on and around lands managed by the Klamath National Forest in California to assess

the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) on rural economies and communities

there. Three case communities were studied: Scott Valley, Butte Valley, and MidKlamath. The report characterizes the region and its history, discusses management

changes on the forest under the Plan and how they were perceived, describes socioeconomic change in the communities and how they were linked to the Plan, and evaluates

how well Plan socioeconomic goals were met by the Klamath National Forest.

Keywords: Socioeconomic monitoring, Northwest Forest Plan, forest communities,

rural development, Klamath National Forest.
ii

Preface

In the early 1990s, controversy over harvest of old-growth forests led to sweeping

changes in the management of federal forests in western Washington, Oregon, and

northwest California. These changes were prompted by a series of lawsuits in the late

1980s and early 1990s that effectively shut down federal timber harvest in the Pacific

Northwest. In response, a Presidential summit was held in Portland, Oregon, in 1993.

This summit led to issuance by President Clinton of a mandate for federal land management and regulatory agencies to work together to develop a plan to resolve the conflict.

The President’s guiding principles followed shortly after the summit in his Forest Plan

for a Sustainable Economy and Sustainable Environment,1 now called the Northwest

Forest Plan (the Plan).

Immediately after the summit, a team of scientists and technical experts were

convened to conduct an assessment of options.2

 This assessment provided the

scientific basis for the Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD)3

to amend Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within

the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina).

The ROD, to be implemented across 24 million acres of federal forest lands (9.7

million hectares), put in place a whole new approach to federal land management. Key

components of the ROD included a new map of land-use allocations–late-successional

reserves, matrix, riparian reserves, adaptive management areas, and key watersheds.

Plan standards and guidelines provided the specific management direction regarding

how these land-use allocations were to be managed. In addition, the Plan put in place a

variety of strategies and processes to be implemented. These included adaptive management, an aquatic conservation strategy, late-successional reserve and watershed assessments, survey and manage program, an interagency organization, social and economic

mitigation measures, and monitoring.

Monitoring provides a means to address the uncertainty of our predictions, and

compliance with forest management laws and policy. The ROD clearly states that

monitoring is essential and required (see footnote 3):

1

 Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1993. The forest plan for a sustainable economy and a

sustainable environment. Washington, DC: The White House. 7 p. plus appendices.

2

 Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the interior [and others]. [Irregular

pagination]

3

 U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Record of

decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning

documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]:

74 p. (plus attachment A: standards and guidelines).
iii

Monitoring is an essential component of the selected alternative. It

ensures that management actions meet the prescribed standards and

guidelines and that they comply with applicable laws and policies.

Monitoring will provide information to determine if the standards and

guidelines are being followed, verify if they are achieving the desired

results, and determine if underlying assumptions are sound.

Finally, Judge Dwyer reiterated the importance of monitoring in his 1994 decision

declaring the Plan legally acceptable:4

Monitoring is central to the [Northwest Forest Plan’s] validity. If

it is not funded, or done for any reason, the plan will have to be

reconsidered.

The ROD monitoring plan provided a very general framework to begin development

of an interagency monitoring program. It identified key areas to monitor, initial sets of

questions, types and scope of monitoring, the need for common protocols and quality

assurance, and the need to develop a common design framework. In 1995, the effectiveness monitoring program plan5

 and initial protocols for implementation monitoring6

were approved by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Approval of the

effectiveness monitoring plan led to the formation of technical teams to develop the

overall program strategy and design,7 and monitoring protocols for late-successional

4

 Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Seattle Audubon Society, et al. v. James Lyons, Assistant Secretary of

Agriculture, et al. Order on motions for Summary Judgment RE 1994 Forest Plan. Seattle,

WA: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington.

5

 Mulder, B.; Alegria, J.; Czaplewski, R. [et al.]. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring: an

interagency program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management [et al.]; report; Monitoring Design Group, Intergovernmental Advisory

Committee.

6

 Alegria, J.; Hyzer, M.; Mulder, B.; Schnoes, B.; Tolle, T. 1995. Guidance for

implementation monitoring for management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth-related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Unpublished

document]. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland,

OR 97204.

7

 Mulder, B.S.; Noon, B.R.; Spies, T.A.; Raphael, M.G.; Palmer, C.J.; Olsen, A.R.;

Reeves, G.H.; Welsh, H.H. 1999. The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring

program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

138 p.
iv

and old-growth forests,8

 northern spotted owls,9 marbled murrelets10 (Brachyramphus

marmoraturs), tribal relations,11 and watershed condition.12 Socioeconomic monitoring

protocols continue to be tested.13

Periodic analysis and interpretation of monitoring data is essential to completing

the monitoring task. This important step was described in the overall monitoring

strategy (see footnote 7), and the regional interagency executive committee approved

a 5-year interpretive reporting cycle. In 2005 and 2006, 10-year reports were published

that contain the first comprehensive analysis and interpretation of monitoring data since

the ROD.

This report on socioeconomic monitoring of the Klamath National Forest and

three local communities in northern California is linked to the socioeconomic monitoring 10-year interpretive report (see footnote 13). It contains detailed results from one of

four case-study areas in which local-scale monitoring was conducted to complement

regional-scale monitoring, the focus of the interpretive report.

8

 Hemstrom, M.; Spies, T.; Palmer, C.; Kiester, R.; Teply, J.; McDonald, P.; Warbington,

R. 1998. Late-successional and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for the

Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-438. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 37 p.

9

 Lint, J.; Noon, B.; Anthony, R.; Forsman, E.; Raphael, M.; Collopy, M.; Starkey, E.

1999. Northern spotted owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-440. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p.

10 Madsen, S.; Evans, D.; Hamer, T.; Henson, P.; Miller, S.; Nelson, S.K.; Roby, D.;

Stapanian, M. 1999. Marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-439. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management. 2002. Tribal monitoring under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Interagency executive letter. www.reo.gov.

12 Reeves, G.; Hohler, D.; Larsen, D.; Busch, D.; Kratz, K.; Reynolds, K.; Stein, K.; Atzet,

T.; Hays, P.; Tehan, M. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for the aquatic and riparian component of the Northwest Forest Plan: Conceptual framework and options. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 71 p.

13 Charnley, S., tech. coord. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003):

socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 vol.
v

Summary

This case study was developed to respond to two socioeconomic effectiveness monitoring questions posed in the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) Record of Decision (ROD).

The first focuses on use levels of natural resources: Are predictable levels of timber and

nontimber resources available and being produced? (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9). The

second evaluation question relates to rural economies and communities: Are local communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes that may be associated with federal forest management? (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9).

The evaluation questions posed in the ROD are based on a set of goals and expectations that were associated with the Plan when it was designed. One goal was to produce

a predictable and sustainable supply of timber sales, nontimber forest resources, and

recreation opportunities that would help meet a second goal: to maintain the stability of

local and regional economies on a predictable, long-term basis (USDA and USDI 1994:

26). Where timber sales could not proceed, a third goal was to minimize adverse impacts

on jobs by assisting with long-term economic development and diversification in rural

communities most affected by the cutbacks in harvesting (USDA and USDI 1994: 3).

The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative aimed to promote this goal and was

expected to provide both immediate and long-term relief to rural people, businesses, and

communities suffering from reductions in federal timber harvests (Tuchmann and others

1996: 155–156). The fourth socioeconomic goal of the Plan was to establish a system of

terrestrial and aquatic reserves that would protect forest values and environmental

qualities associated with late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems (Clark et al.

1999: 15, Clinton and Gore 1993, USDA and USDI 1994: 8-10). Fifth, the Plan aimed to

usher in a new approach to federal forest management. In particular, federal agencies

were called on to collaborate with one another in managing federal forests in the Pacific

Northwest. Greater collaboration in forest management was also expected between

agencies and citizens (Clinton and Gore 1993; Danks and Haynes 2001: 54; Tuchmann

and others 1996: 6, 44–48).

This report addresses the ROD socioeconomic monitoring questions, and examines

whether Plan goals and expectations were met, at the local scale on the Klamath National Forest (KNF) in northern California and in three communities adjacent to the

KNF: Scott Valley, Butte Valley, and Mid-Klamath. It draws on quantitative and qualitative monitoring data gathered from existing secondary sources and interviews with KNF

employees and community members. We summarize the monitoring results here.

Question 1—Are predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources available

and being produced?

Goal 1—Produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and

nontimber resources that will not degrade or destroy the environment.

Timber outputs were not predictable. Under the Northwest Forest Plan and the

Klamath Forest Plan, the KNF allowable sale quantity (ASQ) was set at 51 million board
vi

feet annually. This level represents about 25 percent of the average annual volume of

timber harvested during the 1980s. The KNF has met ASQ twice since 1995, in 1996

and 1997. Since then, the annual volume of timber offered for sale has fluctuated, but

has been less than the ASQ.

Trends in the volume of special forest products sold differed by product. The

volume of convertible special forest products sold (fuelwood and Christmas trees)

declined between 1990 and 2002. The volume of poles and posts sold remained fairly

stable during the period. Trends for nonconvertible products differed.

The grazing program on the KNF declined slightly since 1994. The volume of

salable minerals removed fluctuated considerably, and was substantially lower than the

volume removed during the 1980s. Locatable minerals activity declined. Leasable

minerals activity remained constant.

The recreation program has remained fairly stable overall. Interviewees reported

increases in river rafting, recreational mining, and backcountry use. Trail and facilities

maintenance was lagging. There was a slight decrease in roads and associated recreation

opportunities.

Question 2—Are local communities and economies experiencing positive or

negative changes that may be associated with federal forest management?

Of the 37 census block group aggregates (or “communities”) that are within 5 miles

of the KNF, 4 (11 percent) increased in well-being, 19 (51 percent) decreased in wellbeing, and 14 (38 percent) showed little change between 1990 and 2000, according to

the index developed for this monitoring program.

In the early 1970s, the wood products industry accounted for 31 percent of total

employment in northern California counties within the range of the northern spotted

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (FEMAT 1993:VII-53). By 1985–89, the industry accounted for 15 percent of total employment in the region, half of what it had been a

decade earlier. Thus, the timber industry had been undergoing change for more than a

decade prior to the Plan, with negative effects on timber workers. The Plan contributed

to these effects.

This report describes the kinds of impacts that three forest-based communities surrounding the KNF experienced as a result of the decline of the wood products industry.

Of the three communities, the most severe effects occurred in the Mid-Klamath community. This community is virtually surrounded by the KNF, had a timber economy that

was mainly dependent on federal timber, is more remote, and was less economically

diverse than the other two case communities. The reduction in timber harvesting on the

KNF spurred the outmigration of many timber workers, Forest Service employees, and

their families from these communities. This outmigration in turn triggered other social

and economic community impacts, and caused a loss of community capacity that has

been slow to rebuild.

Interviewees from all three communities reported that the KNF did not contribute to

socioeconomic well-being in their communities by providing timber, as it once did. The
vii

small mills that remained in Butte Valley did not use national forest timber. Scott Valley

had few remaining timber workers. Those Mid-Klamath residents who were still trying to

make part of their living in the wood products industry were frustrated by the lack of

reliable supplies of federal timber, which made it difficult for them to make a living. The

KNF did play an important role in providing local ranchers with grazing allotments that

are critical to their viability. However, the Plan standards and guidelines reportedly

increased their operating costs on national forest land. Mining was negligible, except

for recreational mining. Special forest products were important to tribes. The Plan had

hampered the ability of the KNF to manage for cultural products desired by tribes,

however. Matsutake mushrooms (Tricholoma magnivelare) had commercial importance,

but provided little in the way of economic benefit to local residents; most harvesters and

buyers came from outside the area. These harvesters did support local businesses when

they were in town. Interviewees had mixed views about the KNF’s contributions to

recreation and tourism development.

Communities are adapting in their own ways. The Scott Valley and Butte Valley

communities have been sustained to some degree by having strong agricultural components. Butte Valley is located along a major transportation corridor, and is not far from

the regional center of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which offers job opportunities. Scott

Valley is likewise within commuting distance of the regional center of Yreka, California,

and the Interstate-5 corridor. Retirees have moved into all three communities. And the

Karuk Tribe has played a fundamental role in contributing to community development

in the Mid-Klamath. For the most part, community members interviewed did not view

the Forest Service as helping them adapt to changes brought about by forest management policy in any meaningful way.

Goal 2—Maintain the stability of local and regional economies on a predictable,

long-term basis.

Goal 3—Where timber sales cannot proceed, assist with long-term economic

development and diversification to minimize adverse impacts associated with job

loss.

We assessed several socioeconomic benefits that the KNF provides that potentially

contribute to community well-being and long-term economic development and diversification in local communities. In addition to timber and nontimber forest products and

recreation opportunities, we examined trends in agency jobs, procurement contracts

for land management, community economic assistance, and payments to county

governments.

The KNF went from having 636 employees in 1993, to 441 in 2003, a loss of 31

percent. This job loss was related to a decline in the forest budget of 18 percent between

1993 and 2002 and had a strong impact on local employment opportunities. Declining

budgets and staffing caused some of the forest’s ranger district offices to close or consolidate in the 1990s.
viii

Between 1990 and 2002, the KNF spent a total of $44.5 million procuring land

management services. Most of this spending (64 percent) took place between 1990

and 1993. After 1993, contract spending on the KNF dropped off sharply. Between

1990–1992 and 2000–2002, contract spending declined 78 percent.

The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) brought nearly $2 million

in grant money to the KNF over the course of 9 years. Most of the NEAI money became

available during the first 4 years of the Plan. Rural community assistance grants made

up most of this funding. In general, NEAI money from the KNF and other agencies supported some worthwhile projects in communities–particularly in the arena of community planning and infrastructure development. It did not, however, assist displaced

timber workers, or result in sustainable local job creation.

Northwest Forest Plan mitigation measures resulted in substantially higher payments to counties than would have been received through forest revenue sharing alone

given diminishing timber harvests. The Secure Rural Schools Act provided the highest

level of payments to counties since 1990. In addition to being an important source of

revenue to support roads and schools countywide, payments to counties under the

Secure Rural Schools Act have contributed a significant amount of money to support

local resource-related projects on and around the KNF. The Siskiyou County Resource

Advisory Committee (RAC) made over $1.7 million available for resource-related

projects on both private and national forest lands in the county between 2001 and 2003.

Many interviewees expressed concern over the fact that the Secure Rural Schools Act

provisions expired in 2006, with reauthorization uncertain.

The overall picture of changing socioeconomic benefits from the KNF since the

Plan was adopted is one of decline. Mitigation measures associated with the Plan have

helped in some small ways, but not nearly at a scale that compensates for this loss of

benefits.

Goal 4—Promote agency-citizen collaboration in forest management.

The formal institutions established under the Plan to promote agency-citizen collaboration in KNF management (Provincial Advisory Committees and Adaptive Management Areas) apparently did not live up to their expectations, although we did not

systematically investigate their effectiveness. At the community level, between 1994

and 2003, relations between the KNF and most community stakeholder groups grew

more distant. Community interviewees viewed the KNF and forest management issues

as becoming less relevant to their daily lives.

Initially, there were sincere attempts at collaboration to successfully implement

the Plan and to achieve its objectives. However, community groups grew frustrated as

Plan-related collaborative efforts failed to achieve their goals. Moreover, local communities had a limited capacity to engage in collaboration. Their ability to collaborate

depended on the presence of organized groups, local leaders, and members that had

the time, money, and motivation to get involved. On the agency side, the reduction in
ix

on-the-ground KNF personnel, and the emphasis on interagency collaboration, made

it harder for the agency to interact with local communities. The successes that have

occurred have often been the result of individual KNF personnel who took the initiative

to make a local program or collaborative effort work.

Goal 5—Protect the forest values and environmental qualities associated with

late-successional, old-growth, and aquatic ecosystems.

The vast majority of interviewees said that timber harvest practices on the KNF prior

to the Plan were unacceptable, and undermined the health of the forest. The Plan was

seen as putting a stop to environmentally-destructive forest management practices.

However, there was widespread agreement that some silvicultural activity, particularly

thinning, was necessary to promote forest health. Most interviewees viewed the minimal

amount of active forest management that occurred under the Plan as being detrimental

to the forest, and as undermining many of the forest values and environmental qualities

that the Plan was designed to enhance. They commonly cited the increased fire risk to

spotted owl habitat as an example of this problem. Some forest protection measures

associated with the Plan–particularly survey and manage requirements–were viewed by

many interviewees as being overly protective. Other people felt the Plan had not gone

far enough in protecting old-growth habitat. Interviewees reported the greatest successes

in the arena of aquatic ecosystem conservation.

The report concludes with lessons learned from the socioeconomic monitoring work

that can be applied for adaptive forest management.
x

Contents

1 Chapter 1: Introduction

5 Methods

8 The Klamath National Forest

11 Chapter 2: Trends in Socioeconomic Benefits From the Klamath

National Forest, 1990–2003

12 Timber, Nontimber Forest Products, and Recreation

12 Timber

16 Special Forest Products

21 Grazing

23 Minerals

27 Recreation

29 Forest Products and Recreation Summary

30 Forest Jobs, Budget, and Reorganization

30 Forest Jobs

32 Forest Reorganization

33 Procurement Contracting for Land Management

43 Community Economic Assistance

45 Payments to County Governments

46 Summary of Trends

51 Chapter 3: Community-Level Change and the Effects of the Northwest

Forest Plan

52 Scott Valley

55 Community Change and the Role of Forest Management Policy

60 Adaptation to Change and the Forest Service Role in Mitigating Plan Effects

61 Changing Relations Between Scott Valley and the Klamath National Forest

61 Butte Valley

63 Community Change and the Role of Forest Management Policy

68 Adaptation to Change and the Forest Service Role in Mitigating Plan Effects

69 Changing Relations Between Butte Valley and the Klamath National Forest

70 Mid-Klamath

72 Community Change and the Role of Forest Management Policy

76 Adaptation to Change and the Forest Service Role in Mitigating Plan Effects

78 Changing Relations Between the Mid-Klamath Community and the Klamath

National Forest

79 Summary of Northwest Forest Plan Effects

83 Chapter 4: Communities and Forest Management

84 Collaboration and Joint Forest Stewardship

89 Protecting Forest Values and Environmental Qualities
xi

91 Issues and Concerns Relating to Forest Management

91 Fire

92 Forest-Based Jobs

93 Other Forest Management Issues

95 Chapter 5: Conclusions

96 Meeting Northwest Forest Plan Goals and Expectations

100 Management Implications

102 Acknowledgments

103 Metric Equivalents

103 Literature Cited

107 Appendix A: People Interviewed for This Study

111 Appendix B: Categories of Interviewees
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

1

Chapter 1: Introduction
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

2

This study was undertaken as part of the Northwest Forest

Plan Socioeconomic Monitoring Program, which is part of

the Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring

Program. It is one of four case studies conducted during

2003 for the purpose of assessing the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) on rural economies and communities within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis caurina).1

 The owl range defines the Plan area

(fig. 1). This document is a supplement to Charnley (2006),

which contains regional-scale socioeconomic monitoring

results for the Plan area for 1990-2003. It contains a level of

detail not found in that report and is intended to be useful

to the Klamath National Forest (KNF) and surrounding

communities. Three case “communities” associated with the

KNF are the focus here: Scott Valley, Butte Valley, and MidKlamath corridor (fig. 2).

This case study was developed to respond to two socioeconomic effectiveness monitoring questions posed in the

Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD). The first

focuses on use levels of natural resources: Are predictable

levels of timber and nontimber resources available and

being produced? (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9). The second

evaluation question relates to rural economies and communities: Are local communities and economies experiencing

positive or negative changes that may be associated with

federal forest management? (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9).

The evaluation questions posed in the ROD are based

on a set of goals and expectations that were associated with

the Plan when it was designed. One goal was to produce a

predictable and sustainable supply of timber sales,

nontimber forest resources, and recreation opportunities

that would help meet a second goal: to maintain the

stability of local and regional economies on a predictable,

long-term basis (USDA and USDI 1994: 26). Where timber

sales could not proceed, a third goal was to minimize

adverse impacts on jobs by assisting with long-term

1

 The other case studies are from the Olympic National

Forest in Washington (Buttolph et al. 2006), the Mount

Hood National Forest in Oregon (Kay et al. 2007), and the

Coos Bay Bureau of Land Management District in Oregon

(McLain et al. 2006).

economic development and diversification in rural

communities most affected by the cutbacks in harvesting

(USDA and USDI 1994: 3). The Northwest Economic

Adjustment Initiative aimed to promote this goal and was

expected to provide both immediate and long-term relief

to rural people, businesses, and communities suffering from

reductions in federal timber harvests (Tuchmann et al. 1996:

155–156). The fourth socioeconomic goal of the Plan was

to establish a system of terrestrial and aquatic reserves that

would protect forest values and environmental qualities

associated with late-successional and old-growth forest

ecosystems (Clark et al. 1999: 15, Clinton and Gore 1993,

USDA and USDI 1994: 8–10). Fifth, the Plan aimed to usher

in a new approach to federal forest management. In particular, federal agencies were called on to collaborate with one

another in managing federal forests in the Pacific Northwest.

Greater collaboration in forest management was also expected between agencies and citizens (Clinton and Gore

1993; Danks and Haynes 2001: 54; Tuchmann and others

1996: 6, 44–48).

The remainder of chapter 1 provides a description of

the monitoring methods, followed by a brief background

description of the KNF and surrounding area. Chapter 2

focuses on trends in socioeconomic benefits from the KNF

between 1990 and 2003, and how the Plan influenced those

trends. Chapter 3 turns to the three case-study communities

and examines changes that took place in the communities

between 1990 and 2003 and the role of the Plan in influencing those changes, community adaptation to change and

the role of the KNF in mitigating Plan effects, and changing

relations between the KNF and the communities over time.

Chapter 4 looks at communities and issues relating to the

management of the KNF. It discusses collaboration and

joint forest stewardship, how well the Plan has protected

forest values and environmental qualities on the forest, and

issues and concerns relating to forest management. Chapter

5 concludes by returning to the two monitoring questions

and the five socioeconomic goals of the Plan. It assesses

how well those goals were met during the first 10 years on

the KNF, and responds to the monitoring questions in the

context of the Klamath case study.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

3

Figure 1—The range of the northern spotted owl and the Northwest Forest Plan area.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764 4

Figure 2—The Klamath National Forest and three case-study communities.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

5

Methods

Case-study forests were chosen to represent one national

forest in each of the three states that lie within the Plan

area, and one Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unit

in Oregon. They were also chosen to represent different

provinces (the Plan area is broken up into 12 planning

provinces). We used a nonrandom selection process and

approached the KNF because it was previously a high

timber-producing forest.

The socioeconomic monitoring team used a mixedmethods approach to conduct regional and local-scale

monitoring. We chose 1990 as the baseline year for the

monitoring program for several reasons. First, we use social

and economic indicators from the U.S. census to assess

community-scale socioeconomic change over time. The

census happens once every 10 years (1990 and 2000).

Second, although the Plan was implemented in 1994, the

spotted owl listing occurred in 1990, and was quickly

followed by court injunctions against harvesting federal

timber. Thus, the impacts of reduced federal timber harvesting began around 1991; the Plan was an attempt to restore

the flow of federal timber. Finally, to evaluate the effects of

the Plan on Pacific Northwest communities, it is helpful to

compare what conditions were like before and after the Plan

was implemented. It was not possible to obtain data as far

back as 1990 for some indicators, however, so not all the

analyses begin with that year.

To answer the first evaluation question (Are predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources available and

being produced?), we obtained data on timber sales, special

forest products, grazing, mining, and recreation from Forest

Service databases and resource specialists. All of the monitoring teams associated with the Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program were directed to

obtain agency data from corporate databases, publications,

or other sources available from agency national or regional

offices, rather than requesting data from individual field

units (unless warranted by special circumstances). For the

KNF, however, we had access to forest-level data because

one of the team members was an employee there. Some of

the forest-level data are for years not available from other

sources. When we compared data for the KNF from regional

or national sources with those obtained directly from the

forest, we sometimes found differences in the numbers. In

such cases, we used the data from the KNF for our analysis.

Our ability to answer the monitoring question (Are predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources available and

being produced?) and to evaluate the Plan goal (produce a

predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and

nontimber resources) was limited by the availability and

quality of agency data.

The analytical framework adopted by this module

called for showing that changes reflected by the trend data

were caused by management actions under the Plan, or for

providing alternative theories that could explain the

changes observed. The team investigated links between

trends in resource and recreation outputs from the KNF,

management actions under the Plan, and other explanatory

variables by interviewing 15 Forest Service employees from

the KNF (app. A). We discussed trends in the indicator data

for each resource area with program specialists, asking their

perspectives on the reasons behind the trends observed and

the role of the Plan in influencing them. Fully researching

the causes of trends in resource and recreation outputs from

federal forest lands since the Plan was adopted was beyond

the scope of this exploratory study. However, the interview

results provide a starting point for developing and testing

hypotheses about how the Plan has affected the ability of

the KNF to produce predictable quantities of timber sales

and nontimber resources.

The second evaluation question has two components

(Are local communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes, and are these changes associated

with federal forest management?). To assess whether local

communities and economies were experiencing positive or

negative changes, we used social and economic indicators

from the U.S. census to analyze change in the communities

between 1990 and 2000. The monitoring team also developed a community socioeconomic well-being index based
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

6

on six census indicators (Donoghue and Sutton 2006), and

analyzed differences in well-being between 1990 and

2000.2

Finding direct connections between changes in forest

management policy and socioeconomic change is difficult.

To assess whether social and economic change in local

communities and economies was associated with the Plan,

we examined trends in socioeconomic benefits from federal

forests that potentially affect the well-being of forest communities. In addition to forest resources and recreation,

these benefits included agency jobs and procurement contracting opportunities. We examined local-scale trends in

agency jobs and procurement contracting on the KNF using

quantitative data from agency databases and other secondary sources. In addition, we evaluated the success of Plan

mitigation measures designed to support rural communities

and economies dependent on jobs in the wood products

industry during a period of economic transition. These

mitigation measures included the Northwest Economic

Adjustment Initiative, which provided economic assistance

to workers and their families, businesses, and communities;

and safety-net payments to counties to help compensate for

the loss of revenue sharing based on timber receipts.

To supplement the quantitative monitoring data, we

used a community case-study approach to gather and

analyze qualitative data that provide a more detailed understanding of (1) the social and economic conditions and

trends described by the quantitative data, (2) how changes

in the flow of socioeconomic benefits from the KNF

contributed to change in local communities, and (3) how

the Plan affected the flow of socioeconomic benefits from

the KNF. Interviews with 62 community members of the 3

case communities and 15 agency employees working on

the KNF were the source of these qualitative data (app. A).

These interviews were also the main source of data for

2 The socioeconomic well-being index consists of six

measures: employment by industry diversity, percentage of

the population with bachelor’s degree or higher, percentage

of the population unemployed, percentage of the population in poverty, household income inequality, and average

travel time to work (see Donoghue and Sutton 2006 for a

description of methods used to develop the index).

evaluating progress in agency-citizen collaboration under

the Plan, and how effective the Plan has been in protecting

forest values and environmental qualities associated with

older-forest and aquatic ecosystems.

Case-study communities associated with the KNF were

chosen on the basis of a number of criteria. The monitoring team delineated 1,314 nonmetropolitan communities

in the Plan area by aggregating census block groups (BGAs)

according to several characteristics, such as school district

boundaries, county lines, and transportation corridors

(Donoghue 2003). The team identified a sampling frame of

communities that included all of the BGAs whose polygons

lay, at least partially, within a 5-mile radius of KNF boundaries. The team chose this distance because they wanted to

focus the monitoring work in forest-based communities, and

assumed that communities close to federal forests would

have social, economic, or cultural ties to those forests. We

then met with agency employees from the KNF and showed

them our sample frame. We discussed which of the communities within our sample frame currently or historically

maintained some kind of relations with the forest and the

Forest Service, and which did not. This process narrowed

our sample frame.

We selected three communities associated with the KNF

from the sample frame for monitoring because time and

budget constraints did not allow for a larger community

sample. We recognized, however, that by choosing only

three communities, we may not have captured all of the

variation in community “types,” or in community-forest

relations, in the area. Case-study communities were chosen

randomly from a stratified sample. We stratified communities within the sample frame on the basis of their socioeconomic well-being score in 1990, using three categories—

high, medium, and low—and randomly chose one community from each stratum. This enabled us to examine how

communities characterized as having high, medium, and

low well-being responded to changes in forest management

policy.

Once we selected the case-study communities randomly, we visited them and talked with community

members to determine whether the community did indeed
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

7

have historical and present ties to the KNF. We also determined how the communities should be defined for casestudy purposes. The community BGA delineations were

used for initially selecting case communities on a random

basis; however, the model we developed did not necessarily

correspond geographically to the place that community

members considered “their community.” The BGA community delineations were starting points for defining study

communities, but we adjusted those definitions according

to how local residents conceptualized their community. In

many cases, this meant further aggregating the original,

randomly-chosen BGA with surrounding BGAs in response

to feedback from local residents to ultimately define the

case-study community boundaries.

Initially, Dorris was randomly chosen as the BGA

having low well-being, the Klamath River-Horse CreekSeiad Valley BGA was randomly chosen as the medium

well-being community, and Etna-Greenview was the BGA

randomly chosen as having high well-being. Once we got

to the field, we determined through discussions with local

residents that we should expand our definition of “community” to be more consistent with their concept of community. Hence the Dorris community expanded to encompass

Butte Valley, Etna-Greenview expanded to include Scott

Valley and the Sawyer’s Bar area of the Salmon River, and

the Klamath River-Horse Creek-Seiad Valley community

extended to encompass Happy Camp. Merging additional

census block groups with the ones initially chosen on a

random basis caused the 1990 socioeconomic well-being

rating of the Scott Valley community to drop from high to

medium. The three communities are geographically dispersed around the forest, and capture a range of variation

found in forest-based communities associated with the

KNF. We cannot say that this case-study report contains

every point of view, or represents the full spectrum of impact and change that communities around the KNF experienced since the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented.

However, we believe that our sample of communities does a

good job of characterizing this range of experience.

We selected interviewees purposefully, rather than

randomly, because we wanted to interview local experts

who could provide information relevant to the monitoring questions posed in the ROD. We chose interviewees to

capture as much of the potential range of variation in the

populations under study as was feasible given funding and

time constraints. We interviewed 14 community members in

Butte Valley, 25 in Scott Valley, and 23 in the mid-Klamath

area. Not all interviewees were residents of the communities. Some interviewees were individuals who worked in

the community or had a strong connection to either the

community or the portion of the KNF that surrounded the

community.

After identifying categories of informants to be interviewed in each community and on the KNF, we used a

snowball sampling approach to locate interviewees.

Snowball sampling is an effective method of building a

sampling frame when there is a relatively small population

of people who know of and come into contact with one

another (Bernard 2002), as was the case in this study.

Snowball sampling entailed locating key individuals in

each community, and asking them to identify people who

would be appropriate to interview about the topics under

study. The criteria we used to develop our sample frame

included people who represented one of the informant

categories we were interested in (app. B), people who had

lived in the community or worked on the KNF at least since

1994 when the Plan was adopted, people who were knowledgeable about the topics under study, people who were

knowledgeable about the community or the KNF, and

people who were willing to talk with us. The team gathered

names of potential interviewees and contacted those people

whose names were repeatedly mentioned to set up an interview time and location. We conducted semistructured

interviews using an interview guide that contained a list

of questions and topics to be covered during the interview.

Three key limitations of the study include (1) We did

not design this study with the objective of testing specific

causal hypotheses relating to the monitoring trends, or to

the effects of forest management policy on local communities. Rather, we conducted this study to develop an indepth,

contextualized understanding of the effects of agency management actions, policies, and programs on forest-based
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

8

communities in different locations. As such, the case-study

findings cannot be used (nor were they intended to be used)

as the basis for making generalized statements about socioeconomic changes and the ways in which those may have

been affected by the Plan to the entire universe of communities located around the KNF. (2) Because most of the

people we interviewed have lived in and around the three

case-study communities at least since the early 1990s, our

findings tend to privilege the perceptions of long-term

members of these particular communities of place, over the

perceptions of other citizens (e.g., members of more distant

communities of place who may, nonetheless, have been

affected by the Plan, and people who recently moved to the

communities). (3) With limited time to conduct the study,

we had to substantially narrow the range of stakeholders

included in the study. We sought to address this shortcoming by selecting some interviewees occupying work or

leadership positions that brought them into close contact

with a broad range of community members. For example,

chamber of commerce and economic development employees could reasonably be expected to be familiar with how a

range of business and services sectors in the community

were affected by the Plan. Similarly, county and municipal

politicians, tribal council members, and social service providers would likely have knowledge about diverse population subgroups, and the impacts that the Plan had on these

groups.

The Klamath National Forest

The Klamath National Forest, approximately 1.7 million

acres, is located in northern California just below the

Oregon border, between the Six Rivers National Forest to

the west, the Modoc National Forest to the east, and the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest to the south. The east and

west sides of the forest are separated by the Interstate-5

freeway. The central area of the KNF has a large component

of dry mixed-conifer forest. To the west are more moist

Douglas-fir forests. To the east are pine/mixed-conifer forests that are typical of the Cascade Mountain range. Fire

plays an important role in these ecosystems. Large fires

occurred on the forest in 1977, 1987, and 1994. The forest

falls almost entirely within Siskiyou County (98 percent),

with the remaining 2 percent in Jackson County, Oregon. In

some places, there are large areas of checkerboard ownerships composed of mixed public and private land. The KNF

has four ranger districts: Happy Camp, Goosenest, Salmon,

and Scott.

The Northwest Forest Plan caused national forests in

the Plan area to incorporate seven land allocation categories (which could overlap) into their forest plans, each with

its own set of management standards and guidelines (USDA

and USDI 1994). Congressionally reserved areas (such as

wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers) are reserved by

acts of Congress for specific purposes, and the Plan did not

alter any of these allocations. The KNF has 381,100 acres

allocated to wilderness (USDA FS 1994b). Late-successional reserves were established by the Plan to maintain

late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems and to

provide habitat for older forest-dependent species. The

KNF contains 396,600 acres allocated to late-successional

reserves. Riparian reserves are areas along streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and other areas where the conservation

of aquatic and riparian-dependent terrestrial resources

receives the primary emphasis; they are designed to protect

the health of aquatic ecosystems and riparian habitat. In

1994, 458,000 acres of the KNF were allocated to riparian

reserves. Adaptive management areas were designed to

develop and test new approaches to forest management, and

to integrate ecological, economic, and social management

objectives. The KNF contains the 161,500-acre Goosenest

Adaptive Management Area on the east side. Managed latesuccessional areas are areas delineated for known northern

spotted owl activity centers, or to provide protection buffers

for certain rare and locally-endemic species. Administratively withdrawn areas are areas not scheduled for timber

harvest because they have been withdrawn in forest plans

for purposes such as recreational, visual, or backcountry

areas. Matrix lands, also referred to as general forest, lie

outside of forest areas having one of the six allocations

listed above, and areas having other special management

designations as allocated by the KNF Land and Resource

Management Plan (USDA FS 1994b). Most timber harvest
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

9

and other silvicultural activities were to be conducted in

matrix lands, although not all of the matrix lands are technically suitable for timber production (USDA and USDI

1994). Plan standards and guidelines associated with the

land-use allocations have the potential to affect resource

and recreation activities there.

In area, Siskiyou County is the fifth largest county in

California. Yreka is the largest service center in Siskiyou

County and is its county seat. Services there include banks,

social services, shopping, medical services, and other

amenities. Siskiyou County has one of the state’s lowest

population densities. This is partly because over 60 percent

of Siskiyou County is in public ownership. The county is

one of the most remote in the Plan area with regard to

distance from major metropolitan areas. There are only nine

incorporated towns in the entire county. The rest of the

communities are unincorporated, and typically have

community service districts and volunteer fire departments

to supply basic services. Some communities are very

isolated and completely surrounded by KNF lands.

Timber was formerly a dominant presence in the

regional job economy: 31 percent of all employment in

Plan area counties in northern California in the early 1970s

was in timber. Timber remained a significant employer

through the 1980s, although by the late 1980s, the relative

importance of timber employment had declined by 50

percent (FEMAT 1993: VII-53). Detailed descriptions of the

case-study communities appear in chapter 3 of this report.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

10
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

11

Chapter 2: Trends in Socioeconomic Benefits From the

Klamath National Forest, 1990–2003
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

12

This chapter focuses on trends in socioeconomic benefits

from the Klamath National Forest (KNF) during the first

decade of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan). We define

these benefits broadly to include timber, nontimber, and

recreation resources produced on the KNF, Forest Service

jobs, procurement contracts for ecosystem management

work, community economic assistance funds, and payments

to county governments. Not only do we document trends in

the benefits produced, we discuss the underlying causes of

the trends, including the role of the Plan in influencing

them, by providing data from interviews with KNF employees. This information addresses the Plan goal, to produce a

predictable and sustainable supply of timber sales,

nontimber resources, and recreation opportunities. It also

provides the data needed to evaluate how the Plan contributed to maintaining the stability of local and regional

economies and in assisting with long-term economic

development and diversification in communities affected

by cutbacks in timber harvesting.

Timber, Nontimber Forest Products, and

Recreation

One of the socioeconomic goals of the Northwest Forest

Plan was to produce a predictable and sustainable level

of timber sales and nontimber resources from federal forest

lands that will not degrade or destroy the environment

(USDA and USDI 1994). Consistent with this goal, one

of the evaluation questions posed in the Northwest Forest

Plan Record of Decision (ROD) was, Are predictable levels

of timber and nontimber resources available and being

produced? (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9). To answer this

question, the ROD specifies that timber harvest levels,

special forest products, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, recreation, scenic quality, and commercial fishing

be monitored. We did not monitor scenic quality because

data were lacking. Scenery inventories were conducted

when the first Klamath National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan was developed (USDA FS 1994b); but

these have not been updated, so it is not possible to assess

change over time. We did not monitor commercial fishing

because commercial fishing is not permitted on the KNF

except by tribes; furthermore, commercial fishing is affected

by a broad range of factors, making it impossible to meaningfully evaluate how the Plan affected it. The Northwest

Forest Plan Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring

Program monitors watershed condition, an indicator of fish

habitat.

This chapter contains monitoring data for the five other

resource areas. The following sections examine whether

predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources and

recreation opportunities have been produced on the KNF

since 1990, the baseline year for the monitoring program.

We present quantitative monitoring data obtained from

Forest Service databases for each resource area, and use

qualitative interview data from KNF employees to gain

insight into how Plan implementation and other variables

influenced trends in these data.

Timber

Much of the public discussion about whether the Plan met

its socioeconomic goals during the first decade focused on

the issue of timber production. The Plan identified matrix

lands and adaptive management areas as containing lands

suitable for producing a predictable and sustainable supply

of timber. Predictability in supply would be achieved by

offering timber sales at the estimated probable sale quantities (the same as the allowable sale quantity, or ASQ, in

the case of the KNF). The ASQ is the maximum amount

of timber that may be programmed for harvest from land

capable, available, and suitable for timber management

during a decade, expressed as an estimated annual average.

A second objective for timber harvest under the Plan was to

use it as a tool for managing vegetation to achieve ecosystem management objectives, such as promoting development of late-successional and old-growth (older forest)

habitat in late-successional and riparian reserves.

The KNF was once one of the highest timber-producing

forests in California (USDA FS 1994a: 3-114). The forest

produced an average of roughly 200 million board feet of

timber annually between 1979 and 1989. Timber production rose steadily during the 1980s, peaking at around 300
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

13

million board feet just prior to the northern spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis caurina) listing in 1990 (fig. 3). A major

complex of fires occurred on the forest in 1987, and salvage

logging associated with those fires continued into the early

1990s. This meant that the initial dropoff in timber harvest

caused by court injunctions that halted the flow of federal

timber after the owl listing was less abrupt on the KNF than

it was on other Plan-area forests.

Since Plan implementation, commercial timber production has been a central management objective on forest

lands classified as matrix and in the Goosenest Adaptive

Management Area, together constituting 423,500 acres or

approximately 25 percent of the forest. The KNF ASQ was

estimated at 51 million board feet per year (USDA FS 1995).

Commercial timber harvest from other parts of the forest

may occur as a byproduct of forest management activities

that take place to promote ecosystem health objectives. An

additional estimated 20 million board feet was anticipated

to be harvested each year from other lands to help maintain

ecosystem health (USDA FS 1995).

Monitoring question—During the first decade

of the Plan, did the Klamath National Forest produce the

ASQ volumes anticipated?

The Forest Service creates corporate timber-volume

reports in three ways: volume of timber offered for sale,

volume of timber sold, and volume of timber harvested.

Volume offered is the amount of timber that the federal

agencies make available for sale in a given fiscal year. Not

all timber sales that agencies offer are purchased; volume

of timber sold represents the timber that actually receives

a bid from a qualified purchaser. Once sales are awarded,

they generally take 2 to 3 years to harvest. As a result,

the volumes sold and harvested in a given year are rarely

the same. We used volume of timber offered for sale as

an indicator of production by the KNF. Volume offered

measures all volume made available for sale by the forest, including volume offered from late-successional and

riparian reserves, and volume not meeting forest utilization standards. The ASQ volume refers to the timber offered

for sale only from matrix lands and adaptive management

areas. We did not make this calculation for this report

Figure 3—Volume of timber harvested on the Klamath National Forest, 1978–2002. Source: National Forest

Service cut and sold reports.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

14

because the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

(Region 5) office only recorded timber harvest by landuse allocation for the years 1995 to 2000.

The average annual volume of timber offered for sale

by the KNF between 1995 and 2002 was 34 million board

feet. The total volume of timber offered for sale reached the

ASQ of 51 million board feet twice after 1994 (in 1996 and

1997) (fig. 4), although actual ASQ volume is somewhat

less than the total volume offered for sale. Since the Plan

has been in effect, timber harvest on the KNF has steadily

declined. Historically, the west side of the Klamath produced most of the timber; the majority of the cut now comes

from the east side of the forest. Currently, most commercial

timber sales consist of thinning projects.

The KNF did not produce the ASQ volumes anticipated

under the Plan, and the Plan and processes associated with

it had a major impact on the forest’s timber program. Forest

interviewees cited many reasons for this failure, which are

detailed below.

Availability—

The land-use allocation system established under the

Plan reduced the forest land base that could be managed

for commercial timber production because of the latesuccessional reserve and riparian-reserve system. Of the

matrix lands initially available for commercial timber harvest, many were subject to subsequent executive, legislative, and judicial constraints (such as roadless areas). These

additional constraints affected the land base available for

commercial timber production.

Harvest methods—

The Northwest Forest Plan and the Klamath Forest Plan call

for most commercial timber production on the forest to use

regeneration harvests with green-tree retention on small

areas as a tool to achieve several multiple-use goals. These

goals included promoting healthy ecosystems, provisions

for resilience to fire and disease, as well as wildlife and

scenery. Focusing intensive harvest practices in small areas

minimizes ground disturbance, and therefore minimizes the

area subject to survey-and-manage species needs and other

procedural requirements. Some interest groups, however,

viewed regeneration harvesting negatively because it is

similar to clearcutting. They appealed or litigated timber

sales that included this method. Consequently, most timber

production on the KNF has been the result of thinning,

Figure 4—Volume of timber offered for sale vs.

allowable sale quantity (ASQ), 1995–2002.

Note: The volume of timber offered for sale

includes ASQ volume (from matrix and

adaptive management areas) and volume offered

from other land use allocations.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

15

which is extensive rather than intensive. Thinning only

produces 10 to 30 percent of the yield per acre that

regeneration harvest does (Barber 2004). Consequently,

more acres had to be treated for the same volume, meaning

that more area had to be examined for survey-and-manage

species, leading to lower relative outputs.

Survey and manage—

The Plan had several requirements that called for new

procedural processes associated with ground-disturbing

activities, including timber harvest. These needs added to

an already existing set of requirements that had to be

followed when timber sales were undertaken. One of the

most onerous of these on the KNF was for the survey-andmanage species. The KNF is the second most biodiverse

national forest in the United States (USDA FS 1994b).

Survey-and-manage procedures began to be implemented

on the Klamath in 1996, and by 1998, up to 60 species had

to be surveyed for and managed. The cost and timing requirements of the surveys, and the amount of time required

to meet the procedural requirements, were a deterrent to

producing timely timber sales. Furthermore, the presence of

survey-and-manage species on the forest imposed harvest

restrictions in some areas, further reducing the land base

available for timber sales. Survey and manage needs also

added difficulty to producing timber from areas of the

forest affected by fire, blowdown, and drought-related

mortality. Getting through the procedural requirements

associated with timber sales took so long that once they

were completed the products no longer had commercial

value. One of the reasons that timber harvest from the forest

shifted from the west to the east side was that fewer surveyand-manage species lived there.

Economics—

Most commercial timber sales on the KNF were originally

expected to be in matrix lands. Instead, most commercial

timber production on the forest occurred to promote

ecosystem management objectives. The timber produced

usually had relatively low economic value. Timber sales

were expensive to prepare because of the analytical and

procedural requirements the forest had to follow. It cost

from $35 to $115 per acre to survey for survey-and-manage

species, raising the unit cost of the timber program substantially. Sometimes the result was uneconomical sales

that timber industry purchasers would not buy; imported

wood was often cheaper. Added to this, the number of

buyers dwindled because of the dramatic loss of timberindustry infrastructure in Siskiyou County since 1990.

Those who remained developed suppliers of wood more

reliable than the national forests. Because these buyers no

longer depended on federal forests for their supply, they

only bought timber sales offered for a good price.

Interviewees stated that before the Plan was adopted,

35 percent of the costs of a timber sale were associated

with its planning, and 65 percent were related to timber-sale

preparation. Since the Plan was adopted, 70 percent of the

costs have been for planning, and 30 percent for timbersale preparation. As described above, the heavy burden

of procedural requirements resulted in decreased outputs,

making the per-unit cost of timber output on the KNF

higher than on non-Plan-area national forests in California.

The KNF timber-sale program has been costing more than

the revenue since 1999. This shortcoming in economic

efficiency, combined with a regional climate of tightening

budgets and a change in administration, has in recent years

caused the Forest Service to redirect timber-program money

that once went to the KNF to other, non-Plan-area forests

where it can “get more bang for the buck.” Declines in both

the KNF budget and staff numbers added to this problem.

Having a smaller timber program budget on the KNF made

it harder to produce the expected volumes.

Appeals and litigation—

Because the Plan has so many extensive and complex

procedural requirements associated with timber harvest,

people can find ways of opposing sales because many

grounds are available on which to file appeals or lawsuits.

For example, some members of the public found commercial logging, regeneration harvesting, and harvesting

old growth on federal lands unacceptable, leading to

litigation and appeals. Local environmental groups are
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

16

particularly opposed to sales that included old-growth

trees, that were in key watersheds, or that were on steep

slopes. Appeals and lawsuits have stopped several timber

sales on the KNF.

Risk aversion—

Under the Plan, commercial timber harvest on the KNF has

been more highly scrutinized by some stakeholders, and

become more politically sensitive. Because the procedural

requirements associated with timber sales are so expensive

and time-consuming, decisionmakers have been reluctant

to propose sales with a high risk of appeal.

Unrealistic targets—

Representatives of the Klamath Forest Alliance interviewed for this study–perhaps the most active local

environmental group–believed that the timber targets set

for the KNF were unrealistically high, which is one reason

the ASQ has not been met under the Plan. Old-growth trees

have been included in timber sales to help meet ASQ, and

environmental groups oppose cutting old growth. These

representatives believe that ASQ cannot be met on the

KNF without degrading old-growth and aquatic ecosystems, which their group opposes. They are willing to

use appeals or lawsuits to stop such sales.

Factors unrelated to the Plan—

Interviewees also cited requirements imposed by other

legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act and the

Clean Water Act, as contributing to the fact that the KNF

did not produce the ASQ volumes anticipated during the

first decade of the Plan.

Special Forest Products

Fuelwood, Christmas trees, and mushrooms are the most

widely harvested special forest products on the KNF.

Fuelwood was an important resource throughout the study

period because many local residents rely on wood heat,

although this dependence has declined in recent years.

Matsutake mushrooms (Tricholoma magnivelare) are the

primary mushroom species harvested because of their high

commercial value. These mushrooms are picked in the fall.

There are also several special forest product species of

importance to local tribes. On the west side of the forest,

these include materials used by the Karuk in basket making

(e.g., beargrass [Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.], hazel

[Corylus cornuta Marsh.], willow [Salix spp.], Woodwardia

ferns, acorns, matsutake, alder [Alnus spp.] bark, and

buckbrush [Ceanothus spp.]). On the east side of the forest,

mushrooms and wild celery (Apium graveolens L.) were

identified as being important to the Shasta Tribe.

Monitoring question—Have predictable levels of

special forest products been produced on the Klamath

National Forest under the Northwest Forest Plan?

The Forest Service tracks data relating to special forest

products in a database called the Automated Timber Sale

Accounting System. These data come from permits and

contracts that the agency issues to allow members of the

public to harvest special forest products on Forest Servicemanaged lands. Three measures are tracked in the database:

quantity of product sold, value of product sold, and number

of permits issued for each product. We used the quantity of

product sold as the best monitoring indicator.

Quantity of product sold has limitations as an indicator,

however. The quantity sold is not necessarily the same as

the amount actually harvested. It refers to the maximum

amount of harvest permissible under a permit and is based

on agency estimates of the amount people will harvest during the life of the permit. Not all harvesters obtain permits,

in spite of regulatory requirements. Agency data do not

reflect harvest activity by people without permits, which

could be substantial.

Products such as fuelwood, Christmas trees, and poles

and posts that can be measured in units that relate to

dimension lumber (board feet, linear feet, cubic feet, cords)1

1

 Conversion factors for poles and posts: 1,000 board feet

(mbf) log scale = 200 cubic feet (cf) or 5.625 tons; for

fuelwood: 1 mbf = 2.5 cords, 1 cord (stack of wood 4 feet

by 4 feet by 8 feet) = 80 cubic feet or 2.25 tons; for

Christmas trees: one Christmas tree = 7 linear feet or 1.5

board feet or 0.3 cubic feet or 16.9 pounds.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

17

are called convertible products. Those products that cannot be measured in such terms are called nonconvertible

products. Before 1996, the Forest Service did not track

data relating to nonconvertible products by product

category; they were lumped into one category: nonconvertibles. Thus, we could not track the quantity of

individual nonconvertible products sold for the years

before 1996. Our analysis of KNF data for nonconvertibles

begins in 1996 and continues through 2002, the most

recent year for which we were able to obtain data. Convertible products were tracked by product category prior to

1996. Our analysis of trends in fuelwood, poles and posts,

and Christmas trees sold begins with 1990. All of the data

are reported here by calendar year.

Figures 5 and 6 indicate that the quantity of fuelwood

and Christmas trees sold on the KNF declined since 1990.

The number of Christmas trees sold varied widely prior to

1996. Whether this reflects inaccuracies in the data is

unknown. Since 1998, the quantity of Christmas trees sold

has stabilized, although at a level far below what it was

prior to 1996. The quantity of poles and posts sold fluctuated annually, with an overall slight upward trend (fig. 7).

A special order or project can have a big impact on the

quantity of poles and posts sold in a given year.

For nonconvertibles, only the quantity of mushrooms

sold increased substantially during the study period (fig. 8).

Commercial mushroom harvest levels can vary widely from

year to year depending on weather, environmental conditions, market prices, and market demand. Matsutake harvesting on the KNF rose dramatically in the early to mid1990s in response to growth in market demand (Everett

2007). Butte Valley and the Mid-Klamath both became

important mushroom harvesting and selling areas, with

the income earned providing a supplement for some

local residents. Harvesting fell in the late 1990s, however, because of declines in market prices and in production

levels on the forest (Everett 2007). The dramatic rise in the

quantity of mushrooms sold on the KNF in the early 2000s

is probably due to a rebound in matsutake harvesting. Other

products harvested on the forest for which there are reportable data are limbs and boughs (fig. 9) and cones (fig. 10).

The amount of limbs, boughs, and cones sold fluctuated

annually, with a downward trend overall for limbs and

boughs. Cone production is more subject to variation in

ecological conditions than that of limbs and boughs. All

are subject to variation in market demand and pricing.

Overall, the number of special forest product permits

sold to members of the pubic by the KNF declined steadily

(fig. 11). The forest received roughly half the number of

requests for special forest products permits in 2002 that it

did in 1997. Although there was also a decline in the

amount of money the KNF earned from selling special forest

products permits (fig. 12), the value of permits sold did not

decline as steeply as the number did. These trends do not

necessarily signify a decrease in the supply of special forest

products on KNF lands. However, opportunities to obtain

some products have declined.

Many factors influence availability and harvest activity

of special forest products. These factors include changes in

harvest opportunities and changes in demand for products

by harvesters. Both affect trends in sales of special forest

products by the agencies.

Special forest products harvesting became more restrictive under the Plan because it limited areas of the forest

where some products could be collected. For example, harvesting in late-successional reserves and riparian reserves

must be consistent with the management objectives of the

reserves, and may be restricted. Fuelwood cutting is

restricted in late-successional reserves and riparian reserves.

The fuelwood program on the KNF was linked to the timber

program. Fuelwood was often taken from places recently

harvested for timber sales. The reduction in timber sales on

the KNF has undoubtedly caused fuelwood cutting to

decline as well. In the past, commercial fuelwood extraction

was an important economic activity on the forest. Unrelated

to the Plan, in the last few years administrative requirements

changed, so that commercial fuelwood production now

takes place under a timber sale contract. This may impose

administrative difficulties for people, leading to fewer sales.

Finally, demand for fuelwood has likely decreased because

many people have shifted from wood-burning stoves to

other heating systems.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

18

Figure 6—Number of Christmas trees sold,

Klamath National Forest, 1990–2002.

Figure 7—Volume of poles and posts sold,

Klamath National Forest, 1990–2002.

Anomalous data from 1990 and 2002 were

excluded because of suspected data entry

error.

Figure 5—Volume of fuelwood sold, Klamath

National Forest, 1990–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

19

Figure 8—Quantity of mushrooms sold, Klamath National

Forest, 1995–2002.

Figure 9—Quantity of limbs and boughs

sold, Klamath National Forest, 1995–2002.

Note: Excludes anomalous data from the year

1998 because of suspected data entry error.

Figure 10—Quantity of dry and green cones

sold, Klamath National Forest, 1996–2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

20

In addition to constraints imposed by the Plan, some

interviewees commented that road closures on the KNF

have limited access to some places, making it harder to

gather special forest products there (see the “Recreation”

section for a discussion of the links between road closures

and the Plan).

Changing habitat conditions on forests also affect

product availability. For example, fire suppression policies

may negatively affect species (like beargrass) that thrive in

burned areas or are associated with early-seral forests. In

contrast, many commercially valuable floral greens prefer

mid- to late-seral forests and semiclosed canopies, which

are favored under the Plan (FEMAT 1993: VI-12).

The Plan also affected the gathering of special forest products by the Karuk Tribe. Karuk tribal members

interviewed stated that their ability to gather special forest

products has declined over the past decade. Some of these

products—such as beargrass and hazel—thrive in areas that

have burned or been disturbed. Burns also clear the forest

floor, making it easier to find products such as acorns,

slowing their rate of decomposition (acorns in areas with

heavy understories are reportedly more insect-infested), and

Figure 11—Total number of special forest

products permits sold, Klamath National

Forest, 1996–2002.

Figure 12—Total value of special forest

product permits sold, Klamath National

Forest, 1996–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

21

making it easier to walk through the forest. The Karuk historically managed the forest with fire as an integral part of

the ecosystem, and actively burned to encourage the growth

of plants they found desirable (Blackburn and Anderson

1993, Stewart 2002). During the 20th century, fire suppression practiced by the Forest Service removed fire from the

ecosystem, leading to ecological changes that have been

unfavorable to some of the species having cultural importance to the Karuk. As a result, the Karuk have worked with

the KNF to institute a cultural burning program. The KNF

has been conducting underburns on small areas to encourage the growth of beargrass and other basketry materials.

Under the Plan, Karuk interviewees reported, it was more

difficult to conduct controlled burns because of constraints

imposed by survey-and-manage requirements in particular.

It has also been difficult to conduct controlled burns

because of excessive fuel loads. There are relatively few

areas that can be burned without prior fuel treatments.

Willows, another product important to the Karuk, grow

along riverbanks. Supple young willow limbs are favored

for basketry. Karuk interviewees reported that under the

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, there may be restrictions

on cutting willows along rivers and streams in riparian

reserves. The Plan thus appears to have contributed to

reduced access to and availability of some special forest

products used for cultural purposes by the Karuk.

In sum, it is not possible to adequately assess whether

predictable levels of special forest products were produced

on the KNF under the Plan. Trends in the quantity of special

forest products sold are affected by changes in harvest opportunities, and changes in harvester demand for special

forest products from federal forests. Changes in harvester

demand can be caused by shifts in market demand for the

product, commodity prices, the availability of alternate

supplies, and changing consumer preferences (for example,

switching from wood stoves to electric or gas heaters to heat

homes). Apparent changes in harvester demand may also be

due to increased enforcement efforts. Increasing trends in

the quantity of a product sold could reflect an increase in

harvester numbers and activity, or an increase in the number

of illegal harvesters opting to obtain permits (with little

change in actual activity).

Because many variables influence trends in the

quantity of special forest products sold on federal forest

lands, quantity sold–although currently the best indicator

for which data are available–does not by itself adequately

reflect whether or not the KNF has been producing a

predictable level of special forest products. All it can tell us

is whether or not the KNF has been selling a predictable

quantity of these products. Data indicate that the quantity

of special forest products sold by the KNF has been mixed

since the Plan was implemented, differing by product.

Grazing

The grazing program on the KNF is small, but it is one of

the largest in Region 5, and it is the largest grazing program

of the four northern California forests in the Plan area. The

program goals are to provide forage on a sustainable basis

to meet livestock forage allocations and the needs of big

game species on the forest, to maintain a healthy ecosystem,

and to implement grazing in a manner that is consistent

with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA FS 2005).

On the west side of the KNF, grazing occurs mainly in

mountain meadows and is fairly extensive (USDA FS

1994a: 3-122–3-123). On the east side of the forest, grazing is practiced more intensively and occurs mainly in

sagebrush-steppe and montane browse habitats. The forest’s

chaparral habitats also provide livestock forage. The KNF

permits cattle and horse grazing only. In general, cattle start

grazing on the forest in late spring or early summer, and are

removed in late summer or early fall, depending on range

conditions.

Monitoring question—Have predictable levels of

livestock grazing been produced under the Northwest

Forest Plan?

The number of grazing allotments, allotment acres,

permittees, and animal unit months (AUMs) are potential

indicators of livestock grazing on national forest lands. We

used all of these indicators to monitor grazing on the KNF.

The Forest Service tracks the number and acres of active

and vacant grazing allotments. We used number of active

allotments and number of active allotment acres as monitoring indicators. Allotments currently vacant were not
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

22

included, as most are being phased out. A grazing permittee

is any entity that has a grazing permit for one or more allotments, such as an individual or a cooperative with several

members (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2230.5). The AUMs

are an indicator of range use. One AUM equals the amount

of forage a mature cow (of 1,000 pounds) and calf consume

in a 30-day period (about 780 pounds of dry weight)

(Mitchell 2000: 64–65). We used data for authorized use

(as opposed to permitted use). Authorized use can fluctuate

annually, depending on forage supply, special restrictions,

and other variables. Authorized use is specified on the

annual bill of collection, and verified by a permittee’s payment of fees. It represents the amount of use authorized by

the forest for that year.

Our grazing data came from the Northwest Forest Plan

10-year implementation monitoring report (Baker et al.

2006) and from the KNF. Data in the report came from

agency databases (INFRA and RAS), annual agency

accomplishment reports, and personal interviews with

agency specialists. The data are for two periods: 1994

and 2002.

Table 1 displays grazing data for the KNF from two

periods to compare the grazing program at the time the

Plan was adopted with more recent grazing. Earlier data

were considered unreliable. Grazing on the KNF remained

relatively stable between 1994 and 2002. There was a small

increase in the number of active allotments and allotment

acres, and a small decrease in the number of permittees and

authorized AUMs. The program manager reported little

change in the grazing program and minor effects from the

Plan. The drop in the number of permittees could be due to

a consolidation of permits. When allotments and their

associated permits become open, other existing permittees

often take over the permits. As a result, the number of

allotments remains the same, but the number of permittees

decreases. Figure 13 shows that the value of collection

receipts generated by grazing on the KNF has declined.

Managers on the KNF attributed the 15-percent decline

in authorized AUMs primarily to the prolonged drought the

area has experienced on the west side of the forest. The Plan

has had some effects, however. Under the Plan, grazing

practices must be consistent with the Aquatic Conservation

Strategy. This has meant reviewing and sometimes imposing restrictions on grazing in riparian areas. For example,

cattle may not be allowed to enter riparian areas until the

ground has fully dried in late spring, and must be removed

before they overgraze, which shortens the use period. The

Plan also reportedly caused the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis associated with permit renewal

to become more rigorous. In short, since the Plan went into

effect, the forest has increased its scrutiny over the impact

of livestock on the forest, particularly in riparian areas, and

made some adjustments. The drought has been a big factor,

with shrinking water sources that require increasing protection and cattle management. The overall effects are

small, incremental declines in forage availability and

increased requirements for permittees.

Survey-and-manage requirements associated with the

renewal of grazing permits under the Plan were not seen as

having an effect on grazing, but the Endangered Species

Act was viewed as having the potential to affect grazing.

Grazing in late-successional reserves still occurs, but has

been adjusted for location and timing so as to minimize

ecological impacts, also shortening the season and reducing

the number of animals.

After drought, the second largest factor that managers

reported as contributing to reduced forage availability on

the KNF was the dramatic reduction in timber program

activity incorporated into policy with the Plan. This has

resulted in much less early-seral-stage forest habitat that is

productive for grazing.

All of these forces have contributed to a small decline

in the grazing program on the KNF since 1994. Overall, the

program is viewed as relatively stable with little turnover in

permittees and good relations between managers and

ranchers. Interviewees said grazing outside the reserves

does not currently conflict with management objectives, so

little has changed there.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

23

Minerals

The goal of the KNF minerals program is to manage mineral

exploration and development of surface resources in a manner that maintains environmental quality (USDA FS 2005).

The east side of the KNF contains leasable minerals and

has the potential for oil, gas, and geothermal development (USDA FS 1994a: 3-100). The west side of the forest

contains locatable minerals, most notably gold. Salable

minerals are also mainly found on the west side, and

include common varieties of rock, gravel, sand, and stone.

There is a small amount of commercial minerals production on the forest by small-scale miners, and a growing

number of recreational miners are dredging for gold along

the Klamath, Scott, and Salmon Rivers. Both groups use

suction dredges. Prospecting and mining on the KNF

are for the most part unrestricted, although subject to

mitigation and reclamation to minimize environmental

impacts where there is surface disturbance (USDA FS 1994a:

3-100–3-101).

Monitoring question—Have predictable levels of

minerals been produced on the Klamath National Forest

under the Plan?

Finding good indicators for mining proved challenging. The indicators differ by mineral class, as do the years

for which data are available. The monitoring team used

number of leases of record (leases) as an indicator of

leasable minerals activity. The BLM is responsible for

recording and issuing leases for leasable minerals. Leases

are normally issued for a 10-year period. The Minerals

Management Service tracks the production of leasable

minerals. Data for the KNF were available for fiscal years

1990, 1995, and 2000.

Table 1—Grazing on the Klamath National Forest, 1994 and 2002

Active Active Authorized

Year allotments allotment Permittees AUMs

Acres

1994 51 707,369 52 29,134

2002 55 759,330 42 24,630

AUM = animal unit month.

Sources: These data are from the Northwest Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring

Module (Baker et al. 2006), except for the number of permittees in 1994. This

number is an estimate based on information provided by the forest grazing program

specialist, who considered the INFRA data and the data reported in USDA FS 1994a

regarding permittees to be inaccurate.

Figure 13—Klamath National Forest collection receipts, grazing, 1988–2002. Source: Annual USDA Forest

Service all service receipts ASR-10-3 reports.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

24

The Forest Service does not track the volume of locatable minerals removed. This information is proprietary, and

the government does not charge users any royalties or payments (other than income taxes) on the basis of volume

removed (Gusey 2003). In the absence of production data,

the best available indicators pertain to public participation in mining activity. Number of mining sites is one such

indicator. However, many mining sites are abandoned, and

agency databases do not distinguish between abandoned

and active sites, making this a poor indicator. Instead, the

team monitored the number of new mining claims located

and the number of plans of operation approved each year.

A mining-claim location may indicate a person’s intent to

mine in a given area. A plan of operation describes how a

user intends to develop the mining site. The plan of operation must be approved before the user can start mining on

a claim. The number of plans of operation submitted to a

forest may be higher than the number approved. We do not

know what percentage of plans submitted actually get approved. Total annual numbers of mining claims and plans

of operation would be better monitoring indicators, but

these data were not available.

Data for the number of new mining claims located were

available for the years 1990–2003. Data for the number of

new plans of operation approved were available for most

years between 1995 and 2001.

Volume of salable minerals removed is the indicator

used for salable minerals production. The Forest Service

tracks three categories of use: Forest Service use, free use,

and contract use. The Forest Service removes salable minerals mainly for road construction and reconstruction. The

agency issues free-use permits to members of the public

and government agencies. Users wishing to remove salable

minerals for commercial purposes obtain contracts of sale.

Data were available for the years 1994 to 2003.

For leasable minerals, the number of leases of record

was constant throughout the monitoring period (43). Most

of these leases are likely to be inactive (USDA FS 1994a:

3-102). No leasable minerals were produced during the

monitoring period (Gusey 2004).

Locatable minerals activity can be highly variable,

depending on market demand, global supply, and prices. On

the KNF, the number of new mining claims declined overall

during the monitoring period (fig. 14), although there has

been a steady increase since 2000. The number of new plans

of operation approved has been highly variable, with an

overall declining trend (fig. 15). Recreational gold mining

with suction dredges occurs on the KNF. The forest has experienced major growth in recreational mining since the

late 1980s, when a recreational mining club established

itself locally. The club has more than 60 miles of claims

along the middle Klamath River and its tributaries. The

recent rise in the number of new mining claims probably

reflects growing recreational mining activity. Instream

mining activity has been curtailed over the last decade,

however, by the Endangered Species Act (1973) and state

regulations that increased protection for anadromous fish,

shortening the period in which suction dredge mining can

take place.

The amount of salable minerals extracted from the

KNF varied widely from year to year (table 2). Between

1985 and 1991, the average annual quantity of salable

minerals extracted from the forest was 96,900 tons (USDA

FS 1994a: 3-102–3-103). This was a drop from the average

annual volume removed between 1978 and 1984, which

was 264,000 tons. Since the Plan was implemented, much

lower levels of salable minerals have been removed

compared with earlier periods. This drop can be explained

in part by the decline in road construction on the forest.

Mineral revenues generated from collection receipts

declined overall since the late 1980s, although there was a

peak around 1997 (fig. 16).

Forest interviewees stated that the Plan has had limited

impact on mining activity on the forest. Because there has

been little in the way of large-scale minerals extraction,

the Plan has not been much of a constraint on mining.

An exception is the increased scrutiny over mining activity

in riparian reserves. Miners who wish to operate inside of

riparian reserves are subject to Plan analysis requirements

and mitigations before a plan of operation can be approved.

Special mitigation measures may also be required in the
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

25

Figure 14—Number of new mining claims located, Klamath National Forest, 1990–2003. Source: BLM

LR2000 report.

Figure 15—Number of new mining plans of operation approved, Klamath National Forest, 1995–2001.

Source: MAR attainment report.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

26

reserves. These requirements increase the time and cost

needed to obtain a plan of operation. One forest minerals

program specialist and one miner interviewed said this

increase has had a disproportionate effect on small-scale

operators, deterring them from mining in reserves.

No Plan effects on recreational mining were reported.

The most significant impacts on suction dredge mining

reported were related to changes in the state of California

suction dredging regulations issued in May 1994. This

change caused the season of operation to be greatly

shortened so as not to interfere with the salmon spawning

season.

To determine whether predictable levels of minerals

have been produced under the Plan, minerals production

must be tracked. No leasable minerals were produced during

the monitoring period, and the number of mineral leases

remained stable. Thus, a predictable level of leasable

minerals was produced. The lack of production data for

locatable minerals makes it impossible to determine with

certainty whether predictable levels of locatable minerals

were produced. The available indicator data do show a decline in locatable minerals activity during the monitoring

period, although more recently activity has been on the rise.

The reasons for the overall decline in activity are not fully

known, but the Plan was probably a minor contributing

Table 2—Volume of salable minerals removed, Klamath

National Forest, 1994–2003

Free Forest

Year Contracts use Service use Totals

Tons

1994 18,534 8,665 483 27,682

1995 10,557 4,934 6,860 22,351

1996 15,370 450 7,036 22,856

1997 3,659 11,101 39,681 54,441

1999 381 92 4,909 5,382

2000 31,284 484 10,923 42,691

2001 375 278 5,075 5,728

2002 3,089 8,122 20,359 31,570

2003 242 3,031 15,591 18,864

Source: Klamath National Forest annual report of mineral materials.

Figure 16—Klamath National Forest collection receipts, minerals, 1988–2002. Source: Annual USDA Forest

Service all service receipts ASR-10-3 reports.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

27

factor. The volume of salable minerals produced during the

monitoring period was much lower than pre-Plan levels.

Data suggest that this drop was due more to a lack of demand by users than to management constraints imposed by

the Plan.

Recreation

The KNF recreation program aims to offer a wide range

of attractions, to promote accessibility to sites and facilities, to maintain or enhance wilderness values, and to

design developed sites that support recreation activities

on the forest (USDA FS 2005). Another goal is to support

recreation-based economic diversification activities in local

communities. Recreation opportunities on the KNF include

camping, hiking, boating, swimming, hunting, fishing,

snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing. The Scott,

Salmon, and Klamath Rivers all provide whitewater rafting

opportunities. Much of the wilderness use on the forest is

administered out of the Scott Valley District. The KNF was

reportedly once one of the best places in the United States

to fish for steelhead. The steelhead fishery declined sharply

prior to 1990, and has only slowly started to come back in

recent years. Hunting for deer and elk has been popular

throughout the last decade.

Monitoring question—Have predictable levels of

recreation opportunities been produced under the

Northwest Forest Plan?

Forest Service recreation data pertain to either the supply of or the demand for recreation opportunities on federal

forest lands. The monitoring team focused on supply to

assess whether predictable levels of recreation opportunities

have been produced under the Plan. We also report recreation visitation (an indicator of demand), although the data

available only reflect current status (earlier agency recreation visitation data are considered unreliable). The recreation data reported here come from two periods. Earlier data

(1994) were obtained from the KNF Land and Resource

Management Plan (USDA FS 1994b). The Forest Service

began keeping recreation data in the INFRA database in

1999. More recent data were obtained from INFRA.

Table 3 displays changes in select recreation opportunities between 1994 and 2003 and includes those indicators

for which data were available. It was not possible to obtain

recreation data for all of the indicators from the earlier

period. According to table 3 and to interviewees, the overall forest recreation program has not changed substantially

over the last decade. There has been a slight increase in the

number of developed recreation sites, river access points,

and trailheads. The biggest change was a decrease in forest

system road miles and miles of trails, reducing access to the

KNF for dispersed recreation activities. Roads to developed

recreation destinations have not been affected. The number

of outfitter/guide permits increased substantially, but it is

unknown whether the increase reflects real change in the

number of permits, or differences in reporting between 1994

and 2002. In 1994, it was estimated that 20 percent of the

recreation activity on the forest occurred at developed sites,

and the remaining 80 percent occurred in dispersed areas

(USDA FS 1994a).

According to interviewees, demand for recreation on

the KNF has changed little over the last decade, although

they reported slow growth in back country and wilderness

use, and moderate growth in river rafting. There has been

some increase in demand for group facilities to accommodate an increase in use by organized groups. The Shasta

Tribe would also like to see more group facilities to accommodate tribal gatherings. Some boat ramps have been

installed to improve river access. On the east side of the

KNF, interviewees reported an increase in birding-related

tourism, with a focus on bald eagles (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) and other birds of prey.

The KNF is remote, being a 5-hour drive from the major

metropolitan areas of Portland and San Francisco. And the

population of Siskiyou County grew by less than 2 percent

between 1990 and 2000. As a result, the KNF is one of the

least-visited forests in the Plan area (English 2003). Recreation demand on the KNF comes mainly from people who

reside in the local region. Nearly 75 percent of the visitors
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

28

to day-use sites and general forest areas on the KNF live

within 35 miles of forest boundaries (English 2003). The

majority of visitors to developed overnight sites and

wilderness areas come from farther away, however.

Little change in demand for recreation over the last

decade means that the KNF invested little in recreation

development, working instead to maintain existing recreation sites and facilities. The forest has had little money to

invest in recreation because the program budget has been

flat and the staff decreased. Community recreation stakeholders interviewed reported deteriorating trails, campgrounds needing improvements, and too few employees on

the ground to address recreation management problems.

The KNF did develop snowmobile trails and facilities

on the east side with funding from the California State

Green Sticker program, which provides an opportunity to

use a portion of the snowmobile license fees paid by

members of the public to improve snowmobiling conditions. The KNF used these fees to maintain and expand its

network of snowmobile trails, and to build warming huts

along them.

Otherwise, the forest has focused on expanding accessibility opportunities for people with mobility impairments.

With national and regional direction, emphasis, and funding, this effort focuses on ensuring that at least one fully

accessible recreation opportunity is available for each of

Table 3—Recreation opportunities on the Klamath National Forest, 1994–2003

Recreation indicator 1994a 2001–2003

Annual forest visits 415,400b

(2001 data)

Developed campgrounds 30 32c

(2003 data)

Picnic sites 2 3d

(2003 data)

Number of trailheads 9 14d

(2003 data)

Miles of trails 1,330 1,129.5d

(2002 data)

Miles of system roadse 4,685 4,177

(as of end of FY1997) (as of end of FY 2002)

Recreation residences 21 22d

(2002 data)

Miles of wild and scenic river 152 152f

(2003 data)

Acres of wildernessf 381,000 381,000

Number of outfitter/guide permits 64 106d

(whitewater guides only) (2002 data)

Note: These data include the Ukonom District.

a

 Source: USDA FS 1994a.

b

 Source: English 2003.

c

 Source: Forest Service INFRA database. Note: Klamath National Forest Web site says there are 28 developed

campgrounds.

d Source: Forest Service INFRA database.

e Source: Forest Service Annual Forest Road Accomplishment Reports.

f

 Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/klamath/.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

29

the KNF’s major recreation activities. Between 1994 and

2004, the forest made numerous improvements on existing

sites to meet this goal. Accessibility enhancements provide

greater access and recreational opportunity for people with

disabilities and families with elders and children, significantly extending recreational services and experiences on

the forest.

The beautiful scenery on the KNF is a feature that attracts recreationists. Visual quality on the forest decreased

between 1980 and 1991 (USDA FS 1994a: 3-77–3-78).

There are no quantitative data available for recent years that

permit monitoring visual quality indicators (see USDA FS

1994a for data on scenic quality from 1994). Interviewees

stated that scenic quality had improved over the last

decade, however.

Collection receipts generated from recreation climbed

during the 1990s, but have declined since 1997 (fig. 17).

Fee demo (charging fees for the use of some recreation sites)

was instituted for developed campgrounds in 2001. The

drop in revenues since 1999 probably reflects fee demo, as

this money is retained on the KNF and does not go into

National Forest Fund revenues sent to the Treasury, which

are reflected in collection receipts.

Interviewees stated that the Plan did not have a significant impact on the KNF recreation program. Improved

scenic quality was attributed to the Land and Resource

Management Plan, adopted in 1995, which established land

management objectives for scenic quality for the first time.

Doing so made scenery a stronger factor in decisionmaking,

and caused timber project design to protect scenic quality.

The creation of late-successional reserves and riparian

reserves also helped maintain scenic quality on the KNF.

Recreation specialists interviewed indicated that the Plan

has not been a major constraint on the KNF recreation

program because few major developments that would trigger plan requirements and procedures have been proposed.

The recreation projects that have occurred have generally

fallen under NEPA categorical exclusions. The Plan has

affected KNF budgets and staffing, however (see the section

“Forest Jobs, Budget, and Reorganization”).

Forest Products and Recreation Summary

The answer to the first evaluation question (Are predictable

levels of timber and nontimber resources available and

being produced?) differs by resource area. The level of

timber produced did not meet the ASQ volumes anticipated

during the first decade of the Plan. The KNF’s ASQ estimate

was 51 million board feet. On average, about 34 million

board feet of timber was offered for sale each year between

1995 and 2002 of which a smaller amount fell in the

category predicted by ASQ. The Plan contributed to this

shortfall in many ways described here.

The best indicator for which agency data were available

for assessing whether predictable levels of special forest

Figure 17—Klamath National Forest collection receipts, recreation, 1988–2002. Source: Annual USDA Forest Service

all service receipts ASR-10-3 reports.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

30

products were produced was the quantity of products sold.

This indicator is inadequate for answering the monitoring

question because, for most products, the extent to which the

quantity of products sold was determined by supply versus

harvester demand is unknown. Moreover, the indicator

reflects permitted harvest only. The quantity of fuelwood

and Christmas trees sold declined, whereas the volume of

poles and posts sold increased slightly. The decline in the

quantity of fuelwood sold was expected because of harvest

restrictions in the reserves and decreased timber harvesting.

Trends for nonconvertible products were mixed.

Grazing declined slightly on the KNF between 1994

and 2002, but overall the program is viewed as relatively

stable and as experiencing minor effects from the Plan.

Some declines in grazing were expected under the Plan

because of management constraints in the reserves, particularly in riparian areas. Other causes unrelated to the Plan

(such as drought and the Endangered Species Act) reportedly had a bigger effect on grazing activity.

Minerals production was analyzed separately for

leasables, locatables, and saleables. No leasable minerals

were produced on the KNF between 1990 and 2000, and

the number of mineral leases was stable. The agencies do

not track locatable minerals production, so we do not

know whether predictable levels of locatable minerals

were produced. Other indicators associated with locatable

minerals showed a decline in activity on the KNF since the

Plan was implemented. The volume of salable minerals

produced on the KNF varied annually, but was much lower

than 1980s levels. We do not know to what extent production trends were the result of the Plan or factors related to

demand. The specialists interviewed did not think the Plan

was much of a constraint on minerals production.

Available data indicate that some kinds of recreation

opportunities decreased on the KNF, and some increased

between 1994 and 2002, but that overall there has been

little change in the forest recreation program. Interviewees

stated that the Plan had not had a significant effect on the

program.

The monitoring results show that progress toward

meeting the Plan goal of producing predictable levels of

timber sales and nontimber resources has been mixed. For

some resources, the existing data are inadequate for evaluating the goal. The best available data indicate that for most

resources, production remained stable or declined, and

some declines were expected. Plan-related causes were the

main reason that predictable levels of timber sales were not

produced. The Plan was only one of several factors influencing trends for other resources.

Forest Jobs, Budget, and Reorganization

National forests are an important source of quality jobs for

residents of forest-based communities. Agency employees

earn good wages, receive benefits, enjoy relatively safe

working conditions, undergo training to develop new skills,

and have opportunities for advancement within the organization. Historically, the KNF offered many permanent fulltime and seasonal or part-time jobs in local communities.

Seasonal and part-time jobs are especially important to

young people who want summer work, and people who

engage in other pursuits. Agency jobs are an important

socioeconomic benefit associated with federal forest lands.

Agency employees also contribute substantially to

community capacity because they are often well educated

and active in their communities as volunteers and leaders.

In addition, they contribute to the local economy. The

presence of agency employees in local communities also

enhances relations between communities and national

forests by facilitating interaction, communication, and trust

building.

Forest Jobs

Monitoring question–How did the number and type of

jobs on the Klamath National Forest Change after the

Northwest Forest Plan was adopted?

Figure 18 shows the number of full-time employee

equivalent positions (FTEs) on the KNF between 1993

and 2002. One FTE can represent one full-time job, or a

combination of part-time positions, counted in aggregate.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

31

It includes permanent, temporary, and term tenures. The

number of FTEs went from a high of 636 positions in 1993,

one year before the Northwest Forest Plan was signed, to

441 positions in 2002, representing a loss of 31 percent.

The number of forest jobs increased between 2000 and

2002, probably because of fire hiring and flood repair work.

Employment on the KNF was higher than the average for

the four northern California Northwest Forest Plan-area national forests (the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Six Rivers, and

Mendocino), but employment trends there were consistent

with those elsewhere in the California portion of the region.

In all but 2 years, full-time permanent positions

represented less than half of the total number of forest jobs.

This figure emphasizes the importance of part-time and

seasonal employment opportunities to local communities.

Permanent full-time positions declined slowly between

1993 and 2000, whereas other positions dropped off more

sharply.

Monitoring question–How did the Klamath National

Forest budget change during the Plan period?

Forest employment is directly tied to the forest budget.

Figure 19 shows the total budget allocation to the KNF

each year between 1993 and 2003. Overall, the KNF budget

dropped 18 percent between 1993 and 2003. The budget

peak in 1998 resulted from the influx of emergency money

that came from the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned

Roads (ERFO) program following a 1997 flood. Interestingly, there is no employment peak that occurs at this same

time. Although the rise in FTEs that began in 2000 may in

part be related to the influx of ERFO funds, a portion of this

money was also spent on contracting (see section on contracting). The addition of emergency fire money in 1999

Figure 18—Klamath National Forest staffing levels, 1993–2002. Source: Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Office of

Human Resources.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

32

and National Fire Plan money in later years partly compensated for budget declines in other program areas. The average annual total budget decline was 1.84 percent, but the

average annual decline in ordinary, nonfire allocations was

4.36 percent. According to KNF interviewees, budget cuts

have been proportional across program areas, although the

recreation program did not drop as much as other programs

did, and fire was a growth area (fig. 20).

Forest Reorganization

Monitoring question–How did the presence and geographic distribution of agency offices containing unitscale decisionmakers change between 1990 and 2004?

Meaningful collaboration between federal agencies and

local communities requires that community members have

ongoing access to federal decisionmakers. Interactions

between local people and agency employees also builds

trust. Thus, the presence of local agency offices and

decisionmakers can affect relations between the KNF and

community members.

Cuts in forest staffing and budgets contributed to a

consolidation of KNF offices during the 1990s. The Oak

Knoll Ranger District Office closed and consolidated in

1997 with two other ranger district offices. Administration

of the Ukonom Ranger District–still a part of the KNF–

moved from Somes Bar to the Orleans District office of the

Six Rivers National Forest around 1998. The Scott River

and Salmon River Ranger District Offices were co-located in

Fort Jones in 1996.

Forest Jobs and Budget Summary

Klamath National Forest staffing and budget dropped substantially under the Plan, resulting in a reduction and consolidation of ranger district offices. The Plan contributed

Figure 19—Klamath National forest budget allocations, 1993–2003. Source: Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Office of Program

Development and Budget.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

33

significantly to this change. Forest interviewees cited the

main reason for the decline in forest staffing and budgets

as the reduction in the forest timber program. Because the

timber sale program was dramatically cut back under the

Plan, the KNF was not allocated the same magnitude of

timber sale preparation money it had received in earlier

years, and timber harvest receipts, which also help support

the KNF budget, fell. As a result, the forest had much less

funding in 2003 for conducting ecosystem management

activities other than fuel treatments than it had in 1993.

Procurement Contracting for Land

Management

To mitigate the loss of timber jobs, the Northwest Forest

Plan included a goal to contribute to the well-being of rural

communities by assisting them with long-term economic

development and diversification. The Forest Service was

expected to create new jobs in the woods associated with

ecosystem management. The Plan called for restoring latesuccessional and old-growth (older forest) habitat and

watershed health. It also contained survey and monitoring

requirements that called for agencies to undertake new

kinds of activities that ranged from surveying for northern

spotted owls to thinning plantations to restore old-growth

characteristics. In addition, because the Plan called for

sharply reducing intensive timber management, the road

building, maintenance, and decommissioning that was a

part of timber sales would now have to be done through

other mechanisms. Procurement contracting—the purchase

of goods and services—is one way the Forest Service could

restore forests and undertake other work on the ground

(such as work associated with recreation, restoration, or

monitoring) while contributing to local economic development. In the early 1990s, agencies accomplished much of

their forestry services work (such as reforestation and timber

stand improvement) through procurement contracts. This

Figure 20—Klamath National Forest major budget program allocations, 1993–2003. Source: Forest Service Pacific

Southwest Region Office of Program Development and Budget.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

34

work, and new jobs related to ecosystem management consistent with Plan goals, would continue to be accomplished

mainly through procurement contracts (although some

occurred in-house or through grants and agreements).

The Plan changed management priorities for the federal

land-management agencies. At the same time, President

Clinton created the Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) program,

which sought to create job opportunities for people who

had been displaced by the new management priorities that

focused on endangered species protection and ecosystem

management. Procurement contracting was one of the ways

the federal land management agencies intended to implement the JITW program. The Forest Service was exempted

from free and open competition procurement requirements

and allowed to set aside JITW contracts for contractors in

the Plan’s affected counties.

After funding for the JITW program dwindled, several

other administrative and congressional programs sought

to create economic benefits for rural, forest-based communities by using procurement contracting. For example, the

National Fire Plan, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and the stewardship

contracting pilot program all attempted to create rural

community benefit by using procurement contracting as a

source of jobs and business opportunities (Moseley and

Toth 2004). If these programs were effective, contractors in

communities near federal forests would capture proportionately more of the contract dollars than in the early 1990s,

because these programs created direction or authority to

direct work to local communities.

Monitoring questions—(1) How much and what kind

of ecosystem management work did the Klamath National Forest contract between 1990 and 2002, and how

did this work change over time? (2) Who received

economic benefits from Klamath National Forest procurement contracting, and how did these benefits change

over time?2

2

 For a description of the methods used in this analysis, see

Moseley 2006.

Between 1990 and 2002, the KNF spent $44.5 million

procuring land management services.3 Most of this spending (64 percent) took place between 1990 and 1993 (fig.

21). After 1993, contract spending on the KNF dropped

off sharply. The relatively high level of contract spending

in the early 1990s was likely due in part to salvage and

restoration work still going on at that time following a

catastrophic fire event in 1987. In 1997, there was a major

flood on the forest. The KNF received $30 million of ERFO

money in 1998–99 to do restoration work. The rise in

contract spending in 2000 and 2001 reflects the surge in

restoration work that took place as a result of the flood

money.

Of the $44.5 million spent on procurement, the KNF

spent $30.3 million on labor-intensive activities (e.g., tree

planting, thinning), $11.0 million on equipment-intensive

activities (e.g., road work), and $3.1 million on technical

work (e.g., surveys and analysis). As with other national

forests in the Plan area, the KNF reduced its spending on

labor-intensive contracting over the course of the study

period. It also reduced its spending on equipment-intensive

and technical contracting, although not as substantially as

with labor-intensive procurement.

Labor-intensive spending declined from $23.5 million

in 1990–92 to $4.5 million in 1995–97, and declined

further to $2.3 million in 2000–2002. Land treatment

practices, thinning, and tree planting were the major laborintensive activities during 1990–92, but diminished greatly

after that (fig. 22). Although such a decline would be expected in the case of tree planting with the dropoff in the

timber program, the KNF is largely a fire-adapted ecosystem, and therefore one might expect to have seen an

increase rather than a decrease in thinning procurement

in 2000–2002.

Among equipment-intensive activities, the KNF spent

the most on road construction and maintenance (fig. 23).

3

 Fire contracting data are not included in this analysis

because they are tracked differently by the Forest Service

than other procurement contracts are, and we did not have

the time and resources available to include the fire

contracting information.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

35

Figure 21—Annual procurement spending by work type, Klamath National Forest.

Figure 22—Labor-intensive

contracting, Klamath National Forest, 1990–2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

36

Road construction spending was largest during 1990–92,

whereas road maintenance was greatest during 2000–2002.

Discerning a clear pattern among the technical work is

difficult (fig. 24). Timber-related surveys and cone collection declined, which suggests a shift away from technical

activities associated with timber management. However,

archaeological, historical, and ethnographic studies, biological studies, and wildlife studies declined as well. This

may indicate that such studies were typically conducted

in association with the timber program. At the same time,

“other natural resource management and conservation”

increased, likely signaling an increase in studies to meet

the Plan’s survey-and-manage requirements. Unfortunately,

it is difficult to tell because the product service code for

these activities includes a wide variety of tasks.

During 1990–92, 101 contractors worked for the

KNF. That number fell to 58 by 2000–2002, representing

a 43-percent decline. Over the same period, procurement

spending by the forest declined by 78 percent. On average

then, the remaining contractors captured less contract value

in the early 2000s than they did a decade earlier.

The dramatic decline in KNF procurement spending

did not lead to increased concentration of contracting work

among the forest’s contractors (table 4). In 1990–92, a

single contractor captured 25 percent of KNF procurement

contracts, and five contractors (4.95 percent of the total

number) captured 50 percent of the forest’s contract value.

In 2000–2002, six contractors (10.35 percent) captured 50

percent of the procurement value that the forest offered,

meaning that market concentration declined over the study

period. Nevertheless, in both periods the vast majority of

the contractors (80 and 75 percent, respectively) captured

only one quarter of the procurement dollars spent by the

KNF.

The KNF had a high rate of turnover among its contractors. Of the 101 contractors working for the forest in 1990–

92, only 3 worked for the forest a decade later. The three

returning contractors captured more contract dollars on

average than the new contractors did, although they did

not receive the largest contracts.

Figure 23—Equipmentintensive contracting,

Klamath National Forest,

1990–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

37

Figure 24—Technical contracting, Klamath National Forest, 1990–2002.

Table 4—Concentration of contracting awards by size of contractor, Klamath

National Forest

Contract value 1990–1992 2000–2002

Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of

contractors contractors contractors contractors

1st quartile 1 0.99 2 3.45

2nd quartile 4 3.96 4 6.90

3rd quartile 15 14.85 8 13.79

4th quartile 81 80.20 44 75.86

Total 101 100.00 58 100.00
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

38

The KNF awarded contracts to contractors located

primarily along the Interstate-5 corridor, and in communities in or near the forest. During this period, labor-intensive

contracts went mainly to contractors located along Interstate 5 in northern California and in the Willamette Valley

in Oregon, and equipment-intensive contracts went almost

exclusively to northern California contractors, especially

those located in Siskiyou and adjacent counties (fig. 25).

Over the study period, proportionately more contracts

were awarded to contractors located closer to the forest

(fig. 26). In 1990–92, contractors working on the KNF came

from up and down Interstate 5. Over time, contractors were

increasingly concentrated in northern California and southern Oregon, and then finally in northern California. Corresponding to this trend, in the early 1990s, contractors

traveled an average distance of 134.5 air miles to work on

the KNF (table 5). By 1999–2001, the average distance

traveled to work on the Klamath had fallen to 102.9 air

miles. This difference of 31.6 air miles was statistically

significant. The increasing localization of contract recipients is attributable, in large part, to the decline in the

amount of labor contracting that the KNF undertook

between 1990 and 2002. In addition, those labor-intensive

contracts that the forest did award went to contractors

located closer and closer to the forest over time (laborintensive contractors came from an average of 140.8 miles

away from the forest in 1990–92, compared with an average

of 86 miles away in 1999–2001). In contrast, the change in

the distance that equipment-intensive and technical

contractors traveled over time was not significant.

The KNF awarded 40.1 percent of its contract value to

rural contractors in 1990–92 (people living in communities

having under 5,000 people) (table 6). By 2000–2002, this

number had increased to 48.4 percent. In real dollars,

however, awards to rural contractors declined from nearly

$12 million in 1990–92, to just over $3 million in 2000–

2002. This proportional shift may be partially explained

by the decrease in the number of contractors coming from

places having an unknown population size, but it could

also be attributed to the decline in awards to contractors

located in small towns (having populations of 5,000 to

9,999 people). The percentage of total contract value

awarded to urban contractors (those living in communities of over 50,000 people) remained the same in the two

periods.

Throughout the study period, the KNF awarded most

of its contract value to contractors located in counties that

were eligible for JITW program economic assistance

because they had been negatively affected by the cutbacks

in timber harvesting that occurred under the Plan (fig. 27).

However, the proportion of contract value awarded to

contractors from these affected counties fell from 90.1

percent in 1990–92, to 82.5 percent in 1995-97. This is the

opposite of the intended impact of the JITW program,

which sought to provide more jobs to workers in counties

affected by the Plan.

The most striking feature of the KNF’s procurement

contracting practices over the last 12 years is the 78-percent decline in spending that occurred between 1990–92

and 2000–2002. The KNF’s large reduction in procurement

spending was considerably greater than that in the Plan area

as a whole, which averaged a 59-percent decline. However,

it was comparable to the decline in contract spending that

occurred on other northern California forests (see Moseley

et al. 2003). The decline in procurement spending undoubtedly had a great impact on both rural and local contractors,

despite the fact that these contractors captured proportionately more contract value in the early 2000s than they did a

decade earlier.

Clearly, catastrophic events such as fires and floods

influence the amount of contracting work that is available

on the KNF. When such events occur, they create too much

work for the forest to accomplish internally; associated

emergency dollars directed to the forest to address the

catastrophe result in contracting opportunities. However,

such episodic events do not provide a predictable supply

of work.

According to interviewees, local communities around

the KNF expected that under the Plan there would be

new opportunities to engage in contracting work doing

ecosystem-management-related activities, such as ecological restoration work. These opportunities were expected to
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

39

Figure 25—Location of labor-intensive and equipment-intensive Klamath National Forest contract recipients, 1990–2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

40

Figure 26—Location of contract recipients, Klamath National Forest, 1990–1992 and 2000–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

41

Table 5—Distance traveled by contractors to work on the Klamath National Forest

 Fiscal years Fiscal years

1990–1992 1999–2001 Significance

Air miles

Mean distance

All contracts 134.52 102.93 0.061

Labor 140.84 86.01 0.005

Equipment 110.34 117.72 0.833

Technical 125.37 93.35 0.269

Median distance

All contracts 61.56 47.54

Labor 60.28 39.87

Equipment 70.59 47.54

Technical 69.05 86.69

Contracts Number

All contracts 201 105

Labor 149 39

Equipment 31 53

Technical 21 13

Table 6—Percentage of contract value by contractor’s community size,

Klamath National Forest

Community

population (1998) 1990–1992 2000–2002

Real dollars Percent Real dollars Percent

<5,000 11,987,000 40.1 3,149,000 48.4

 5,000-9,999 5,437,000 18.2 932,000 14.3

 10,000-50,000 4,614,000 15.4 1,219,000 18.7

 >50,000 4,545,000 15.2 992,000 15.2

 Unknown 3,291,000 11.0 216,000 3.3

Total 29,874,000 100.0 6,509,000 100.0
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

42

help offset the loss in timber industry jobs associated with

reductions in federal timber harvests. The data clearly

indicate that these opportunities did not materialize as

envisioned. Why?

Forest interviewees gave several reasons. First, there

was not that much contract work available overall. When

restoration work was available, it tended to be equipmentintensive work, rather than labor-intensive work, meaning

that it provided few jobs. Second, apart from the emergency

funds cited above, there wasn’t much money available in

the KNF budget to fund contracts. As the previous section

demonstrates, the KNF budget declined substantially

throughout the 1990s, meaning there was little base money

available to fund contracts. When there was work that could

be done in-house and money to do it with, the KNF preferred to keep its own staff employed, rather than lay off

additional workers and fund outside contractors. The reductions in staffing that followed the decline in the forest

budget were significant, and opportunities to minimize

those reductions were seized. Third, the Plan greatly increased the planning and analysis requirements associated

with accomplishing projects. This planning and analysis

work is typically performed by Forest Service employees.

Because such a large proportion of project money was now

being spent on planning and analysis, there was less money

available to actually do projects on the ground, which is

where the contracting opportunities generally lie.

Fourth, although one expectation of the Northwest Forest Plan was that more contracting work would be made

available locally, the Plan did not contain any special provisions or tools that would make it easier from an administrative standpoint to award contracts to local residents

within the needed timeframe. Displaced workers needed

new work opportunities right away in order to remain in

their communities and find jobs, but the organizational

change within the Forest Service required to make this

happen didn’t take place. Agency acquisition regulations

were designed to favor efficiency through economies of

Figure 27—Contract awards to Northwest Forest Plan-affected counties, Klamath National Forest, 1990–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

43

scale and the lowest bidder, not local hire. Although this

has begun to change in recent years with the option to use

best value contracting and stewardship contracts, these

changes were not in time to help most local workers. Consequently, many of these workers moved away in the early

1990s, taking their skills and infrastructure (e.g., equipment) with them. The fact that the contracting work that has

been available on the KNF is sporadic and does not provide

a reliable source of income has also caused potential contractors to move elsewhere in search of work. The result is

that when contract work is available, there could be a shortage of people with the needed skills and equipment to

perform it.

Reductions in agency budgets and staffing, and in

the amount of contract work available on the other three

northern California national forests in the Plan area, caused

these forests to move from forest-based contracting to

province-level (“zone”) contracting in the late 1990s, a

shift that also occurred elsewhere in Region 5. This meant

the KNF contracting organization had to reorganize, causing contracting processes to stall. It has taken the forest a

long time to figure out how to get contracting work accomplished under the new organizational structure.

Finally, the KNF sees advantages to accomplishing

work through partnership agreements instead of contracts

when the opportunity arises. Partnership agreements are

more flexible than contracts. The terms and conditions can

be changed more easily, and they can be a tool for leveraging outside money to help accomplish work. Although

agreements may provide work opportunities for local

residents, a shift toward using them would contribute to the

decline in contracting trends reflected by the data. Trend

data for dollars spent on agreements were unavailable.

Community Economic Assistance

One goal of the Northwest Forest Plan was to minimize

adverse effects on jobs and to assist with long-term economic development and diversification in rural communities affected by cutbacks in timber harvest on federal forest

lands. Four major economic assistance strategies were

developed to achieve this goal:

• The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative

(the NEAI), which provided economic assistance

to workers and their families, businesses, and

communities.

• Payments to states legislation, designed to

stabilize payments to counties and to compensate

for reductions in payments traditionally tied to

federal timber receipts.

• Removal of tax incentives for the export of raw

logs.

• Assistance to encourage growth of, and investment

in, small businesses and secondary manufacturers

in the wood-products industry (Tuchmann et al.

1996: 141).

This section focuses on the NEAI and treats the last of

the assistance strategies as one of its components. Payments

to states and counties are addressed in the next section. This

monitoring report does not examine the effects of the export

tax incentive change put in place in 1993.

The Forest Service is not an economic development

agency and cannot be expected to function as such. Nevertheless, it has long been committed to providing people in

communities that surround federal forest lands with socioeconomic benefits from the national forests, thereby

contributing to socioeconomic well-being. Community

economic assistance programs are one way of doing this.

The economic assistance package, designed to mitigate the

effects of the Plan on people, communities, and businesses

that were economically dependent on the wood products

industry, was a central component of the Plan.

Monitoring Question—How did the Klamath National Forest assist with long-term economic development

and diversification in rural communities affected by

cutbacks in timber harvest on federal forest lands and

what were the outcomes?

In the early 1990s, the KNF administered grants to support economic diversification projects in local communities

that totaled roughly $55,000 per year. The NEAI brought

$2,272,000 in grant money to the KNF over 9 years, representing 16 percent of the total NEAI funding received

by Forest Service Region 5. During this period, the KNF
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

44

averaged $217,000 per year in grant money, with a high of

$478,000 in 1994, and a low of $50,000 in 1999 and 2000

(fig. 28). The amount of money available each year depended on budget allocations from Congress. The bulk of

the NEAI money became available during the first 4 years

of the Plan. Rural Community Assistance grants made up

the vast majority of this funding. These grants were often

used by communities to leverage money from other sources

through matching grants and other means, so that the total

benefit they provided was far beyond their face value. Not

only did the NEAI provide economic assistance to communities, the way in which it was administered caused new

collaborative relationships to form between the agency and

communities.

In Butte Valley, federal grant money to support economic and community development, and small business

loans—some of which came through the initiative—were

critical for helping local businesses survive. In Scott Valley,

the effectiveness of initiative funding and Rural Community Assistance grants received mixed reviews. They were

believed to be helpful in funding specific projects and infrastructure developments, but their long-term success was

believed to be limited by inconsistent commitment and

followup on the agency’s part. Initiative money was not

viewed as helping former timber workers adapt to changing

job markets because most of the workers had lost their jobs

and left by the time the funding arrived.

The Mid-Klamath community received a substantial

amount of initiative funding in the mid-1990s. Tobe et al.

(2002) studied how effective that funding was. The Karuk

were able to secure $1.86 million in initiative funds, and

the community secured additional funds through other

mechanisms. Numerous planning activities took place, and

several projects were initiated, roughly one-third of which

were natural-resource-based (such as a small hardwood mill

and a furniture business). Tobe et al. (2002) found that the

initiative did increase the physical infrastructure and financial capital of the community. The initiative also provided job training and skills development, but it did not

lead to creating significant local jobs. Instead, retrained

Figure 28—Economic program grants to communities, Klamath National Forest, 1992–2003.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

45

workers had to move away to find new jobs. Nor did it

build leadership capacity in the community to replace

what was lost when timber workers moved away. What new

businesses were created could not absorb displaced timber

workers, who benefited little from the initiative programs.

The Forest Service did not create the job opportunities

hoped for, or provide the raw materials required to make

new value-added wood-products businesses successful.

The main criticism of the initiative reported by interviewees was that it provided one-time funding for projects,

but these projects were not linked together to create longterm, sustainable jobs for local residents. And the funding

ran out too quickly to be effective.

More recently, as Rural Community Assistance funds

dwindled, two new grant programs became available to

communities through the National Fire Plan—the Economic Action Program and the Community Protection

Program. The Community Protection Program is aimed at

removing fuels from private lands. The Economic Action

Program focused on finding long-term solutions to fuels

problems, including community fire plans and developing economic uses for forest fuels. Economic Recovery

grants also became available on the KNF in 2003. However, the forest has to compete with other national forests

in California for these funds. Overall, the amount of grant

money available on the KNF dropped sharply with the end

of the NEAI funds.

Payments to County Governments

Shared revenues generated by the sale of timber and other

goods and services from federal lands are important sources

of funds for local governments. Historically, 25 percent of

gross timber receipts from the sale of Forest Service timber

has been returned to counties as compensation for revenues

foregone because the lands and resources are not in private

ownership. Under the Payments to States Act of 1908

(Public Law 60-136 as amended), these payments are for

public schools and local roads. State legislatures decide on

the actual division of funds. In California, the split is 50:50.

Timber receipts, which include purchaser road credits,

Knutsen-Vandenburg Act (KV) collections for sale area

restoration, and salvage sale fund payments, are by far the

largest source of revenue. They exceeded 99 percent of all

revenues collected during the early 1990s and dropped to

95 percent by the end of the decade. Other revenues generated by the sale of natural resources from federal lands

include collections for developed recreation, mineral

leasing, special uses, and grazing permits.

Northern California was affected by the drop in federal

timber harvest and associated timber revenues resulting

from administrative and judicial decisions designed to protect the northern spotted owl and other ecosystem components. For 1991-93, Congress annually invoked stop-gap

measures to mitigate the reduction in revenue to affected

counties in northern California, including Siskiyou County.

Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993 to provide a longer lasting alternative payment. All of

these alternative payments are known as the “spotted owl

safety net” or “owl guarantee” payments. Under the act,

counties received a declining percentage of the 1986

through 1990 average annual payment; payment began in

1994 at 85 percent of the 5-year average and was to decline

by 3 percent each year through 2003, when it would reach

58 percent. Between 1999 and 2003, counties would receive either their percentage from the act, or their revenuesharing percentage from gross receipts, whichever was

higher. The owl guarantee payments under this act were to

expire in 2004.

In 2000, Congress replaced this spotted owl safety

net with the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Public Law 106-393), which would

expire in 2006. Under this act, counties receive an annual

payment equal to the average of the payments received

during the three highest years between 1986 and 1999. This

act provided alternative payments to counties nationwide

that historically shared revenues from goods and services

sold from Forest Service lands. The national forest component stipulated that at least 85 percent of this money (Title

I) must be used to fund education and transportation projects. The remaining 15 percent was to be used to fund

resource advisory committees (RACs) and their activities

(Title II), and general county budget needs (Title III).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

46

The RACs were established by the act to promote

collaborative relations and to advise the Secretaries of

Agriculture and Interior on the use of Title II funds. The

advisory committees include 15 members representing a

balance between the environmental community; industry,

commodity, and recreation interest groups; and government officials, educators, and members of the public. The

advisory committees review and recommend projects and

associated funding proposed by willing federal agencies,

state and local governments, private and nonprofit entities,

and landowners. The projects must focus on enhancing or

restoring forest ecosystem health (including water quality),

promoting land stewardship, or maintaining or improving

existing infrastructure. The projects can be on national forest land, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, Oregon

and California Railroad land, and Coos Bay Wagon Road

land, or on nonfederal land where they would benefit

federal land.

In addition to revenue sharing, counties receive

payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) based on the amount of

eligible federal land in each county. The payment amount

is determined based on a formula that includes population

and the amount of prior-year revenue sharing. In 1994,

Congress passed legislation to increase the payment

amounts calculated in the formula and added an annual

inflation increase (Schuster 1996). These payments are

funded directly through congressional appropriations,

but Congress typically does not fully fund PILT. Funding

varies year to year and is generally about 50 percent of the

calculated amount. These PILT payments are important to

county governments. The payments in lieu of taxes were

generally not affected by the Plan’s implementation that

reduced timber harvest, because the owl guarantee legislation and the Secure Rural Schools Act mitigated the loss in

timber revenues.

Monitoring question—Did payments-to-counties

legislation stabilize payments to county governments

from the Klamath National Forest and compensate for

payments traditionally tied to timber receipts?

Figure 29 summarizes the downward trends in forest

collection receipts that occurred on the KNF between 1988

and 2002. Timber receipts (including purchaser road

credits, KV collections, and salvage sale fund payments)

were by far the largest source of revenue to the KNF during

the 1970s and 1980s. Revenues generated by nontimber

programs were meager compared with those that had come

from the timber program. This underscores the importance

of mitigation measures. Figure 30 shows the amount of

money county governments received from the KNF between

1990 and 2002 (99 percent to Siskiyou County and 1 percent to Jackson County). The lower line on the graph

represents the amount that county governments would have

received based on 25 percent of the KNF collection receipts

alone, without the mitigating legislation. The upper line

indicates the amount of money that county governments

actually received under the owl safety net payments and

the Secure Rural Schools Act. The spotted owl safety net

measures resulted in substantially higher payments to

counties than they would have received through forest

revenue sharing alone, in many cases at least doubling

this amount. The Secure Rural Schools Act has provided

the highest level of payments to counties since 1990.

In addition to being an important source of revenue

to support roads and schools countywide, payments to

counties under the Secure Rural Schools Act have contributed a significant amount of money to support local

resource-related projects on and around the KNF. The

Siskiyou County RAC has been a major source of funding

for collaborative forest stewardship projects. It has made

over $1.7 million available for resource-related projects on

both private and national forest lands in the county during

2001–03 ($336,432 in 2001, $678,248 in 2002, and

$686,387 in 2003). The RAC money not only promotes

forest stewardship; it is an important source of new grant

money to communities that have seen NEAI funds largely

disappear.

Summary of Trends

What are the overall trends in socioeconomic benefits

flowing from the KNF since 1990? In terms of resource outputs, the most significant trend has been the drop in timber
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

47

Figure 29—Klamath National Forest collection receipts by program area, fiscal years, 1998–2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

48

harvest activity from a high of 306.5 million board feet in

1990, to a low of 10 million board feet in 2002. Associated

with that decline was a substantial drop in timber revenue

generated by the forest, from $25.6 million in 1989 to

$186,500 in 2002. The decline of the KNF timber program

triggered declines in the KNF budget and jobs. The number

of jobs dropped by roughly 31 percent between 1993 and

2003. The total forest budget dropped by about 18 percent

between 1993 and 2002. These trends also triggered the

consolidation of three of the forest’s district offices.

There were also drops in the production of convertible

special forest products (fuelwood and Christmas trees),

although fuelwood is still important for heating. Other

special forest products activity on the forest has either

declined or been inconsistent. There has been a recent surge

in mushroom harvest activity (mainly matsutake), but these

reportedly do not provide much in the way of economic

opportunity to local residents. Most harvesters and buyers

come from outside the area. Commercial mushroom harvesting has created conflict with Karuk tribal members,

who value mushrooms for personal and cultural uses. Other

special forest products on the KNF also have cultural importance to tribal members.

Grazing activity declined slightly. Minerals activity

(salable and locatable) also declined somewhat between

1990 and 2002, as did associated revenues to the forest.

Recreational mining increased. The KNF recreation

program has remained fairly stable, with reported increases

in river rafting and backcountry use, and a slight decrease

in roads and associated recreation opportunities. Recreation

revenues rose slightly overall during the course of the study

period, although they have dropped off since 1999.

Timber was reported to be the single biggest determinant of the KNF budget prior to the Northwest Forest Plan.

In recent years, continued declines in the base program budget have been somewhat offset by increases in fire money.

However, the declining budget has had an impact on contracting opportunities to do work on the KNF. The drop in

annual procurement spending for ecosystem management

work on the KNF during the study period was substantial.

Emergency money made available through ERFO following

the 1997 flood was the one factor countering this trend.

Two important mitigation measures designed to offset

the negative economic effects of declining timber harvests

on communities were associated with the Plan. Owl guarantee payments caused payments to county governments to

decrease slowly rather than abruptly during the 1990s. The

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act has stabilized these payments. Both measures have

helped buffer the impacts of declining timber receipts on

county governments.

Figure 30—Klamath National Forest payments to states, fiscal years 1990–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath Forest...

49

Community Economic Assistance programs made available by the KNF increased substantially between 1994 and

1998 as a result of the NEAI. Now that Rural Community

Assistance funds have dwindled, the economic assistance

money available to communities through the KNF has

essentially returned to pre-Plan levels. The Forest Service

Economic Action Program is no longer funded. However,

forest communities have had the opportunity to benefit

from new sources of funds made available through RACs

as part of the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act, and can also obtain money through the

National Fire Plan. It is uncertain whether these will be

reliable sources of economic assistance money in the future.

The Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2006. A 1-year

extension was passed in 2007, but reauthorization is

uncertain.

Partnership agreements between the KNF and collaborating federal, state, and nonfederal entities provide

another potential source of employment to community

residents. Although partnership agreement data were not

available for the years prior to 2002, recent data indicate

that the KNF is putting the same, if not more, money into

agreements as it is into procurement contracts for ecosystem

management activities. If considered together with the

money leveraged through partners, the value of agreements

money now exceeds that of contracts.

Nevertheless, the overall picture is one of declining

community economic benefits from the KNF since the

Plan was adopted. The economic benefits associated with

resource and recreation outputs, agency jobs, and contracting declined sharply between 1990 and 2002. Payments to

county governments have stabilized, at least for the near

term. There was a substantial increase in community

economic assistance money during the mid-1990s, but this

has now returned to pre-Plan levels. Partnership agreement

money and RAC project money provide two additional

sources of economic opportunity for communities. The

RAC money was new in 2001 but it’s future is uncertain.

No trend data were available for agreements, but forest

interviewees reported a growing tendency to put money

in these vehicles as compared to contracts.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

50
51

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Chapter 3: Community-Level Change and the Effects of the Northwest

Forest Plan

PLACEMENT ONLY

PLACEMENT ONLY

PLACEMENT ONLY
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

This chapter responds to the socioeconomic monitoring

question posed in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of

Decision (ROD): Are local communities and economies

experiencing positive or negative changes that may be

associated with federal forest management? We focus on

three case-study communities associated with the Klamath National Forest (KNF) (Scott Valley, Butte Valley,

and Mid-Klamath), using them to look closely at three

things: (1) how communities around the KNF have

changed since 1990 and how changes in forest management and the flow of socioeconomic benefits from the

KNF under the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) contributed to that change, (2) how communities have adapted

to change brought about by federal forest management

policy and the role the KNF has played in helping them

do so, and (3) changing relations between the KNF and

the case-study communities since 1990. The information

in this chapter comes mainly from the U.S. census and

interviews with community members.

To put the case-study communities in perspective,

we examined changes in socioeconomic well-being that

occurred between 1990 and 2000 in all of the communities (as defined for purposes of this monitoring program)

lying within 5 miles of KNF boundaries using a wellbeing index that was calculated on the basis of six U.S.

census indicators (see Donoghue and Sutton 2006): percentage unemployment, percentage of the population

living below the poverty level, household income inequality, percentage of the population 25 years and older

having a bachelor’s degree or higher, average travel time

to work, and diversity of employment by industry. This

index serves as a coarse indicator of change in socioeconomic well-being that occurred in communities

around the KNF since 1990. Of the 37 communities

that lie within 5 miles of the KNF, 4 (10.8 percent)

had socioeconomic well-being scores that increased,

19 (51.4 percent) had decreases in socioeconomic

well-being scores, and 14 (37.8 percent) showed little

change in their scores between 1990 and 2000. On

average, the 37 communities’ socioeconomic well-being

score dropped from medium (62.6) to low (56.7) between

1990 and 2000.1 This chapter provides a much more

detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of this

change.

Scott Valley

Scott Valley lies in central Siskiyou County about 35

miles south of the Oregon border (fig. 31). The northsouth-oriented valley is about 30 miles long and 7 miles

wide, and is surrounded by mountains. Most traffic into

and out of the valley is over a mid-elevation mountain

pass to Yreka, 15 miles north of the valley on the Interstate-5 corridor. Among the mountains around Scott

Valley are the Trinity Alps Wilderness, the Russian

Wilderness, and the Marble Mountain Wilderness. The

Trinity Alps Wilderness lies across the boundaries of the

Klamath, Shasta, and Six Rivers National Forests beyond

the valley’s southern end. The other two wilderness areas

lie within the western half of the 1.7-million-acre KNF,

which curves around the valley’s southern and western

flanks at elevations ranging from 3,200 to over 8,000 feet

(USDA FS 1997). Sections of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land are scattered across the lower, drier

mountains that make up Scott Valley’s eastern flank. The

view across the valley is pastoral, with irrigated pasture

on the flat, green valley floor backed by range upon

range of rugged mountains to the west.

The Scott Valley community area was identified by

area residents as including the geographic extent of the

valley up to the surrounding mountain peaks. The community includes a number of small towns that together

had a population in 2000 of 5,100. The entire north-south

string of valley towns—Fort Jones, Greenview, Etna, and

Callahan–were seen as essential components of the valley

community. Cheeseville, although identified on the census map, effectively no longer exists. The Quartz ValleyMugginsville-Oro Fino Valley to the west was considered

1

 Community socioeconomic well-being scores were classified as

follows: very low (0 to 48.72), low (48.73 to 61.07), medium

(61.08 to 73.36), high (73.37 to 85.58), and very high (85.59 to

100).
53

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...Figure 31—Scott Valley.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

by interviewees to be part of the Scott Valley community.

Residents suggested that the headwaters of the North

Fork of the Salmon River, particularly the Sawyer’s Bar

area, also be included, as they believed that residents in

that area sought most of their services within Scott Valley.

However, owing to the community delineation protocol

adopted by the monitoring program, the final Scott Valley

community delineation also includes large tracts of land

and census-designated places that were not considered

by residents to be part of the community. These include

Cecilville, Summerville, and parts of the Salmon Mountains to the south, as well as Scott Bar and Klamath River

communities such as Horse Creek and Steelhead to the

north.

Fort Jones at the Scott Valley’s northern end, and Etna

at its southwest edge, are the largest towns within the

valley. Fort Jones (pop. 660) has several primary schools,

housing, a few restaurants and stores, a number of other

businesses, a museum of local history, and a Forest Service district office. Etna (pop. 781) holds historical

homes, a small downtown with a number of businesses,

a public library, and primary and high schools. A Forest Service district office in Etna was closed during the

study period. Greenview (pop. 200), Mugginsville, and

Callahan are smaller villages scattered within the valley.

Sawyer’s Bar is a tiny, remote community in the rugged

mountains to the west, along the North Fork of the

Salmon River. The village of Sawyer’s Bar has no businesses, but retains a post office and a small Forest Service

work station that hosts a firefighting crew. A school in the

Sawyer’s Bar area closed during the study period. The

other small towns in the area were not identified by Scott

Valley residents as part of their community. Stakeholders

and residents of these areas were therefore not sought for

interviews, although they are represented in the census

statistics.

The valley is part of the ancestral territory of the

Shasta Tribe, which today includes about 1,500 people.

About half of the tribe members live within 100 miles of

Yreka. The other half reside in Oregon or Washington.

Most families include at least one member who still lives

in ancestral territory, and other members return often to

visit or for tribal gatherings. Many tribe members continue lifestyles with a close connection to the land.

Gold mining, agriculture, logging, and ranching

have been the area’s primary uses since European settlers

entered around the 1830s. This history remains alive, with

descendents of pioneering settler families still prominent

in the area. Gold brought many of the original settlers to

the Scott Valley, and was mined in hard rock mines as

well as the Scott River and its tributaries. Extensive

dredger tailings from these activities remain at the

valley’s southern end.

The floor of the valley historically has been dedicated to ranching, with a dominant presence today of

irrigated agriculture. Cattle pastures and irrigated alfalfa

cover most of the valley floor. The alfalfa hay is fed to

local cattle, or is sold and apparently trucked throughout

California and the West. Most of the remaining bottomland is used to pasture cattle, some of which are summered on the KNF’s grazing allotments. Sugar beets

and other crops may also be farmed on the valley floor.

For 150 years, logging also occurred on the slopes

surrounding the valley. Privately owned commercial forest lands lie between the valley bottom and the national

forest land along the valley’s western and southern extents. Most of these lands are owned by two commercial

timber companies: Timber Products (formerly Sierra

Pacific) and Fruit Growers Supply. A large Oregon-based

commercial timber grower (Roseburg Forest Products)

owns a much smaller land base within the valley. Timber

harvest within the area is supplemented by smaller private

landowners (USDA FS 1997).

Small-claim mining, ranching, and logging, all

historically central to the area’s economy, are occupations entailing individual risk and requiring personal

initiative and hard physical labor. These are traits valued

in the Scott Valley today. Inhabitants of the valley adhere

to a tradition of rugged individualism and independence.

Interviewee comments made it clear that hard work and

individual initiative are strongly valued, with personal

freedom perhaps most highly prized.
55

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Despite the economic and political pressures associated with living in a relatively remote, rural community,

residents say that they would much prefer to live in Scott

Valley than elsewhere. Ranchers and loggers cite multiple

generations of their families closely tied to the land, with

no desire to leave the woods or the valley. Tribe members

cite thousands of years of local residence, and of accumulating a deep understanding of and connection to its

natural rhythms and processes.

Residents express a feeling that the valley is a

strongly rural place, one with a powerful and living

connection to its history. They value the intergenerational traditions of the valley. Most want to see their

community’s rural culture protected. The valley seems

removed from the faster-changing world beyond the surrounding mountains, and residents want to keep it that

way.

Community Change and the Role of Forest

Management Policy

The population of the Scott Valley community remained

constant at around 5,100 people between 1990 and 2000

(table 7). Change in the racial composition of the local

population between 1990 and 2000 cannot be measured

because the U.S. census collected these data differently

in 1990 and 2000. However in 2000, about 89 percent

of the Scott Valley population was Caucasian. American

Indians composed another 6 percent. The number of

African Americans and Asian and Pacific Islanders was

under 1 percent. Hispanics accounted for 3.7 percent of

the population in 2000.

What did change between 1990 and 2000 was the

median age of Scott Valley residents. Median age rose

from 33.3 in 1990 to 44.5 in 2000, a 34 percent increase

(table 7). This magnitude of change was greater than that

in Siskiyou County as a whole, where median age rose

by about 16 percent. The shift resulted from a substantial

loss of residents under age 44 (most notably people in the

0-to-4 and the 30-to-44 age groups) (table 8). By contrast,

the 45-to-64 age class increased by 47 percent during

this same period. The 65-and-older age class also gained

members.

Despite the loss of youth, census data indicate that

school enrollment in the year 2000 was nearly the same

as it was in 1990 (table 9). We do not know why the

school enrollment data do not reflect this population

decline. The number of residents that had completed high

school rose slightly between the two periods, as did the

number of residents that held BA degrees or higher.

Median household income in Scott Valley rose 9.5

percent between 1990 and 2000, consistent with the

increase that occurred countywide (table 10). Table 11,

which shows income distribution, indicates that the

number of households earning $35,000 per year or less

dropped during the decade, while the number of households having incomes over $35,000 per year increased.

The number of households earning $75,000 or more

increased sharply between 1990 and 2000, such that 15

percent of Scott Valley households were earning over

$75,000 per year by 2000. In contrast to Siskiyou County

as a whole, the percentage of people living in poverty in

Scott Valley declined by 10 percent. The rise in unemployment that occurred in Scott Valley was much higher

than that throughout the county (table 10).

Figure 32 compares changes in employment by industry that occurred in Scott Valley between 1990 and

2000. The total number of Scott Valley residents employed increased over the decade, from 1,876 to 1,975.

Manufacturing jobs dropped from 14 percent to 4 percent of employment by industry. The most job growth

occurred in retail and wholesale trade and in the education, health, and social service sector. The public administration sector, and the finance, insurance, real estate and

rental, and leasing sector also grew. The largest employment sectors in Scott Valley in 2000 were agriculture,

forestry, fisheries, hunting, and mining; education, health,

and social services; professional and other services; and

retail trade (containing 19, 21, 15, and 12 percent of the

total jobs, respectively).
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Table 7—Scott Valley population, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, Scott Valley 5,100 5,126 0.51

Total population, Siskiyou County 43,531 44,301 1.77

Population by race, Scott Valley

Caucasian 4,553

African American 1

American Indian 295

Asian and Pacific Islander 48

Others 49

2+ races 180

Percentage of population that is Hispanic (%) 3.7

Median age, Scott Valley 33.3 44.5 33.63

Median age, Siskiyou County 37.2 43 15.59

Table 8—Age distribution, Scott Valley population, 1990 and 2000

Age distribution 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 Scott Valley 332 1,264 367 1,317 1,061 759

2000 Scott Valley 227 1,116 313 948 1,556 966

Change (percent) -31.63 -11.71 -14.71 -28.02 46.65 27.27

1990 Siskiyou County 2,993 9,746 4,182 10,546 8,867 7,197

2000 Siskiyou County 2,273 9,425 3,591 8,318 12,615 8,079

Change (percent) -24.06 -3.29 -14.13 -21.13 42.27 12.26

Table 9—Education indicators, Scott Valley, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

 Percent

School enrollment, Scott Valley 1,112 1,104 -0.72

School enrollment, Siskiyou County 8,680 9,091 4.74

Completed high school, Scott Valley (percent) 81.23 87.42 7.62

Completed high school, Siskiyou County (percent) 77.36 83.78 8.30

BA, graduate, professional degrees Scott Valley (percent) 17.40 20.28 16.55

BA, graduate, professional degrees Siskiyou County (percent) 14.17 17.75 25.26
57

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Table 10—Economic indicators, Scott Valley, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990a 2000 Change

Percent

Median household income, Scott Valley 27,888 30,545 9.53

Median household income, Siskiyou County 27,204 29,530 8.55

Unemployed, Scott Valley (percent) 7.95 9.32 17.23

Unemployed, Siskiyou County (percent) 9.37 9.55 1.92

Poverty, Scott Valley (percent) 16.50 14.78 -10.42

Poverty, Siskiyou County (percent) 13.99 18.56 32.67

a

 Median household income has been adjusted for inflation and is reported in 2000 dollars.

Table 11—Household income distribution, Scott Valley, 1990 and 2000

Household

income $10,001- $15,000- $25,000- $35,000- $50,000- $75,000- $100,000- $150,000

distribution <$10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 and up

1990

Scott Valley 385 269 383 365 276 184 30 23 14

2000

Scott Valley 305 242 381 216 367 300 169 110 44

 

1990 county 3,349 2,361 3,945 2,733 2,472 1,560 414 279 120

2000 county 2,691 1,960 3,577 2,369 3,129 2,711 1,075 683 378

Note: These data are not adjusted for inflation.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Scott Valley’s socioeconomic well-being score

dropped from medium (62.6) to low (56.7) between 1990

and 2000. This score was slightly lower than average for

the 37 communities within 5 miles of the KNF.

In what ways do census data reflect changes in the

nature of the Scott Valley population between 1990 and

2000? Interviewees stated that most of the timber workers

that still lived in the community in 1990 left with their

families in the early 1990s. This departure was a direct

result of the cutbacks in timber harvest that occurred on

the KNF at this time, according to interviewees. Many

welfare recipients (another long-term segment of the

local population) and people living on unemployment

also moved away in the mid-1990s, when their benefits

apparently ran out and they had to search for jobs elsewhere. The movement of this sector of the population was

not considered to be related to the Plan. The exodus of

community residents and their families caused some

schools to close or consolidate, and caused a loss of support to the service and business sectors of the community.

When timber workers and their families moved away,

housing prices slumped briefly. This attracted the attention of young retirees from urban areas, and older, mobile,

high-earning workers. These kinds of people began to

move into the Scott Valley area, and housing prices have

since risen dramatically as a result. The influx of relatively well-off urban retirees and mobile workers may

account for the rise in median income, and the shift in

income distribution seen in the census data.

Interviewees stated that changes in timber production on the KNF in the years immediately preceding the

Plan had a dramatic impact on the community’s timber

workers, forcing most of those who had not already left

to do so. Between 1994 and 2002, the mills that remained

in the Scott Valley area closed down, with some 145 mill

jobs lost as a result. The departure of timber industry

Figure 32—Employment by industry, Scott Valley, 1990 and 2000.
59

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

workers caused families to break apart across generational

lines, as younger workers had to leave their aging parents

to find work in other areas. A great deal of grief, anxiety,

anger, and frustration accompanied this change. Not all

timber workers left the area, however. Some retired, some

got lower paying jobs in the service sector, and some

continued to work in the industry, but commuted long

distances to find work, or worked intermittently.

Eighteen percent of the forest land in Siskiyou

County is owned by the private forest industry (USDA

FS 2004). Although Fruit Growers and Timber Products

own private industrial timber lands on the mountain

slopes above the valley floor, community interviewees

stated that these did not provide any meaningful alternative source of employment for Scott Valley timber

workers once timber harvests on the KNF declined. Private industrial timber landowners in northern California

have found it difficult to continue operating there owing

to the loss of timber industry infrastructure and California

state regulations that put a burden on their businesses,

making it costly to operate. Several companies have

moved operations across the border to Oregon, where the

business climate is more favorable for the timber industry.

This exacerbates the impact of job loss associated with

federal timber cutbacks on rural communities like Scott

Valley.

Ranchers in the Scott Valley community have also

been undergoing stressful times over the last decade,

and are having a difficult time maintaining their way of

life. The pressures come from many sides: flat beef prices

in the face of rising labor costs, rising production costs,

drought, and the 1997 listing of the coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) as a threatened species. The coho

listing is expected to affect local water management and

could threaten the use of water by farmers and ranchers

who irrigate pasture on their private ranches, and grow

alfalfa for the market.

An estimated six Scott Valley ranchers have grazing

allotments on the KNF. Changes in forest management

under the Plan have added to the other pressures they

face. For these permittees, Forest Service allotments play

a critical role in their overall livelihood strategy. However, grazing under the Plan has added to their production costs. Recent drought, combined with stricter rules

regarding the use of riparian areas under the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy, and increased scrutiny of grazing

practices under both National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and the Plan mean that grazing on the forest has

become more labor intensive, as it has to be managed

more carefully. Rising labor costs have meant a bigger

financial burden on ranchers who hire laborers to assist

them, or a shift away from using hired labor to using

household labor only, stressing family members. This

increased scrutiny has added to the broader climate of

uncertainty around the economic viability of ranching, as

permittees are insecure about whether they will continue

to have their permits renewed. Another concern among

permittees is the increased risk of catastrophic fire on the

KNF over the last decade owing to the buildup of fuels.

This risk has reportedly caused some ranchers to obtain

fire insurance for their cattle, adding to the cost of doing

business.

The Plan has contributed to a larger set of pressures

on Scott Valley ranching families that they described as

threatening their way of life. These families have been

ranching for generations, and ranching forms the base

of their economy, culture, and way of life. However, flat

beef prices, rising production costs—in part owing to

Plan requirements—and a climate of uncertainty around

maintaining access to Forest Service allotments is making

it difficult to recruit the younger generations into this

way of life. Inflated property values in Scott Valley resulting from the influx of wealthier residents, and high

inheritance taxes are decreasing the likelihood that

family ranches will be passed on to the next generation.

Instead, they may well be sold to wealthy newcomers or

subdivided and developed.
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Adaptation to Change and the Forest Service

Role in Mitigating Plan Effects

Although the nature of the Scott Valley community has

changed over the last decade, the community is persisting. Despite job loss in the early 1990s and a downturn

in the local economy, the community rejected a proposal

to site a prison in Siskiyou County in the mid-1990s,

although it would have provided jobs. Scott Valley’s

proximity to Yreka and the Interstate-5 corridor means

that commuting to jobs outside the community is a more

viable option than it is for more remote communities

around the forest. The Scott Valley also has a relatively

diversified natural-resource-based economy. The ranching

and agricultural sectors, although under stress, are still

economically viable. The affordability of the area relative

to other parts of California, its great natural beauty and

high amenity values, and its proximity to Yreka and

Interstate 5 have drawn an influx of retirees and mobile

workers into the community who create new demand for

businesses and services. These people contribute to the

local economy and the community.

Scott Valley has a strong constituency of residents

who are highly active in community issues, have strong

leadership skills, work to promote economic development in the area, are effective at organizing the community around issues of concern, and want to protect the

rural way of life and values that predominate there. Doak

and Kusel (1997) undertook a social assessment of the

Klamath region to analyze socioeconomic status and

community capacity in the greater area of influence of

the KNF. Community capacity is the collective ability

of community residents to create and successfully take

advantage of opportunities to achieve local needs and

desires (Doak and Kusel 1997: 10). They found that

the Scott Valley towns of Etna and Fort Jones ranked

medium-high in their socioeconomic status and community capacity scores (Doak and Kusel 1997: 71–72).

Relative to other communities in the area surrounding

the KNF, the high level of socioeconomic well-being

in the Scott Valley community has been a critical factor

in helping it adapt to change.

Interviewees reported that the KNF has played a

mixed role in mitigating the effects of the Plan. Local

residents expected that diminishing opportunities to

benefit from timber harvest on the KNF would lead to

increased investment in recreation and tourism development. These expectations have not been met. According

to several interviewees, not only had the KNF failed to

work with the community to develop recreation and

tourism options; but it couldn’t maintain the existing

recreation opportunities. For example, the KNF had yet

to clear and open a large number of wilderness trails in

the Scott Valley area closed by a timber blowdown that

occurred during a storm in 1997. Local outfitters said

the KNF could not respond to their requests to address

problems relating to recreation use on the forest that

degrade the wilderness experience (and potentially

undermine their business interests) because it did not

have the staff. However, the lack of investment in recreation and tourism development may also be related to

the area’s relative remoteness and limited demand.

Regarding contracting, survey-and-manage species

requirements provided some opportunities for local

residents. Some interviewees praised the KNF for supporting training and economic development opportunities in

the area of technical contracting. Much of this work was

accomplished through support for a local nonprofit

organization whose trainees worked on the KNF doing

surveys, restoration work, geographic information system

(GIS) analysis, and other analyses. This local nonprofit

organization had graduated 68 trainees since 1995,

although most of these were not displaced timber workers. Eighty percent of the graduates have been successful

in finding natural-resource-related work, although these

jobs have not been local because of a shortage of opportunity; people had to move closer to urban areas to find

them. Interviewees believed that longer term government

funding to support job opportunities would increase the

success of such training programs.

The effectiveness of Northwest Economic Adjustment

Initiative (NEAI) funding and Rural Community Assistance grants received mixed reviews. They were believed
61

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

to be helpful in funding specific projects and infrastructure developments, but their long-term success was

believed to be limited by a lack of long-term followup

funding where needed to sustain job creation. The NEAI

money was not viewed as helping former timber workers

adapt to changing job markets, because most of the

workers had lost their jobs and left the community by

the time the funding arrived. Grant funding offered

through the KNF was viewed by county officials as

being essential for supporting its Economic Development Council, and for helping communities develop

networks and write and obtain grants from a variety of

sources. These grants were critical for sustaining local

nonprofit organizations. Notably, several interviewees

were aware of development projects that occurred in the

community, but did not know these had been funded

through the NEAI and were associated with the Plan.

Changing Relations Between Scott Valley and

the Klamath National Forest

When the KNF timber program was thriving, the KNF

maintained strong relations with that segment of the

community that was engaged in timber harvesting and

processing. When the KNF timber program dropped off

and the Plan was implemented, these ties weakened. The

KNF failed to deliver on Plan expectations relating to

improvements in recreation and tourism, and meeting

timber targets according to its allowable sale quantity

(ASQ). Moreover, efforts to mitigate the impacts of the

Plan on timber workers were largely unsuccessful. These

factors reportedly led to a breakdown in trust between

local residents, stakeholder groups, and the Forest Service. With the disappearance of the local timber economy, issues of interest to many of the local residents

interviewed shifted away from the national forest and

toward other concerns, most notably the coho salmon

listing, water management issues in the Klamath Basin,

and their potential impacts on agriculture in the valley.

Forest management concerns have become increasingly

distant from the lives of Scott Valley residents. The

reduction in Forest Service presence on the ground

resulting from staff cutbacks contributed to a lack of

connection between the community and the KNF.

Few people believed that resource extraction from the

national forest will ever be an economically viable basis

for sustaining the community in the future. They had

largely given up on this issue. The KNF was viewed by

many as having little ability to contribute to community

well-being, and as irrelevant to the ongoing needs of the

community. There was limited public awareness of the

work the KNF has done to benefit the community, such as

NEAI projects.

Several interviewees viewed Klamath forest managers as a valuable source of expertise. The community

welcomed opportunities to interact with agency employees and to brainstorm with them on topics relating to

resource management and economic development. People wanted to see increased outreach efforts in this regard.

However, community members interviewed also felt that

forest managers were powerless to take meaningful action

in relation to forest management. They believed this was

due to the lack of staff and budget, and the overwhelming

set of process requirements imposed by the National

Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act,

and the Northwest Forest Plan. They also attributed it to

management decisionmaking having been removed from

the local to the regional level. Because KNF employees

were perceived as having their hands tied, and as passive

parties in resource management, community members felt

it was also necessary to go to regional or national-level

decisionmakers to have their needs addressed. This sentiment was shared by both environmental activists and

timber industry representatives.

The Shasta Tribe members interviewed did report an

adequate working relationship with the KNF, and with

few exceptions, reported good relations with KNF

employees.

Butte Valley

Butte Valley is an agricultural area in northeastern

Siskiyou County that adjoins the Oregon border (fig. 33).

The community is bordered by forest and range lands in
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Figure 33—Butte Valley.
63

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

mixed private and public ownership. The valley and

surrounding areas include the Butte Valley National

Grassland (administered by the KNF), the Lower Klamath

National Wildlife Refuge, the Butte Valley Wildlife Area,

BLM land (administered by the Redding unit), and

industrial timberland. The Goosenest Ranger District

of the KNF forms the mountainous border of the Butte

Valley to the west and south. The KNF acquired large

areas of private land through exchanges or donations

between 1937 and 1951. A portion of the Butte Valley is

in the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area, designated

by the Northwest Forest Plan as an area managed for objectives related to forest health, late-successional forest

habitat, and commercial timber production.

Butte Valley is part of the ancestral territory of the

Shasta Tribe. However, few tribal members live there

today. Agriculture now forms the largest employment

sector in the Butte Valley. There is a strong ranching component and farming has been important historically. The

potato industry thrived in the area for several decades.

Major agricultural crops grown since 1990 include hay,

potatoes, and strawberries. Forested lands have historically provided grazing and timber-related products to

the local economy. The Butte Valley subbasin is a closed

hydrologic system. All water drains into the ground or to

Meiss Lake, and does not flow to the Klamath River

under normal conditions.

The Upper Dorris Census Block Group defined the

Butte Valley community for purposes of this study. The

city of Dorris is the only incorporated place in Butte

Valley, and one of nine incorporated places in Siskiyou

County. Dorris contains much of the community population. Dorris is located about 20 miles from Klamath Falls,

Oregon, to the north and 50 miles from Weed, California,

to the south on Highway 97. Macdoel, Mount Hebron,

Bray, and Tennant are unincorporated places within the

Butte Valley area. Tennant and Bray were not included in

the study area because the boundaries of the census block

group, which was selected and validated locally as best

representing the Butte Valley Community, did not include them. Fifteen people from Butte Valley were interviewed to obtain the information in this chapter.

As an incorporated city, Dorris has elected officials

and a tax base to provide services to its citizens. Macdoel

and Mount Hebron are small and dispersed enough that

they do not have any organized services specific to their

area. Fire protection is provided by two volunteer fire

departments, one serving the entire area outside of Dorris.

There is a health clinic in Dorris. A unified school district

serves the entire area. Klamath Falls, Oregon, is the

regional center for manufacturing, professional services,

and shopping.

The area surrounding Butte Valley has been logged

for about 100 years. At one time, there were several sawmills operating in the area. When long-time residents

were growing up, there was a sawmill in Dorris; in the

1950s and 1960s, the mill was the major employer in

town. Although much of the forestry work was seasonal,

forests supplied work that supported workers and their

families who resided in the area and used local services.

The mill reportedly closed down about 40 years ago.

Since then, logs have been trucked out of the area.

Community Change and the Role of Forest

Management Policy

Since 1990, the population of Butte Valley has changed

little, remaining at around 1,900 residents (table 12).

Seventy-seven percent of the community population was

Caucasian in 2000, 6 percent was American Indian, and

16 percent was classified as “other” or 2+ races. The

remaining 1 percent of the local population was Asian

and Pacific Islander. In 2000, 24 percent of the community’s population was Hispanic. This is much higher

than the overall county percentage, which stood at 7.2

percent Hispanic in 2000. The relatively large proportion

of Hispanic residents is undoubtedly due to the predominance of agriculture in Butte Valley.
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

The median age of the Butte Valley population rose

much less than it did for Siskiyou County as a whole

between 1990 and 2000, from 33.3 to 37.2 (table 12). It is

unclear whether this increase was caused by aging of the

existing population, or a change in the area’s residents.

While the number of people in the 45- to 64-year-old age

group increased in size by 39 percent, the 30- to 44-yearold age group dropped by 25 percent, and the number of

people under age 19 also decreased (table 13). Despite

an 11.5 percent decrease in the number of school age

children in Butte Valley between 1990 and 2000, U.S.

census data show a slight increase in school enrollment

over this period (table 14). Census data are inconsistent

with those obtained from the Butte Valley Unified School

District. According to school district data, there were 379

students enrolled in school in 1999 (compared with the

census figure of 473 in 2000), and 302 students enrolled

in 2003. This represents a dramatic decline in the student

population, which the Butte Valley School District expects will continue. The percentage of the population

that had completed high school, and that held BA or

higher degrees was slightly higher in 2000 than in 1990.

Nevertheless, only 7 percent of Butte Valley residents had

a B.A. degree or more in 2000 (compared with 18 percent

countywide).

Median household income in Butte Valley increased

by 8 percent between 1990 and 2000, and unemployment and percentage of the population living in poverty

decreased significantly (table 15). The rise in median

household income is reflected by a more than doubling

of the number of Butte Valley households earning over

$35,000 per year (table 16). The increase in median

household income occurred at the same rate as it did

countywide. The large drops in unemployment and

poverty were counter to the countywide trends, which

reflect an increase in percentages of unemployment and

households living in poverty in Siskiyou County.

The total number of Butte Valley residents employed

rose from 623 in 1990 to 691 in 2000. There was substantial growth in Butte Valley’s retail trade sector between

1990 and 2000, with growth also occurring in the arts,

recreation, accommodation, and food services sector, and

smaller growth in education, health, and social services

(in contrast, professional and other services declined

Table 12—Butte Valley population, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, Butte Valley 1,908 1,885 -1.21

Total population, Siskiyou County 43,531 44,301 1.77

Population by race, Butte Valley

Caucasian 1,458

African American 0

American Indian 112

Asian and Pacific Islander 8

Others 246

2+ races 61

Percentage of population that is Hispanic (%) 24.0

Median age, Butte Valley 33.3 37.2 11.70

Median age, Siskiyou County 37.2 43 15.59
65

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Table 13—Age distribution, Butte Valley population, 1990 and 2000

Age distribution 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 Butte Valley 128 524 164 476 338 278

2000 Butte Valley 122 464 196 359 469 275

Change (percent) -4.69 -11.45 19.51 -24.58 38.76 -1.08

1990 Siskiyou County 2,993 9,746 4,182 10,546 8,867 7,197

2000 Siskiyou County 2,273 9,425 3,591 8,318 12,615 8,079

Change (percent) -24.06 -3.29 -14.13 -21.13 42.27 12.72

Table 14—Education indicators, Butte Valley, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

 Percent

School enrollment, Butte Valley 466 473 1.39

School enrollment, Siskiyou County 8,680 9,091 4.74 

Completed high school, Butte Valley (percent) 61.42 68.83 12.06

Completed high school, Siskiyou County (percent) 77.36 83.78 8.30

BA, graduate, professional degrees Butte Valley (percent) 7.03 7.29 3.70

BA, graduate, professional degrees Siskiyou County (percent) 14.17 17.75 25.26

Table 15—Economic indicators, Butte Valley, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990a 2000 Change

Percent

Median household income, Butte Valley 21,594 23,325 8.02

Median household income, Siskiyou County 27,204 29,530 8.55

Unemployed, Butte Valley (percent) 12.99 9.69 -25.40

Unemployed, Siskiyou County (percent) 9.37 9.55 1.92

Poverty, Butte Valley (percent) 26.79 21.86 -18.40

Poverty, Siskiyou County (percent) 13.99 18.56 32.67

a

 Median household income has been adjusted for inflation and is reported in 2000 dollars.
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

sharply) (fig. 34). Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting,

and mining also grew substantially, with 33 percent of

residents employed in this sector in 2000, far more than

in any other sector in Butte Valley and well above the

county average. The manufacturing, and transportation,

warehousing, and utilities sectors (where timber employment is often represented) declined. The socioeconomic

well-being score of Butte Valley was low in 1990 at 52.4

and was still low in 2000 at 50.7. These scores were substantially lower than average for the 37 communities

within 5 miles of the KNF.

Although the timber industry was an important employment sector in Butte Valley historically, by 1990,

Butte Valley had long since lost its sawmill. Forest

industry jobs remained an important component of the

local economy. However, when logging on federal forest

lands was restricted in the early 1990s, the local effects

were big. Initially, there was a lot of fear, unrest, and

anger. Many truckers, fellers, markers, and people who

worked for the Forest Service lost their jobs. Loggers and

truckers could no longer find jobs that would sustain their

families. Some individuals began “tramp” logging, going

farther and farther from home to find work, which caused

strain within families. Many people moved away, disrupting close family generational ties, and established ways

of life. By 2003, the bigger truck operators were located

in cities, and traveled greater distances to work. Two mills

remained in Butte Valley. One is a molding mill, in operation since 1924, and an industry leader in the United

States. The other went through two previous incarnations

as a molding business, and in 1997 became a peeler core

business.

Some people stayed in Butte Valley and commuted to

work in the mills in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Others stayed

and switched to lower paying jobs in the service sector,

sometimes commuting to Klamath Falls. Pay reductions

caused a reduced standard of living and often required

both husband and wife to work to support their household. Some interviewees reported an increase in drug use,

crime, and other social problems in the community since

1990 that they associated with job loss in the timber sector. As of 2003, interviewees did not know anybody in

Butte Valley still employed in timber-industry-related

jobs, except for employees of the two small mills that

remained in Dorris, and Forest Service employees at the

local ranger district office. Most did not feel that the timber industry had much economic or social influence in

the area any longer.

While the timber industry was declining in Butte

Valley, the potato industry was thriving. People worked

in the fields in summer, and in potato sheds in the winter.

Potato farming was a year-round source of employment,

so workers bought houses and settled in the community.

Since 2000, potato farming in Butte Valley has largely

disappeared because of international trade practices,

changes in American eating habits, and the expensive

cost of pumping ground water to irrigate them. Potato

farmers sold out to strawberry farmers, and strawberry

Table 16—Household income distribution, Butte Valley, 1990 and 2000

Household

income $10,001- $15,000- $25,000- $35,000- $50,000- $75,000- $100,000- $150,000

distribution <$10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 and up

1990

Butte Valley 145 136 196 109 68 35 8 9 0

2000

Butte Valley 133 66 184 125 116 88 28 11 11

1990 county 3,349 2,361 3,945 2,733 2,472 1,560 414 279 120

2000 county 2,691 1,960 3,577 2,369 3,129 2,711 1,075 683 378

Note: These data are not adjusted for inflation.
67

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

farming has now replaced potato farming. Strawberry

plants are grown in Butte Valley, and then shipped elsewhere to be replanted and to produce berries. Work on the

strawberry farms is seasonal, and is performed mainly by

migrant workers. This shift in farming has reportedly

caused job loss in the community’s agricultural sector

since 2000. Some potato farmers are still in the area, but

others have moved.

The timber and potato farming sectors of the community supported local businesses and services, such as

mechanics and supply shops selling logging and farming

equipment. With both of these groups largely gone from

Butte Valley, these businesses and services have suffered.

Interviewees did not perceive the strawberry growers as

contributing much to the community or the local economy because of their seasonal presence and practice

of hiring mostly nonlocal workers. Trends in the Butte

Valley farming sector were not viewed as being tied to

federal forest management policy.

Ranchers were another important component of Butte

Valley’s agricultural sector. Those who had Forest Service

grazing allotments relied on them heavily, as most did

not own enough acreage to keep cattle on their own property year-round. Typical permittees run cattle on their

own land for part of the year, on the KNF for part of the

year, and on pasture rented from other private landowners

for part of the year. Each piece is critical to the viability

of the overall operation. In general, ranchers move their

cattle to the KNF allotments in late spring or early

summer, where they remain until late summer or early fall.

In recent years, the water crisis in the Klamath Basin

and the drought in southern California have caused

farmers to come to Butte Valley in search of farmland and

water for irrigation. These farmers have created competition for land with local ranchers, and caused the cost of

renting seasonal pasture to rise. As a result, it has become

difficult for Butte Valley ranchers to compete economically for access to winter pasture. When they cannot rent

Figure 34—Employment by industry, Butte Valley, 1990 and 2000.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

pasture locally, they must take their cattle farther away to

find pasture, increasing the cost of production.

Production costs associated with running cattle on

the KNF have reportedly increased since the Northwest

Forest Plan was adopted. The Plan was perceived by

several interviewees as increasing agency scrutiny over

grazing practices. Some interviewees said that ranchers

had to monitor their animals more closely on the allotments to be sure that they did not overgraze. They also

had to do more mitigation work to comply with the

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, such as maintaining more

fences to keep cattle out of riparian areas. These requirements increase labor demands. Greater scrutiny over

grazing and reduced access to water, combined with nonPlan-related factors such as drought, meant that allotment

days and animal unit months on the KNF had gradually

declined. This decline increased ranchers’ needs for

access to private pasture, which was becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. Despite these pressures,

ranchers interviewed in Butte Valley felt that their Forest

Service allotments were secure relative to the private land

component of their grazing strategy.

In short, ranchers in Butte Valley felt squeezed by

unstable beef prices, which made it difficult for them to

keep up with rising production costs. Each year was a

challenge, making it hard to pass on the family business.

According to interviewees, the only ranching families

that were likely to persist were those who had enough

pasture and water on land they owned to support their

herds year-round.

One segment of the Butte Valley population that had

reportedly increased since 1990 consisted of people

on fixed or low incomes, including retirees. The cost of

living, presence of services in Dorris, proximity to Oregon

where shopping is more affordable because of no sales

tax, recreation opportunities, beautiful scenery, other

natural amenities, and lack of traffic make Butte Valley

attractive. Some retirees spent the summer in Butte Valley

and went to warmer places in the winter.

Another segment of the local population commuted

to jobs in Oregon, mainly in Klamath Falls. These people

may have chosen to live in California instead of moving

to Oregon because property taxes are lower in California,

and housing is inexpensive in Butte Valley. Butte Valley

also offers a rural setting and a small-town atmosphere

that people like. The rise in the number of community

residents employed in the service and retail trade sectors

between 1990 and 2000 may be explained by this

commuting pattern.

Adaptation to Change and the Forest Service

Role in Mitigating Plan Effects

Like Scott Valley, Butte Valley has historically had a

diverse natural-resource-based economy, with timber,

ranching, and farming all playing important roles.

Although the timber sector has all but disappeared,

ranching continues, and farming—although changing—

persists. Highway 97, which branches off of Interstate 5

and serves as the major transportation corridor going

north through central Oregon up the east side of the

Cascades, runs through Butte Valley and is used by

truckers. The highway takes two turns through the town

of Dorris, causing people to slow down and stop, eat, and

shop on their way through town. Highway 97 brings traffic that is critical to the business sector in Butte Valley,

which could not be sustained by the local population

alone. The volume of traffic is reportedly increasing,

helping the community survive. The community fought

a proposed construction project that would have caused

the highway to bypass the town of Dorris because of the

potential loss of business.

The Dorris city council has worked to attract business

to Butte Valley by improving the city’s infrastructure

(e.g., water and sewer, fire department), cleaning up the

town, and renovating old, rundown houses with support

from grants and loans. The community’s proximity to

Klamath Falls limits opportunities for development, however (Doak and Kusel 1997: 48). There was also a shortage of people willing to engage in local civic groups and

city government and in helping the community improve

local conditions and adapt to change. The loss of timber

workers, Forest Service employees, and farming families
69

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

in Butte Valley caused a drop in human capital, and the

core nucleus of individuals who remained and played this

role was small and susceptible to burn-out. Doak and

Kusel’s (1997) social assessment of the Klamath region

gave Butte Valley the lowest possible community capacity score, and the second lowest socioeconomic status

score, giving this community one of the lowest socioeconomic well-being rankings in the Klamath region.

Local residents interviewed viewed Butte Valley as

potentially attracting tourists. In 2003, the section of

Highway 97 that goes through Butte Valley was included

as part of the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway. Bird-related

tourism is being promoted in the area. The city of Dorris

recently built the tallest flagpole west of the Mississippi

River. In the last 2 years, Dorris has also sponsored a 4th

of July celebration, and an “Art in the Park” event. All of

these activities were designed to attract tourists, who the

community hopes will contribute to the local economy.

Residents were divided over recreation and tourism development, and acknowledged that they were unlikely

to be a solution to the area’s economic problems. Butte

Valley is more a pass-through area than a destination

because it lacks tourist attractions and infrastructure.

The two mills in Dorris that have been there for

decades, (a molding mill and a peeler core mill) have

persisted as a result of the managers going to trade

shows and developing markets outside of the local area.

The mills have shifted their supply of raw materials from

expensive, locally produced wood to cheap, imported

wood from New Zealand and peeler cores from Oregon

mills. They do not use federal timber. They are also able

to respond to orders quickly. By adapting to changing

market conditions and the needs of their clients, these

mills have survived.

According to interviewees, the Forest Service has

not played a major role in helping the community adapt

to change. Contracting work on the KNF has not been

significant. Once timber workers moved away, few local

people remained who had the skills and equipment

needed to do contract work. More recently, a few seasonal contracting jobs have become available through

the National Fire Plan to reduce hazardous fuels. The

community recognized the KNF as a tourist attraction

and wanted to see the Forest Service develop interpretive

programs to help attract more visitors. Community interviewees viewed the forest’s efforts to develop east-side

snowmobiling opportunities in a positive light. This

development has brought more recreationists to the area.

The KNF also worked with the community to promote a

Volcanic Byway designation, and the Forest Service in

Oregon helped develop a brochure on local birding opportunities. Federal grant money to support economic

and community development in Butte Valley, and small

business loans–some of which came through the NEAI–

have been critical for helping local businesses survive.

Otherwise, no new forms of resource-related work on

the KNF emerged to contribute in a meaningful way to

the local economy of Butte Valley. Mining was never

important there. Matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare)

mushroom harvesting became more popular over the

last decade. Local businesses profited when the KNF

produced good matsutake crops, because most mushroom pickers were nonlocal and bought food and gas

in the community when they were picking mushrooms.

Matsutakes also provided a supplemental source of

income to a few local residents who pick them. However,

interviewees did not think mushrooms had the potential

to significantly benefit the local economy because they

are seasonal, erratic, and subject to price fixing by buyers.

Changing Relations Between Butte Valley and

the Klamath National Forest

Today, few people in the Butte Valley are connected to

the KNF through their employment. Timber workers have

moved away (despite the fact that most timber harvest on

the KNF now occurs on the east side). The main segment

of the local population that interacts with the KNF are the

grazing permittees. The permitees interviewed reported

good relations with the agency. Otherwise, Butte Valley

residents interviewed felt largely disconnected from the

Forest Service, and took little interest in forest management issues. Farming was the biggest employment sector
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

in Butte Valley, and farming issues were viewed independently of forest management issues. There had been little

connection between forest management and community

development opportunities.

Forest Service employees were valued as members

of the Butte Valley community. Interviewees viewed

strengthening the ties between Forest Service employees

and the community as being key to building stronger

relations between the KNF and the community. They

wanted to see Forest Service employees get more involved with local groups, activities, and government.

Forest-community relations were viewed largely as

contingent on the specific individuals who held Forest

Service jobs and their disposition toward getting involved with the community. The Shasta tribal members

interviewed reported good relations with the Forest

Service.

The KNF is physically more distant from Butte Valley

than from the other two case-study communities. This

distance may partly explain why forest management

issues are not at the forefront in Butte Valley, and why

relations between the community and the KNF are weak.

Although the Butte Valley National Grassland lies on the

valley floor, interviewees did not mention it. Nor did they

comment on the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area,

which apparently has not actively engaged Butte Valley

residents in collaborative forest stewardship.

Mid-Klamath

The Mid-Klamath community lies in northwestern

Siskiyou County and encompasses the area bounded

by the Klamath River to the south, the Oregon border to

the north, and the towns of Klamath River upstream and

Happy Camp downstream (all to the west of Interstate 5)

(fig. 35). Although the community is large geographically, the total population is small (1,660 people in 2000)

because much of it contains the KNF lands. In addition to

the towns of Klamath River and Happy Camp, the community includes the small towns of Horse Creek, Hamburg, and Seiad Valley. These towns lie along the Klamath

River and Highway 96, the main transportation corridor

through the community. Highway 96 follows the river

from Interstate 5 (to the east) southwest to Highway 299

where it ends roughly 25 miles inland from the coast. The

Mid-Klamath community is the most remote of the three

case communities. The entire area is unincorporated.

Happy Camp is the largest town along the river, containing 38 percent of the Mid-Klamath population. It also

contains several stores, a few restaurants, three or four

motels, an elementary school and a high school, a health

clinic, a small museum focusing on Karuk tribal culture,

a library, a Forest Service district office, and the Karuk

tribal government offices. The remainder of the population is mainly concentrated around the other small towns

that make up the community, each of which have a few

hundred residents. These towns are surrounded by the

western portion of the KNF. The community between

Happy Camp and Hamburg is roughly 95 percent public

land managed by the KNF. Between Hamburg and

Klamath River, a checkerboard pattern of land ownership

prevails, with much of the private property held by

private industrial forest landowners such as Fruit Growers

Supply Company. Community residents live in the

narrow Klamath River valley or along its major tributaries

(e.g., Indian Creek, Seiad Creek). They are surrounded by

the steep forested slopes of the Siskiyou and Klamath

mountain ranges.

The Mid-Klamath community lies within the ancestral territory of the Karuk and Shasta Tribes. The Karuk

ancestral territory includes the Klamath River area

between Seiad Valley to the east and Bluff Creek to the

west, and the Shasta ancestral territory includes the areas

east of Seiad Valley (USDA FS 1999: 4-1). The first wave

of Caucasian settlers entered the area around 1850 in

search of gold (USDA FS 1997: 3-23). Small mining

camps sprang up along the mid-Klamath River and its

tributaries. Miners searched for gold as well as copper and

silver. By the early 1900s, mining had started to diminish,

and by 1920 it had declined significantly (USDA FS

1997: 3-66). Today gold mining occurs on a small scale,

and much of it is recreational in nature.
71

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...Figure 35—The Mid-Klamath community.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Commercial timber harvesting began in the community around 1950 (USDA FS 1997: 3–66). From the 1950s

until 1990, timber dominated the local economy. Much

of the community’s road system was built during this

period (USDA FS 1999: 4–3). Farming and ranching have

only been practiced on a small scale by a small number of

Mid-Klamath residents owing to a shortage of flat land in

the region and the difficulty in clearing it. The exception

to this has been in the Beaver Creek watershed above the

Klamath River where cattle and sheep grazing occurred

on a large scale along the Siskiyou Crest starting in the

early 1900s (USDA FS 1996: 4-13—4-14). Since the

1940s, grazing in that drainage has decreased substantially. The Karuk Tribe has no land base in the form of a

reservation.

Community Change and the Role of Forest

Management Policy

According to U.S. census figures, the number of people

living in the Mid-Klamath community dropped from

2,117 to 1,660 between 1990 and 2000–a 22-percent

decline (table 17). This trend contrasts with Siskiyou

County as a whole and the other two case-study communities, where the total population remained stable over

the decade. The decline is associated with a loss in the

number of people under age 44 during the decade (table

18). The number of residents ages 0 to 4, and 20 to 29

dropped by over 50 percent, while the number of people

ages 5 to 19, and 30 to 44 dropped 40 and 45 percent,

respectively. In contrast, the 45-to-64 age group grew by

86 percent between 1990 and 2000. These population

changes resulted in a rise in the median age of the MidKlamath population from 32.5 years in 1990, to 44.4

years in 2000. As of 2000, the Mid-Klamath population

was 73 percent Caucasian, 19 percent American Indian,

and 6.5 percent 2+ races (this may include individuals

of mixed Caucasian and American Indian descent). The

Karuk is the dominant tribe in the area. African Americans

and Asians and Pacific Islanders together represented

only 1.5 percent of the total population. The MidKlamath’s Hispanic population was 3.8 percent in 2000.

The decline in the Mid-Klamath community’s schoolage population mirrored the 41.8-percent decline in

school enrollment that occurred between 1990 and 2000

(table 19). Although the percentage of the population that

had graduated from high school rose slightly, the percentage holding B.A. degrees or higher dropped by 22

percent. This drop was a marked contrast to the rise that

occurred countywide.

Table 17—Mid-Klamath population, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, Mid-Klamath 2,117 1,660 -21.59

Total population, Siskiyou County 43,531 44,301 1.77

Population by race, Mid-Klamath

Caucasian 1,207

African American 7

American Indian 318

Asian and Pacific Islander 17

Others 3

2+ races 108

Percentage of population that is Hispanic (%) 3.85

Median age, Mid-Klamath 32.5 44.4 36.62

Median age, Siskiyou County 37.2 43 15.59
73

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

The median household income in the Mid-Klamath

community also went down between 1990 and 2000,

from $31,236 to $20,924–a drop of 33 percent (table 20).

Again, this is counter to the trend that occurred in

Siskiyou County, where median household income rose

by 8.6 percent between 1990 and 2000. Unemployment

grew, and the number of households living below the

poverty line grew substantially (by 65 percent). Table 21

shows the shift in household income distribution that

occurred between 1990 and 2000. The number of people

Table 18—Age distribution, Mid-Klamath population, 1990 and 2000

Age distribution 0-4 5-19 20-29 30-44 45-64 65 and up

1990 Mid-Klamath 192 577 212 586 287 263

2000 Mid-Klamath 86 340 98 323 534 279

Change (percent) -55.21 -41.07 -53.77 -44.88 86.06 6.08

1990 Siskiyou County 2,993 9,746 4,182 10,546 8,867 7,197

2000 Siskiyou County 2,273 9,425 3,591 8,318 12,615 8,079

Change (percent) -24.06 -3.29 -14.13 -21.13 42.27 12.26

Table 19—Education indicators, Mid-Klamath, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, Mid-Klamath 586 341 -41.81

School enrollment, Siskiyou County 8,680 9,091 4.74

Completed high school, Mid-Klamath (percent) 73.54 77.56 5.47

Completed high school, Siskiyou County (percent) 77.36 83.78 8.30

BA, graduate, professional degrees, Mid-Klamath (percent) 14.21 11.09 -21.96

BA, graduate, professional degrees Siskiyou County (percent) 14.17 17.75 25.26

Table 20—Economic indicators, Mid-Klamath, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990a 2000 Change

Percent

Median household income, Mid-Klamath 31,236 20,924 -33.01

Median household income, Siskiyou County 27,204 29,530 8.55

Unemployed, Mid-Klamath (percent) 16.18 19.60 21.14

Unemployed, Siskiyou County (percent) 9.37 9.55 1.92

Poverty, Mid-Klamath (percent) 14.83 24.42 64.67

Poverty, Siskiyou County (percent) 13.99 18.56 32.67

a

 Median household income has been adjusted for inflation and is reported in 2000 dollars.
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Table 21—Household income distribution, Mid-Klamath, 1990 and 2000

Household

income $10,001- $15,000- $25,000- $35,000- $50,000- $75,000- $100,000- $150,000

distribution <$10,000 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 and up

1990

Mid-Klamath 128 121 151 122 131 63 33 25 8

2000

Mid-Klamath 142 96 145 96 79 97 33 23 4

1990 county 3,349 2,361 3,945 2,733 2,472 1,560 414 279 120

2000 county 2,691 1,960 3,577 2,369 3,129 2,711 1,075 683 378

Note: These data are not adjusted for inflation.

earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year grew, and

the number of households earning more than $75,000 per

year declined slightly. The number of households earning

under $50,000 per year declined in all categories except

for those earning less than $10,000 per year, which grew.

Figure 36 shows changes in employment by industry

for the Mid-Klamath community. In 1990, the largest

employment sector was manufacturing, which accounted

for nearly one-third of all employment, making it much

more important in the Mid-Klamath area than in Siskiyou

County as a whole. This undoubtedly reflects the number

of jobs in sawmills that existed in the community in

1990. Other important employment sectors in 1990 were

retail trade; services; and agriculture, fisheries, forestry,

and mining. By 2000, manufacturing accounted for only

4 percent of all employment in the Mid-Klamath, by far

the biggest decline in any of the community’s employment sectors. Number of jobs in construction; transportation and utilities; and retail trade also declined. In 2000,

services and health and education accounted for 45 percent of all employment. The sector that exhibited the

most dramatic growth was public administration, which

more than doubled.

In 1990, the Mid-Klamath community had a socioeconomic well-being score of 51.7 (low). By 2000, its

score was 42.3 (very low). The Mid-Klamath had one of

the lowest socioeconomic well-being scores of all the

37 communities within 5 miles of the KNF. These data

indicate that socioeconomic conditions in the MidKlamath community deteriorated between 1990 and

2000.

Census data are consistent with the accounts of

community change given by Mid-Klamath community

members interviewed. According to the interviewees,

between the 1960s and the early 1990s, the economy of

the community was driven by timber. The local timber

economy, in turn, almost wholly depended on federal

timber because the community is surrounded by the KNF,

and there is little private timberland nearby. During the

1970s and 1980s, interviewees said it was easy to get

logging and mill jobs locally. Five mills operated in the

area. When the federal timber supply dropped off in the

early 1990s, mills closed and jobs became scarce. Not just

loggers and mill workers were affected; the KNF, which

had been the other major employer in the community, had

to downsize because many of its employees supported the

KNF timber program. Many mill workers, loggers, and

KNF employees moved away in search of work elsewhere,

taking their families with them. Timber workers went to

places such as Redding, Brookings, and Medford. As a

consequence, housing prices dropped, stores and service

centers that had supported the workers shut down, and

school enrollment declined precipitously. Not only did

the community lose its economic base, but it also lost

productive people who were hard-working and contributed much to the community. The exodus of timber
75

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

workers from the Mid-Klamath community was accompanied by the loss of a way of life and local culture associated with working in the woods. By the mid-1990s, most

of this culture was gone, although some loggers have

remained in the area. The drop in population and school

enrollment reported by the census reflect this change.

Many Mid-Klamath interviewees believed the listing

of the northern spotted owl (Strix occientalis caurina)

under the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest

Forest Plan caused the changes described above. One

logger interviewed stated that the Plan made operating

difficult for small loggers who remained in the community. Small, independent loggers once made a living by

buying small timber sales they could afford. Plan requirements increased the cost of timber sale preparation, so

that new sales under the Plan had to be larger to be costeffective. Small logging operators could not always afford

to bid on these large sales, and therefore felt squeezed out

of the market.

Community members interviewed said that since the

decline of the local timber economy, some new people

have moved to the Mid-Klamath community, especially

people on fixed incomes. One such group was characterized by interviewees as being low-income people on

welfare, who are drawn to the area in part because of the

low cost of living there. This group has reportedly placed

a strain on the schools and social service sector. Another

group of newcomers consists of people in the early phase

of retirement, who do not yet require the health and

transportation infrastructure that more elderly retirees

need, amenities currently lacking in the Mid-Klamath. A

small number of “urban escapees,” who telecommute or

otherwise work remotely from their place of employment,

have also settled in the Mid-Klamath. The outmigration

of families with children, the inability of young people to

remain in the community because jobs are lacking, and

the inmigration of retirees and others greatly altered the

social and economic structure of the community. The rise

in unemployment and poverty, and the drop in median

household income between 1990 and 2000, also reflect

these changes.

Figure 36—Employment by industry, Mid-Klamath, 1990 and 2000.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Apart from the impacts of reduced federal timber harvest on the community, the Plan has had a negligible effect on other forest resource uses. Very few local grazing

permittees exist. The one permittee interviewed stated

that the Plan had had no effect on his practices because

his allotment is at high elevation where there are no rivers

or creeks, and hence no associated riparian constraints.

He reported that forage availability had decreased

slightly because of the reduction of silvicultural activity

and early seral stage forest under the Plan. Otherwise,

his main concern was the absence of law enforcement

officers. Many of his cattle had been poached by hunters.

He also felt unsafe on his allotment, which is remote.

One small mining operator was interviewed. He stated

that the Forest Service didn’t usually cover the cost of

permitting small mining operations because it was too

expensive to do the required survey-and-manage analysis,

and wasn’t lucrative enough to warrant the effort. In contrast, large operators could afford to wait several years to

get a permit, and could fund the analyses themselves.

Thus, small mining operators had been excluded from

some mining opportunities under the Plan.

Adaptation to Change and the Forest Service

Role in Mitigating Plan Effects

Mid-Klamath residents who remained in the community

did so out of a commitment to place, and a determination

to find alternate means of survival there. Because most of

the land in the area is part of the KNF, replacement timber

jobs on private, industrial forest lands were hard to find.

In some cases, one family member (typically the husband)

found work outside the area and returned home on weekends, while the spouse and children remained in the community. This arrangement was stressful and meant the loss

of time with family. Other residents diversified and engaged in mixed pursuits, with both spouses working to

support the family. Some loggers owning equipment did

contract work on the KNF such as road decommissioning.

Other natural-resource-based jobs were limited. Unlike in

the Scott and Butte Valleys, farming and ranching were

not viable in the Mid-Klamath because of the heavily

forested, mountainous terrain. The shortage of private

lands also limited development opportunities in the

community. Some people found it difficult to adapt to

change, resulting in drug abuse, domestic violence, and

divorce.

The KNF provides recreational opportunities, and

some residents hoped that recreation would provide new

economic vitality to the community. The Happy Camp

Chamber of Commerce believed that the Klamath River

and scenic beauty were the Mid-Klamath’s biggest assets,

and were looking for ways to bring visitors to the community by marketing them. They believed that more people

visiting and staying would benefit the local economy.

The chamber was working with the Happy Camp Ranger

District office to design and build a visitor center that will

be housed in the Forest Service office, and to develop

visitor materials and resources. They were also working

with the KNF to identify mountain bike trails on the

forest, and to attract professional bikers to the area, so

that one day it might become a destination spot for

mountain biking. The American Canoe Association

planned to hold its annual national slalom championships in the Mid-Klamath community in 2004, which was

expected to draw many visitors, and to help market the

area as a canoeing destination. The chamber also started

an annual Fourth of July motorcycle event in 2000, which

draws many visitors. There are several recreational

vehicle (RV) parks, three motels, and a handful of restaurants in the Mid-Klamath community that provide a small

infrastructure to support summer visitors.

The Mid-Klamath was once a nationally-renowned

steelhead fishing area, evidenced by a road sign at the

entrance to Happy Camp that reads “Steelhead Capital of

the World.” Fishing brought recreationists to the area and

created opportunities to work as fishing guides. However,

fish populations declined significantly in the late 1980s

and early 1990s, fishing seasons were reduced or eliminated, and guiding requirements became much more

strict, making this option no longer attractive to most
77

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

people. Interviewees reported that fish populations were

rebounding in the early 2000s, bringing hope that they

may again attract visitors to the area.

Hunting was another popular recreational activity.

Deer and elk hunters come to the Mid-Klamath in the

fall and contribute in small ways to the local economy.

Several interviewees stated that reduced silvicultural

activity under the Plan had caused big game habitat on

the forest to deteriorate, however, with negative consequences for big game populations. The Pacific Crest

Trail runs through the community in the vicinity of

Seiad Valley. It brings summer visitors, but they were not

viewed as big spenders, although they do usually eat at

least one meal in the local cafe.

Two recreational activities predominated in 2003:

gold mining and river rafting. In 1986, two local residents

started a recreational mining club called The New 49ers.

In 2003, the club had over 60 miles of mining claims

along the Mid-Klamath River and its tributaries and club

membership stood at about 800. Members came to the

community between June and September each year to

dredge for gold. Most interviewees viewed them as major

contributors to the local economy because they stayed in

local RV parks, shopped at local stores, and ate at local

restaurants. There was some concern, however, about the

environmental effects of their mining practices.

River rafting was uncommon on the middle Klamath

River in 1990. In 2003, there were reportedly 75 outfitterguides running rafting trips there between mid-April and

October. The small number of campgrounds and trails in

the Mid-Klamath community make rafting a good way for

recreationists to explore it. Rafters contribute to the local

economy by staying in motels, eating at restaurants, and

buying supplies locally.

Some community members interviewed were skeptical that recreation would contribute much to economic

development and diversification in the community. They

cited remoteness, lack of tourism infrastructure, lack of

year-round attractions (such as a ski area), and steep

terrain–which makes hiking strenuous–as limiting factors

on recreation development. During summer months, the

community draws visitors, but in winter, recreation

opportunities are few. Some felt that the KNF wasn’t

doing enough to facilitate recreation development.

They said a lack of campground maintenance, boating

launches, and maintained trails were deterrents, as were

road closures. Some interviewees thought the KNF should

build recreation cabins to attract visitors.

Several interviewees commented on the role of

natural disasters in supporting the local economy. For

example, the 1997 flood brought nearly $4 million in

emergency funding to the KNF and other agencies, which

created local jobs repairing and decommissioning roads

(Dillingham 1999: 1). Fire suppression activities added

another $3.5 million to the KNF budget in 1999, again

contributing jobs and income to the local economy.

Many interviewees viewed fire as a growth area from an

economic standpoint.

Interviewees consistently said that the Karuk Tribe

was the main driving force behind the survival of the

Mid-Klamath community following the timber decline.

Many of the Karuk Tribe’s 3,200 members live in the

Mid-Klamath community. The Karuk were federally

recognized in 1979 (Tobe et al. 2002: 2). Many tribal

members worked in the timber industry as loggers or mill

workers in the decades preceding the Plan. The disappearance of timber industry jobs provided an impetus for the

Karuk to seek ways of promoting economic development

in the community. They have been extremely successful

over the last decade at obtaining grant money to fund

projects such as a museum, housing development,

education program, and natural resources department.

The tribe and the KNF were the two biggest employers in

the area in 2003. The tribe’s annual operating budget

stood at roughly $12 million in 2001 (Tobe et al. 2002).

The tribe hires both members and nonmembers. It had

fewer than 20 employees in the early 1990s, but had over

100 in 2003. The tribe also took over running some local

businesses and services in the Mid-Klamath that would

not have remained viable otherwise, such as a hardware

store and a health clinic. The tribe is the major service

provider to the community, particularly in Happy Camp.
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Karuk interviewees said that the tribe feels a responsibility to help the community survive, because the Forest

Service is not going to provide for the community. The

tribe was viewed as the major contributor to community

stability and socioeconomic well-being, not the Forest

Service. There was concern, however, over the long-term

sustainability of the tribal economy, which depends on

soft money that may run out one day. Nevertheless, the

Mid-Klamath region constitutes the Karuk ancestral

territory, and tribal members are committed to finding

ways to stay there.

The Mid-Klamath received a substantial amount of

Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative funding in

the mid-1990s. A study of how effective that funding was

took place in Happy Camp (Tobe et al. 2002). The Karuk

secured $1.86 million in NEAI funds, and the community

secured additional funds through other mechanisms.

Numerous planning activities took place, and a number

of projects were initiated, roughly one-third of which

were natural-resource-based (e.g., a small hardwood mill,

a furniture business). Tobe et al. (2002) found that the

NEAI did increase the physical infrastructure and financial capital of the community. It also provided job

training and skills development. It did not lead to

significant local job creation, however. The KNF did not

provide the contract and other job opportunities needed

to support newly trained workers. Instead, retrained

workers had to move away to find jobs. Moreover, the

NEAI did not build leadership capacity in the community

to replace what was lost when timber workers moved

away.

The NEAI money was invested in businesses that

produced value-added wood products. The new businesses that were created could not absorb the displaced

timber workers either. These businesses depended on

a supply of raw materials from the KNF. The raw materials

required to make these new natural resource-based

businesses successful were not supplied on a reliable

basis. In sum, although there were some short-term benefits, the NEAI did not have positive long-term effects on

the local economy (Tobe et al 2002: 18). Interviewees’

main criticism of the NEAI was that it provided one-time

funding for projects, but these projects were not linked

together to create long-term, sustainable jobs for local

residents. And the funding ran out too quickly to be

effective.

Changing Relations Between the Mid-Klamath

Community and the Klamath National Forest

Because the Mid-Klamath community is surrounded by

the KNF, residents feel very connected to the forest and

care about it deeply. It is a part of their everyday lives.

Many interviewees were frustrated that the KNF had not,

in their view, taken responsibility for forest stewardship.

They were also frustrated that the KNF provided few local

jobs.

Interviewees said community-forest relations hinged

largely on the individual district ranger. District rangers

who worked well with the community, played an active

role in outreach, and exhibited interest in creating opportunities for and benefits to the community from the

forest were well-received, and greatly enhanced agencycommunity relations. In contrast, district rangers who

showed little interest in or support for the community

were intensely disliked, and caused community-agency

ties to sever.

Despite its shortcomings, the NEAI helped to enhance community-forest relations, and bring the community together (Tobe et al. 2002: 15-16). It increased

collaboration between the Native and non-Native members of the community. It also helped improve relations

between the Forest Service and community residents,

which plummeted when timber stopped flowing from the

KNF. The Forest Service Rural Community Assistance

program allowed the agency to work directly with community members to develop action plans and programs

to increase community capacity, which built trust (Tobe

et al. 2002: 16). Unfortunately, some of these gains were

undermined by the inability of the KNF to provide a

predictable supply of wood products to support new

businesses started with NEAI funds.
79

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Summary of Northwest Forest Plan Effects

Monitoring question–Are local communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes that

may be associated with federal forest management?

Social and economic change in communities are inevitable. Table 22 shows how the Scott Valley, Butte

Valley, and Mid-Klamath communities changed in

character before and after the Northwest Forest Plan was

adopted. Federal forest management policy is just one of

many variables that can shape the nature of that change,

however. The Endangered Species Act listing of the

northern spotted owl in 1990 and court injunctions

halting the flow of federal timber were the turning points

that reduced federal timber production, not the Plan. The

Plan, which was intended to restore the production of

timber from federal forest land, came later, formally

codifying a shift in forest management that had already

happened.

The role of these events in contributing to change

in the three case communities differed. Not all communities were affected the same way, or to the same

extent, and Plan effects were more noticeable in some

communities than in others. The effects depended on the

relative strength of the timber sector in each community

around 1990, the extent to which wood products harvested on federal forest lands supported that sector, and

the degree to which local residents depended on KNF

jobs. The Mid-Klamath community participated heavily

in the wood products industry until the late 1980s.

Loggers worked mainly on national forest lands, and

local mills obtained most of their wood from federal

forests. The community was hit hard by the reduction in

federal timber supplies. But the Plan was not the only

variable causing the timber economy to change. The

timber sector in Scott Valley and Butte Valley had been

declining since the early 1980s from economic recession,

domestic and international competition, changes in

market demand for wood products, industry restructuring,

mechanization and technological advances, and environmental regulations. The Plan added to these pressures.

The Mid-Klamath seemed to be relatively buffered from

the changes affecting the industry during the 1980s.

Interviewees there perceived the halt of federal timber

production around 1990 as being the beginning of the

end.

Timber workers and Klamath National Forest employees were among the community members most affected

by declines in federal timber harvesting. Many of these

people moved out of their communities in the 1990s,

causing a loss of working-class families, young people,

human capital, and community capacity. We were unable to monitor what became of them. The communities

persist, but changes in forest management policy had

dramatic and disruptive effects on the lives of many people. The Mid-Klamath community lost 21.6 percent of

its population between 1990 and 2000, whereas the

population of Scott Valley and Butte Valley showed little

Table 22—Changes in community social and economic orientation, pre- and post-Plan

Community 1970s–1980s 2003

Scott Valley Agriculture (beef cattle, hay), timber Agriculture (beef cattle, hay), retirement,

bedroom community, mobile workers,

services

Butte Valley Agriculture (beef cattle, potatoes, hay), Agriculture (beef cattle, strawberries, hay),

timber, transportation corridor transportation corridor

Mid-Klamath Timber, tribal (no land base) Tribal (no land base), public administration,

goods and services

Secondary: recreation/tourism, retirement
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

change, consistent with trends for Siskiyou County as

a whole. In contrast, the population grew by 20.6 percent in the nonmetropolitan communities of the Plan

area as a whole during this period. All three communities

experienced change in population composition.

The special forest products industry, which has grown

in the Pacific Northwest since 1990, did not provide an

alternative source of family-wage jobs for displaced timber workers or agency employees. Agriculture–which

persists in Scott Valley and Butte Valley–has been changing; ranching in particular was under stress as a viable

livelihood strategy. Like special forest products, agriculture did not appear to offer a new source of jobs for displaced workers. It contributed to community economic

diversity, however, and may help explain why these two

communities were not hit as hard as the Mid-Klamath by

reductions in federal timber harvesting.

Scott Valley and Butte Valley sustained themselves

by having a substantial agricultural sector and being

relatively close to regional centers that provided commuting options (Yreka and Klamath Falls). Scott Valley also

experienced an influx of retirees, mobile or self-employed

workers, and second-home owners. Butte Valley took advantage of its location on a major transportation corridor

by capturing associated business opportunities. The

Karuk Tribe played an important role in contributing to

community development in the Mid-Klamath through the

growth of tribal businesses, administration, and social and

environmental services.

Of the 12 U.S. census social and economic indicators

we tracked, only 2 showed consistent trends across all

three communities—median age and percentage of the

population that completed high school—both of which

increased. Median age rose by 11.7 (Butte Valley), 33.6

(Scott Valley), and 36.6 (Mid-Klamath) percent. Median

age for all nonmetropolitan communities in the Plan region rose 10 percent, from 36.4 to 40 between 1990 and

2000 (compared to 15 percent for Siskiyou County and 7

percent for the Nation as a whole). Although this trend in

part reflects the aging of the baby boomers, interviewees

consistently reported that over time, families and young

people had left their communities because of the shortage

of jobs. Meanwhile, retirees had moved in, partly because

of the low cost of living. The influx of retirees may be

partly responsible for the increase in the percentage of

the population over 25 that completed high school in

each community. In the Mid-Klamath, the percentage of

people with a B.A. degree or higher dropped, but elsewhere it rose. Some interviewees also attributed rising

educational attainment to the fact that young people

could no longer leave high school before finishing and

earn good wages in the timber industry. It had become

more important to complete high school and obtain a

higher degree in order to find family-wage jobs. Economic indicators showed mixed trends. In Scott Valley

and Butte Valley, median household incomes rose and

the percentage of households living below the poverty

line decreased between 1990 and 2000. Percentage of

unemployment also decreased in Butte Valley. Percentage of unemployment rose, however, in Scott Valley.

The Mid-Klamath community experienced a sharp decrease in median household income and large growth in

unemployment and poverty. Not surprisingly, its socioeconomic well-being score dropped from low to very

low. The socioeconomic well-being score for Butte Valley

showed little change between the two periods, remaining

low, while the Scott Valley score sank from medium to

low.

We did not evaluate to what extent recreation was

sustaining the case-study communities. Interview results

showed that recreation, tourism, and natural amenity

values played a role in drawing visitors and new residents

there. Several interviewees from the case communities

viewed recreation and nature-based tourism as the

natural-resource-based sectors holding the greatest

potential for local economic development. Yet many

interviewees stated that tourism and recreation do not

provide many family-wage jobs. And their potential for

development is constrained by the seasonal availability

of recreation opportunities, the supply of forest-based
81

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

recreation opportunities, the limited availability of

recreation and tourism infrastructure, and the remoteness

of Siskiyou County. Nevertheless, the KNF was actively

working with local communities to assist with developing

recreation and tourism.

Interviewees from Butte Valley viewed the KNF as not

having played much of a role in helping the community

adapt to change. Although a few small contracting opportunities, some recreation developments, and some

economic assistance occurred, no new forms of resourcerelated work on the forest emerged to contribute meaningfully to the local economy of Butte Valley. The same

was true in Scott Valley, although interviewees there

viewed the KNF as having made some small contributions through contracting opportunities and NEAI funds.

The consensus among Mid-Klamath interviewees was

that the KNF had done little to help the community recover from the loss of timber-related benefits. Many

interviewees recognized the importance of payments to

county governments, however, stating that their communities depended on those funds for supporting schools

and other services.
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764
83

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Chapter 4: Communities and Forest Management
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Chapter 4 addresses two of the socioeconomic goals of

the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan): (1) to promote

collaboration between agencies and communities in

forest management, and (2) to protect the forest values

and environmental qualities associated with late-successional, old-growth, and aquatic ecosystems. This chapter

is based on interviews with both forest employees and

community members.

Collaboration and Joint Forest Stewardship

One goal of the Plan was to improve collaboration

between federal land management agencies and citizens

in forest management (Danks and Haynes 2001: 54).

Enhanced collaboration in forest management was expected to improve relations between agencies and the

public and to reduce conflict over forest management.

This section examines how collaborative relations

between the Klamath National Forest (KNF) and the three

case-study communities have evolved since the Plan was

implemented.

Monitoring question–Did agency and citizen collaboration in forest stewardship improve under the

Plan, and did relations between local communities

and the Klamath National Forest improve?

The Plan created two formal institutions to promote

agency-citizen collaboration in forest management:

provincial advisory committees (PACs) and adaptive

management areas (AMAs). Provincial advisory committees are chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and consist of up to 29 participants, including

representatives of federal, state, county, and tribal governments; the timber industry; environmental groups; recreation and tourism groups; and up to 5 members at large.

Some KNF line officers participate in the Klamath PAC,

which includes representatives of these different interest

groups and provides an interface with the public. We did

not systematically evaluate how effective the Klamath

PAC has been. However, interviewees who commented

on the Klamath PAC stated that initially, the PAC was

important in providing a way for KNF line officers to

interact and communicate with members of the public

having diverse interests about forest management issues.

The PAC was also an effective multiparty monitoring

group that assessed how well projects on the KNF met

Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines. More

recently, nonagency PAC members had been losing

interest because they didn’t feel that they were accomplishing anything, didn’t have decisionmaking authority,

and have had little influence on forest management

practices. In addition, the KNF was generally in compliance with Plan standards and guidelines, making the

monitoring role less compelling.

Adaptive management areas were designated as

places where agencies and other organizations, committees, and citizens would collaborate to innovate and

experiment with forest management approaches that

would achieve the conservation objectives of the Plan

while integrating social and economic objectives. The

Goosenest AMA is located on the east side of the KNF.

The management emphasis of the Goosenest AMA was

development of ecosystem management approaches for

pine forests, including objectives related to forest health,

production, and maintenance of late-successional forest

and riparian habitat, and commercial timber production

(USDA and USDI 1994: D-14). According to some interviewees, many proposed projects did not work out, or

represented little change from the previous way of doing

business.

These comments suggest that the PAC and AMA did

not live up to expectations as collaborative institutions,

although we did not comprehensively or systematically

investigate this topic. In contrast, interviewees said that

the Rural Community Assistance Program administered

by the KNF with Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) funding did lead to positive collaborative

relationships in the area of economic assistance. Nevertheless, other efforts at forest-community collaboration

in joint forest stewardship were informed by experiences
85

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

gained through participation in the PAC and the AMA.

For example, the Siskiyou County Resource Advisory

Committee (RAC) established under the Secure Rural

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, and

local fire safe councils (FSC) established under the

National Fire Plan (present in the Mid-Klamath and Scott

Valley communities) were having some successes. Unlike

the PACs, these groups obtain money and make decisions

about how to spend it on forest stewardship projects that

occur on public (RAC) and private (RAC, FSC) forest

lands, with benefits to the KNF. Examples of projects

supported by these groups include fuels reduction activities and removal of invasive plant species. Several interviewees felt that the RAC was an evolved form of the

PAC. There were many positive comments about both

RACs and FSCs. The only criticism was that fire safe

councils were funded to reduce fuels on private lands

only, which didn’t do much good if the Forest Service

failed to reduce fuels on adjacent lands.

Shortly after the Plan was adopted, a forest roundtable group formed in Siskiyou County that had several

participants from Scott Valley. The purpose of the roundtable was to provide a forum for collaboration between

community members representing diverse stakeholder

groups and the KNF in implementing the Plan successfully. A primary activity was to give the forest feedback

on the social acceptability of its timber sale proposals,

so that timber sales could move forward with public support. Some Scott Valley interviewees said that the forest

roundtable was highly effective during the first few years

of its existence. Members invested a great deal of skill,

hard work, and commitment in the effort. This initial

success did not last, however, because a few roundtable

members who disagreed with some timber sales disengaged from the collaborative, consensus-building process

and instead, issued appeals and litigation against those

they disagreed with. Contributing to the problem was a

climate of distrust created by the Congressional Salvage

Rider of 1995. For 18 months, the Salvage Rider exempted salvage timber sales on national forests from the

administrative appeals process, limited the time available

for judicial review, and eased environmental planning

requirements associated with salvage sales in an attempt

to quickly harvest timber following fires. The Salvage

Rider also ordered the release of several green timber

sales, many of which were in old-growth forests, that had

been halted by environmental concerns. The Salvage

Rider came shortly after the Plan went into effect, and

over-rode agreements that were embodied by the Plan,

causing many people in the environmental community

to feel betrayed. The forest roundtable disbanded when

members felt that there was no longer any point in collaborating to reach local consensus on forest management

issues, because their efforts were repeatedly undermined

by dissenting individuals who brought appeals and litigation. The failure of this attempt to collaborate in Plan

implementation discouraged subsequent groups from

forming to collaborate in addressing ongoing issues

relating to KNF management. Nevertheless, the experience gained from the forest roundtable helped local collaborative groups come together around other issues of

concern, such as water and fisheries management in the

Klamath basin.

There have been other disincentives to collaboration

as well. Several community residents expressed the view

that decisionmaking on the KNF had shifted from the

local forest to the regional and national levels under

the Plan, making local collaboration on forest management issues pointless. They also said the Plan and other

regulatory constraints left local managers with little

ability to conduct management activities, again making

collaboration to affect forest management policy pointless. Some Mid-Klamath residents said it was hard to

collaborate when there is high turnover in forest staff,

making it difficult to build long-term relationships. Karuk

tribal members interviewed attributed this turnover to the

frustration experienced by Forest Service employees who

were unable to accomplish anything because of Plan constraints. Some Scott Valley residents expressed the view

that collaborating with the Forest Service would not help

them meet their changing needs, nor would it contribute
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

to community well-being. Thus, they lacked incentive to

get involved. Moreover, they were doubtful they would

have any influence over forest management policy.

The Plan also called for more collaboration between

the KNF and other federal and state regulatory agencies.

Consequently, KNF employees in upper levels of management spent a great deal of time, effort, and money

working with other agencies on issues relating to resource

protection, which decreased their ability to interact collaboratively with local communities. The reduction in the

number of KNF employees also meant that fewer people

were available to interact with community members.

From the agency perspective, an important motivation for engaging in collaborative projects is to leverage

resources from external groups, such as money and labor.

The drop in KNF budgets and staffing created a need to

develop partnerships with other groups in order to get

work done on the ground. For example, collaborative

projects with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,

Ducks Unlimited, and the California Department of Fish

and Game improved wildlife habitat on the KNF. Many

partnerships have focused on watershed restoration. Collaborative projects are often accomplished through Forest

Service partnership agreements. These investments help

the KNF leverage resources, make community members

more aware of forest management issues, and involve

local residents in forest stewardship. They also provide

local jobs, and help local groups build their capacity.

Table 23 shows the amount of money the KNF and

its partners spent on grants and agreements in 2002 and

2003. Unfortunately, comparable data from earlier years

do not exist in corporate databases, so it was not possible

to identify trends in grants and agreements funding. In

2002, the KNF spent roughly the same amount on grants

and agreements as it did on procurement contracting for

ecosystem management work. However, the KNF contribution to the total cost of the projects supported by

grants and agreements was less than 50 percent; partners

provided the balance of funds by contributing to projects

that had ecosystem management benefits to the forest. In

2003, funding for grants and agreements was nearly three

times what it was in 2002, with the KNF contributing

58 percent of the total project costs. These data indicate

that the forest was able to leverage substantial resources

through partnership agreements, and illustrate the rationale for investing in them as an alternative to procurement

contracting. Another advantage of grants and partnership

agreements is that once money is transferred to a partner,

that partner can hire people to do the work without facing the hiring restrictions associated with procurement

contracts. This makes it easier to create jobs for local

residents.

Table 23—Grants and agreements funding, 2002 and 2003

Klamath Non- Other Total

National federal federal State project

Funding year Forest partners partners partners funds

Dollars (%) – – – – – – – – Number (%) – – – – – – – – Dollars

2002 1,095,461 451,402 37,013 983,531 2,567,406

(43) (18) (1) (38)

2003 3,671,471 493,955 239,824 1,884,945 6,290,195

(58) (8) (4) (30)

Notes: Includes cash, noncash, nonfund, in-kind, plus program income subtotals. Nonfederal partners include nonprofit organizations.

Source: Forest Service INFRA database.
87

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

The success of partnerships depends on the presence

of partners that have the resources and the capacity to

work effectively with the Forest Service, such as local

community groups, nonprofit organizations, and tribes.

The Mid-Klamath community had two main partners

working with the KNF in 2003: the Karuk Tribe and the

Mid-Klamath Watershed Council. In 2003, Karuk tribal

officials reported that the tribe had established a working relationship with the KNF under the Plan, and had

attempted to implement a number of collaborative projects with the forest. The limitations imposed by the

Plan’s survey-and-manage procedures had derailed some

of these. In addition, the Karuk perceived other roadblocks, including a lack of coordination between the

Plan and the NEAI, a lack of collaborative support among

some individuals employed by the KNF, and a lack of

agency support for the Plan itself. Despite the notable

contributions of some KNF employees, the situation led

to disillusionment among tribal members regarding the

willingness of the KNF to collaborate with them. In

2003, the Karuk leadership remained interested in

actively engaging the KNF in collaborative management,

but they felt they had been excluded both from providing

input and from exercising their traditional ecological

knowledge.

One exception was cultural burns. The production of

basketry materials, particularly beargrass (Xerophyllum

tenax (Pursh) Nutt.) and hazel (Corylus cornuta Marsh.),

depends on regular burning (at roughly 3- to 5-year intervals). Burning makes hazel more pliable, and stimulates

the growth of beargrass. In the early 1990s, the Karuk

began collaborating with the KNF to undertake controlled burns of the forest understory in areas that are productive for basketry materials. Tribal members worked with

KNF employees to identify areas they wanted burned, and

when weather conditions were right, KNF and tribal fire

crews conducted the burns together. These burns were

generally a few acres in size. Tribal members interviewed

recognized that the KNF had tried hard to work with the

tribe in conducting cultural burns.

In 2001, the Mid-Klamath Watershed Council formed

in the town of Orleans, downriver from the Mid-Klamath

community. The council works along the middle Klamath

River between Orleans and Seiad Valley to support ecological restoration and improve water quality. It had collaborated with the Karuk and with the KNF in restoration

activities, such as inventorying and manually pulling

noxious weeds on river bars, riparian planting, and clearing fish passageways of rocks. Much of this work was

carried out by volunteers.

We encountered no groups in Butte Valley that were

collaborating with the KNF in joint forest stewardship

activities. Scott Valley residents were more active. There,

the Salmon River Restoration Council (SRRC) and the

Northern California Resource Center were working with

the KNF through grants and partnership agreements. The

SRRC aims to restore ecosystem health in the Salmon

River watershed (a tributary of the Klamath River), and to

promote economic sustainability in the community. It

sponsors environmental education, restoration programs,

and fish and water quality monitoring. The council obtained grant money from the KNF to conduct projects,

including noxious weed removal (especially spotted

knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L.), road assessments,

water temperature monitoring, and collecting native

seeds. It also worked with the KNF to develop a restoration strategy for the Salmon River. The SRRC volunteers

had also worked with the Happy Camp Ranger District

fish biologist to conduct fish surveys, because the district

did not have enough employees to do the surveys. The

Northern California Resource Center obtained grants to

do worker training related to survey-and-manage analysis.

The KNF also accomplishes work through its volunteer program. Volunteers help with activities like trail

maintenance and fence building. The KNF recruits

volunteers through national programs such as Americorps

and the Student Conservation Association, and state

programs such as the California Conservation Corps and

the Department of Corrections. The data on volunteerism

available from corporate databases began with the year
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

2000. Table 24 shows that the amount of time volunteers

spent working on the KNF, and the value of their work,

declined between 2000 and 2003. Nevertheless, the

number of volunteers participating in the program rose

overall. Apparently, more people have been volunteering

for shorter periods of time. Forest interviewees said the

volunteer program had remained stable since the Plan

was adopted. Running volunteer programs took a major

commitment of employee time, however, which had

become more scarce as the number of KNF employees

declined.

Interviewees reported that few case-study community

residents volunteered on the KNF. Some Mid-Klamath

interviewees said that many people in their community

were struggling economically, and were not in a position

to work on the KNF for free. They believed that most of

the volunteers on the KNF were from outside the region,

because people who are well-off economically can afford

to volunteer; poor people cannot. One person said that

local residents believe the KNF and the federal government should be a source of economic support for them,

not vice versa. Others said few local organized groups

Table 24—Senior, youth, and volunteer programs, calendar years 2000–2003

Senior

community

service Youth

employment International Conservation

program Hosteda volunteers Volunteers Corps Total

Klamath NF

person yearsb

2000 11.66 16.92 6.21 1.56 36.35

2001 6.95 15.23 0.52 7.72 3.14 33.56

2002 4.68 8.62 6.09 No data 19.39

2003 11.92 4.38 1.61 17.91

Value of work

performed by

enrollees (dollars)

2000 251,744 287,396 120,258 38,081 697,479

2001 188,168 295,567 9,554 179,107 74,618 747,014

2002 153,524 156,796 149,942 30,867 491,129

2003 151,875 106,249 45,622 303,746

Number of

enrollees

2000 26 125 128 5 284

2001 20 97 2 55 19 193

2002 18 84 141 5 248

2003 94 237 12 343

a

 Hosted programs include Student Conservation Association, Northwest Youth Corps, California Department of Corrections, California Conservation Corps,

and Greater Avenues for Independence.

b

 260 days = 1 year full-time equivalent.

Source: Senior, Youth, Volunteer database.
89

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

existed (e.g., Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) to serve as a

source of volunteers. In Butte Valley, there are Boy

Scouts and a Lions Club, but they did not volunteer on

the KNF in 2003. The lack of volunteerism by Butte

Valley residents may be related to their feeling of disconnection from the KNF. The SRRC and the Mid-Klamath

Watershed Council have been successful in mobilizing

volunteers from Orleans, Somes Bar, and Scott Valley to

remove invasive plants and monitor fish species in local

watersheds within the KNF. Perhaps organized groups

having a commitment to environmental goals are needed

to mobilize volunteers to participate actively in joint

forest stewardship. All three case-study communities had

a limited number of people who actively participated in

civic activities. These people often felt stretched already

by their work to improve community well-being, and

were not likely to add to their existing commitments.

Interviews found that district rangers played a key

role in the collaborative process. Many interviewees

stated that rangers who were enthusiastic about working with communities were a driving force behind collaboration for joint forest stewardship and community

development. In contrast, rangers who had little interest

in working with local communities alienated residents

and made them lose interest in collaborating with the

KNF. The personal disposition of individual district

rangers appears to be a key factor behind successful

collaboration.

Protecting Forest Values and Environmental

Qualities

The Northwest Forest Plan codified a shift in forest management away from the intensive timber management

practices of the 1970s and 1980s toward ecosystem management. In doing so, it aimed to balance the need for

forest protection with the need to provide for the sustainable use of timber and nontimber forest resources. Hence,

one of the Plan’s socioeconomic goals was to protect the

forest values and environmental qualities associated with

late-successional, old-growth, and aquatic ecosystems.

These forest values include amenity values (such as

scenic quality, lifestyle), environmental quality values

(such as clean air and water), ecological values (such as

sustainability, biodiversity), public use values (recreation), and spiritual and religious values (Donoghue

2003: 334, Stankey and Clark 1992).

Other Plan monitoring is designed to collect and

analyze biophysical data that will be used to assess

how well the Plan has achieved the goals and expectations associated with protecting older forest habitat,

associated species (northern spotted owls [Strix occidentalis caurina] and marbled murrelets [Brachyramphus

marmoratus]), and aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Here

we address the topic of forest protection from the social

perspective.

Monitoring question—How well has federal forest management under the Northwest Forest Plan

provided for forest values and environmental qualities

associated with late-successional, old-growth, and

aquatic ecosystems?

Community interviewees expressed widespread

agreement that pre-Plan timber harvest practices on the

KNF were unsustainable and environmentally destructive. No interviewees advocated a return to past harvest

practices. Virtually all interviewees cared deeply about

the KNF and cited it as one of the main reasons they live

where they do. They valued the recreation opportunities,

forest products, and scenic beauty it provides. These

sentiments were particularly strong in the Mid-Klamath

community, which is surrounded by the KNF. All interviewees supported forest protection to preserve ecological integrity, and expected the Forest Service to maintain

good forest stewardship practices.

Forest and community interviewees had both good

and bad things to say about the effects of the Plan on

environmental quality. On the positive side, many interviewees viewed the Aquatic Conservation Strategy as

being effective. They thought water quality had not

deteriorated and may have improved, as had aquatic ecosystem health and fish populations. People recognized
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

however that fish populations are affected by many variables. Many interviewees also said that the reduction in

clearcutting and timber harvesting on the KNF’s steep

slopes had been good for watershed health. Environmental group representatives interviewed expressed concern,

however, about the amended wording to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy that the agencies adopted in 2004.

Prior to the Plan, watershed and fisheries projects on

the KNF focused on instream mitigation for water quality

problems. The Plan focused attention on the causes of

water quality deterioration (e.g., sediment loading), and

targeted key watersheds for restoration work. The Plan

requirement that a watershed analysis be conducted prior

to any project activity helped the KNF with large-scale

planning and identification of project priorities, which

facilitated the restoration process. Major floods occurred

on the KNF in the 1990s, resulting in large sums of

emergency money that made it possible for the forest to

fund watershed restoration work. The Riparian Reserve

system established by the Plan also helped protect water

quality by stipulating that any harvest of streamside trees

must benefit the ecosystem, including fisheries. The

Plan’s emphasis on watershed management and restoration was supported by a larger change taking place within

the Forest Service nationwide. Watershed restoration had

become an agency priority, as had transportation management and the need to address problems associated with

the Forest Service road system.

On the negative side, one interviewee reported that

road improvement projects in riparian areas could not

take place if they had short-term negative effects on water

quality, even if they produced long-term benefits. He

cited clearing areas above road culverts to prevent them

from plugging as one example. Another interviewee attributed deteriorating road conditions on the KNF and

associated negative impacts on watershed health to a lack

of timber sales. Prior to the Plan, road maintenance was

funded by timber-sale contracts. Because few timber sales

had taken place since the Plan was implemented, there

was little money to maintain roads.

Regarding wildlife, some KNF interviewees believed

survey-and-manage procedures had led to a much better

understanding of species habitats and distribution on the

KNF, and of how to manage for survey-and-manage-listed

species. However, budget reductions made it difficult to

implement habitat improvement projects on the KNF.

Some community members interviewed believed that a

buildup of brush on the KNF, and lack of silvicultural

activity, had created habitat mosaics and early seral-stage

forest, conditions that were bad for wildlife species,

especially big game.

The Plan’s survey-and-manage requirements received

the most criticism. Some KNF interviewees said that

survey-and-manage requirements made it difficult for

employees to respond quickly to management needs

brought on unexpectedly. For example, when the 1997

flood occurred, it was difficult for the KNF to quickly

implement ground-disturbing management activities,

resulting in high levels of ecological damage and costly

restoration projects. In addition, the survey-and-manage

requirement was viewed by many as an impediment to

fuels reduction on the KNF.

Many interviewees were concerned that the KNF

was neglecting its forest management and stewardship

responsibilities. Most believed that active forest management was needed to promote forest health and ecosystem

integrity. Both KNF and community interviewees commented that forest health had deteriorated under the Plan.

They believed the small amount of silvicultural activity

that had occurred under the Plan, combined with historical fire suppression practices, had removed disturbance

processes from the ecosystem, resulting in increased tree

mortality. The KNF was reported to be full of dead trees,

snags, and blowdowns, which many people felt should be

“cleaned up.” Old plantations needed thinning, and slash

from old timber sales needed to be removed. The fuels

buildup and lack of management activity in late-successional reserves were viewed as putting spotted owl habitat

at risk from fire, counter to the intent of the Plan.
91

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Karuk tribal members interviewed concurred that

the KNF was not being well-managed. Burning was

an integral part of their traditional forest management

strategy. They believed that frequent burns were needed

to maintain forest health and desirable forest characteristics, and that 100 years of fire suppression had been very

detrimental. They expected the Plan to change this, but it

had not.

Community members interviewed frequently said

they thought that wood was being wasted. Instead of

being logged, trees were left to burn, with no salvage

harvest to follow. There was deep frustration among community members that local jobs in the woods could be

created to restore and maintain forest health, but this was

not happening.

Issues and Concerns Relating to Forest

Management

Monitoring question–What issues and concerns related

to federal forest management under the Northwest

Forest Plan are prevalent in local communities?

Many of the community members interviewed were

unfamiliar with the specific components, management

guidelines, and requirements of the Northwest Forest

Plan, although some were informed about the Plan and

its components. Most, however, expressed issues and concerns about the management of the Klamath National Forest, which were, at least in part, linked to Plan implementation. Forest and community interviewees generally

agreed on two main issues of concern. The first was the

threat of catastrophic wildfire on the KNF, putting communities and private timberlands at risk. The second was

the drop in timber production from the KNF, and the

associated loss of family-wage, forest-based jobs in local

communities. Timber production and associated job loss

have been a concern since 1990; fire came to the forefront

in the late 1990s.

Fire

On the KNF, low-intensity fires naturally recur every 8 to

12 years, and stand-replacing fires recur every 80 to 180

years (USDA FS 1994a: 3-115). Since the early 1900s, a

fire suppression policy has been in place. Many interviewees from Scott Valley viewed the KNF as a bad

neighbor and as a liability rather than an asset to the

community because of its high and worsening fuel loads.

Butte Valley is bigger than Scott Valley, and the KNF is

far away from the population center of Dorris. Although

fire was a concern among Butte Valley interviewees, it

was not as big a concern as it was in Scott Valley. In the

Mid-Klamath, interviewees were worried about fuel

buildups on the KNF and the lack of local infrastructure

with which to fight fires. They also viewed fire as creating

local employment opportunities, however. One private

industrial forest manager interviewed, whose company

owns some 200,000 acres of land interspersed with the

KNF, said that fire on Forest Service lands would not be a

major concern if salvage logging following a fire were

permissible.

Despite the fact that the KNF’s budget for hazardous

fuel reduction grew during the 1990s, fuels reduction

projects were hindered by the Plan survey-and-manage

requirements. Mechanical treatments to reduce fuel loads

are more expensive than prescribed fire. But prescribed

burns cover large areas, and it is expensive to survey

those areas to comply with survey-and-manage requirements. The timing of the surveys also causes projects to

occasionally stall. If a survey-and-manage species is

found in an area to be treated, it becomes difficult to implement the burn because burns are designed to cover an

entire area, not to avoid small pockets of species habitat.

And, when buffer areas created to protect survey-andmanage species are large, it may be impractical to conduct a burn. As a result, fire project costs had increased to

as much as three times what they would be without survey

and manage, and may not take place at all.
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Karuk tribal members interviewed were concerned

that the Forest Service policy of fire suppression over the

past century, combined with the KNF’s inability to

conduct controlled burns because of survey-and-manage

requirements, would harm rather than protect survey-andmanage species. They pointed out that species living on

the KNF are fire dependent, because they live in a fireadapted ecosystem. They believe fire is good, not bad, for

these species.

Controlled burns in late-successional reserves have

been particularly difficult to carry out, because the planning process is extensive, and the decision to move

forward must be made by the Northwest Forest Plan Regional Ecosystem Office (rather than the KNF). Northwest

Forest Plan standards and guidelines that were developed

for fuel treatments in late-successional reserves were

viewed by several interviewees as being ecologically

inappropriate for fire-adapted ecosystems like the

Klamath.

Appeals and litigation by environmental groups had

also contributed to the KNF’s inability to implement fuels

reduction projects. The environmental group representatives interviewed said that so-called fuels reduction and

forest health projects proposed by the KNF often included harvesting old-growth trees on steep, erodible

slopes instead of small-diameter trees, trees with ladder

fuels, plantations needing thinning, and slash removal

alone. They believed that timber sales presented under

the guise of fuels reduction projects, making them

socially acceptable to the public, often targeted oldgrowth trees growing in critical owl habitat, which they

opposed cutting. These interviewees supported the removal of small-diameter trees that were hazardous fuels,

but not the harvest of old-growth trees (80 years and

older), especially those occurring on steep slopes.

All of these constraints meant that in 2003, the KNF

was treating hazardous fuels on one-quarter of the acreage

it did when its fuels reduction program was at its peak in

the 1990s before survey-and-manage requirements went

into effect. Overall, little progress had been made on reducing the risk of stand-replacement fires on the forest;

areas that have been treated are minor compared to the

number of acres that have burned, many in stand-replacing fires, since the late 1980s (Thomas 2003). In the long

term, late-successional forest ecosystems—which the Plan

was designed to protect—will likely suffer because of this

problem (Spies et al. 2006). The KNF’s inability to effectively reduce fuel loads, combined with a prolonged

drought, people living in the wildland-urban interface,

and low population numbers in Siskiyou County (making

it a low priority for fuels reduction money), create a

climate of fire risk for local residents.

The timber harvest and fire issues were closely linked

in the minds of interviewees. They blamed the lack of

vegetation management and timber production under the

Northwest Fire Plan for creating excessive fuel loads and

associated fire risk. One KNF interviewee noted that a

proportion of money generated by timber sales used to go

into Knudsen-Vandenberg accounts that were then used

to pay for brush disposal work (cleaning up after timber

sales), which reduced fuel loads. Several people who

fought fires during the fire season did brush disposal and

fuels treatment work in the off-season. With the decline of

the timber program, this work must be paid for primarily

with appropriated money instead of money generated by

timber sales and deposited in Knudsen-Vandenberg

accounts, meaning it seldom happens. Interviewees also

blamed the Plan for limiting the KNF’s ability to address

fire risk created by historical fire suppression practices.

Forest-Based Jobs

Interviewees from all three communities were concerned

about the absence of local, family-wage jobs tied to

natural resources. Timber-industry jobs used to provide

these, but do not any longer, and are not expected to return in the future. They would like to find new ways in

which the KNF could provide local, family-wage jobs

that allow them to stay in their communities and maintain

family ties. Many community members interviewed said

natural disasters–e.g., floods and fires–created local benefits because they brought money and jobs in restoration
93

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

and fire suppression, and people (e.g., fire crews) who

supported local businesses.

Many interviewees viewed fire management (including fire suppression and fuels reduction) as having the

potential to create new opportunities for local, familywage jobs to replace some of those lost by reductions

in federal timber harvesting. They also thought smalldiameter trees removed by thinning to reduce fuels could

supply wood needed by small local businesses to manufacture value-added products (e.g., furniture, cabinets,

coffins), and to initiate new projects such as co-generation plants. The lack of a predictable wood supply made

it difficult to invest in wood product businesses in which

forest communities may be able to compete.

The opportunity to achieve the Plan goal of linking

ecosystem management on the KNF with local, familywage jobs to contribute to sustainable forest-based communities had not yet been fulfilled in the context of the

fire program. Some local jobs had been created on summer fire crews. Many interviewees stated that fire hiring

practices were subject to bureaucratic procedures that

made it difficult to hire local people even though they

are familiar with the landscape and have the knowledge,

equipment, and skills to fight and manage fire. In addition, thinning contracts often went to contractors who

brought in crews from outside the area rather than hiring

locally. Many community members wanted the KNF to

provide opportunities to obtain training in the fire

sciences and jobs with the KNF fire organization because

fire was one area in which budgets were growing. Karuk

interviewees were disillusioned that the KNF had not

taken advantage of their traditional ecological knowledge relating to fire management. They also wanted the

forest to provide a predictable supply of wood that could

be used to develop value-added products.

Other Forest Management Issues

Another forest management issue of concern to several

interviewees related to road management and decommissioning. In general, community members interviewed did

not support or understand the rationale for road decommissioning, and viewed it as a large waste of money.

Instead, they believed that money spent on decommissioning would be better spent on road maintenance,

which they thought was cheaper and had the benefits

of long-term job creation. Road decommissioning also

reduces forest access, which was unpopular. Representatives of watershed groups interviewed had different views

of this issue. They believed forest roads were the main

sediment producers in the watershed, and that the KNF

was not adequately addressing the roads problem through

improvements, storm proofing, or decommissioning.

Noxious weeds were another local concern. Although

invasive species did not seem to be having a major economic impact on local communities, watershed group

and Karuk interviewees worried that the KNF would use

herbicides to control them. They were opposed to the use

of herbicides because they pose a threat to fish, drinking

water, and plants used for cultural purposes.

The limited ability of the KNF to engage in active

forest management under the Plan, and to provide forestbased jobs, had some broader implications that were

raised by interviewees. First, over 60 percent of the land

in Siskiyou County is federally owned. The county

government did not think federal forest lands were productive or provided jobs to county residents or were a

source of tax revenues. Consequently, it had adopted a

policy statement expressly opposing any net increase in

federally owned land and decrease in privately owned

land in Siskiyou County. Additional federal land acquisition was viewed as limiting economic benefits and

opportunities for local people. Second, some interviewees

believed that the inability of the KNF to undertake active

forest management raised the question of whether some of

that land should be transferred to local tribal ownership.

If tribes had authority to manage the forest, they might

not be subject to Plan constraints, and might do a better

job of forest management and creating socioeconomic

benefits for communities.
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764
95

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Chapter 5: Conclusions
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Meeting Northwest Forest Plan Goals and

Expectations

To conclude, we draw on the data presented in this report

to assess how well the socioeconomic goals and expectations of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) were met

during the first 10 years on the Klamath National Forest

(KNF). We also respond to the two socioeconomic monitoring questions posed in the Plan Record of Decision.

We then identify lessons learned from the monitoring

work that may be useful in the adaptive management

context. Our findings from the Klamath case study were

used, together with findings from three other case-study

areas in the Plan region (the Olympic and Mount Hood

National Forests and the Coos Bay Bureau of Land Management District) to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the Plan in meeting its socioeconomic goals at the

regional scale (see Charnley 2006).

Question 1—Are predictable levels of timber and

nontimber resources available and being produced?

Goal 1: Produce a predictable and sustainable level

of timber sales and nontimber resources that will not

degrade or destroy the environment.

Timber—

Timber outputs were not predictable. Under the Northwest Forest Plan and the Klamath Forest Plan, the KNF

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) was set at 51 million

board feet annually. This level represents about 25 percent of the average annual volume of timber harvested

during the 1980s. The KNF has met ASQ twice since

1995, in 1996 and 1997. Since then, the annual volume

of timber offered for sale has fluctuated, but has been

under the ASQ. The reasons for not meeting ASQ were

many, including limited land base for commercial timber harvest, the social acceptability of harvest methods,

regulatory requirements associated with the Plan

(especially survey-and-manage requirements), the high

costs of timber sale preparation, insufficient budgets,

appeals and litigation, and risk-averse behavior on the

part of decisionmakers.

Special forest products—

Trends in the volume of special forest products sold

differed by product. The volume of convertible special

forest products sold (fuelwood and Christmas trees)

declined between 1990 and 2002. Interviewees associated the decline in fuelwood with the decline in the

KNF timber program under the Plan. The volume of poles

and posts sold remained fairly stable during the period.

Trends for nonconvertible products varied. The quantity

of mushrooms sold increased, the quantity of limbs and

boughs sold decreased, and the quantity of cones sold

remained steady overall.

Grazing—

The grazing program on the KNF declined slightly since

1994. The major factor contributing to this decline was

prolonged drought. However, interviewees also cited

grazing restrictions associated with the Plan’s Aquatic

Conservation Strategy, and reduced forage availability

associated with the decline in timber harvest activity, as

contributing to this decline.

Minerals—

The volume of salable minerals removed fluctuated

considerably, and was substantially lower than the

volume removed during the 1980s. Locatable minerals

activity declined. Leasable minerals activity remained

constant.

Recreation—

The recreation program has remained fairly stable overall. Interviewees reported increases in river rafting, recreational mining, and backcountry use. Trail and

facilities maintenance was lagging. There was a slight

decrease in roads and associated recreation

opportunities.
97

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Question 2—Are local communities and economies

experiencing positive or negative changes that may be

associated with federal forest management?

Of the 37 census block group aggregates (or “communities”) that are within 5 miles of the KNF, 4 (11 percent)

increased in well-being, 19 (51 percent) decreased in

well-being, and 14 (38 percent) showed little change

between 1990 and 2000, according to the index developed for this monitoring program. Of the three case-study

communities (which collectively represent 6.5 block

group aggregates), two decreased in well-being (Scott

Valley and Mid-Klamath) and one stayed the same (Butte

Valley) between 1990 and 2000. To what extent were

these changes associated with federal forest management?

In the early 1970s, the wood products industry accounted for 31 percent of total employment in northern

California counties within the range of the northern

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (FEMAT 1993:

VII-53). By 1985-89, the industry accounted for 15

percent of total employment in the region, half of what it

had been a decade earlier. This decline in timber-industry

employment was accompanied by substantial restructuring in the forest products industry, away from older large

log mills to more capital-intensive small log mills. People

interviewed for this study estimated that by 1992, half of

all timber mills in the Klamath region had closed. They

enumerated 34 mill closures that occurred within 100

miles of the KNF between 1994 and 2003. Interviewees

reported that no sawmills, and only one veneer mill,

remained in Siskiyou County in 2003. These closures

were not necessarily due to federal forest management

policy alone; the timber industry had been undergoing

change for more than a decade prior to the Plan, with

negative effects on timber workers. Interviewees cited

trade treaties, international competition, export policies,

and California’s increasingly burdensome business and

resource management regulations as all contributing to

the decline of the local timber economy.

The Endangered Species Act listing of the northern

spotted owl, court injunctions that halted the flow of

federal timber, and the Plan contributed to the pressures

that were already being felt as a result of the timber

industry decline in northern California. Of the three

communities studied, the most severe effects occurred in

the Mid-Klamath community. This community is virtually surrounded by the KNF, had a timber economy that

was mainly dependent on federal timber, is more remote,

and was less economically diverse than the other two case

communities. The reduction in timber harvesting on the

KNF spurred the outmigration of many timber workers,

Forest Service employees, and their families from these

communities. This outmigration in turn triggered other

social and economic community impacts and caused a

loss of community capacity that has been slow to rebuild.

Nevertheless, communities are adapting in their

own ways. The Scott Valley and Butte Valley communities have been sustained to some degree by having strong

agricultural components. Butte Valley is located along a

major transportation corridor, and is not far from the

regional center of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which offers job

opportunities. Scott Valley is likewise within commuting

distance of the regional center of Yreka, California, and

the Interstate-5 corridor. Retirees have moved into all

three communities. And the Karuk Tribe has played a

fundamental role in contributing to community development in the Mid-Klamath. For the most part, community

members interviewed did not vie w the Forest Service as

helping them adapt to changes brought about by forest

management policy in any meaningful way.

Goals 2 and 3: Maintain the stability of local and

regional economies on a predictable, long-term basis.

Where timber sales cannot proceed, assist with longterm economic development and diversification to

minimize adverse impacts associated with job loss.

We assessed several socioeconomic benefits that the

KNF provides that potentially contribute to community

well-being and long-term economic development and

diversification in local communities. These included

timber and nontimber forest products and recreation

opportunities, agency jobs, procurement contracts for

land management, community economic assistance, and

payments to county governments.
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Interviewees from all three communities reported that

the KNF did not contribute to socioeconomic well-being

in their communities by providing timber, as it once did.

The small mills that remained in Butte Valley did not use

national forest timber. Scott Valley had few remaining

timber workers. Those Mid-Klamath residents who were

still trying to make part of their living in the wood products industry were frustrated by the lack of reliable supplies of federal timber, which made it difficult for them to

make a living. The KNF did play an important role in

providing local ranchers with grazing allotments that are

critical to their viability. However, the Plan standards and

guidelines reportedly increased ranchers’ operating costs

on national forest land. Mining was negligible, except for

recreational mining. Special forest products were important to tribes. The Plan had hampered the ability of the

KNF to manage for cultural products desired by tribes,

however. Matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare) mushrooms had commercial importance, but provided little in

the way of economic benefit to local residents; most harvesters and buyers came from outside the area. These

harvesters did support local businesses when they were in

town. Interviewees had mixed views about the KNF’s

contributions to recreation and tourism development.

The KNF went from having 636 employees in 1993,

to 441 in 2003, a loss of 31 percent. Although this decline was not as severe as that on many Pacific Northwest

Region Plan-area forests, it had a strong impact on local

employment opportunities, particularly in the MidKlamath, which saw several of its ranger district offices

close or consolidate in the 1990s.

Between 1990 and 2002, the KNF spent $44.5

million procuring land management services. Most of

this spending (64 percent) took place between 1990 and

1993. After 1993, contract spending on the KNF dropped

off sharply. Between 1990–92 and 2000–2002, contract

spending declined 78 percent. The KNF’s large reduction

in procurement spending was considerably greater than

that in the Plan area as a whole, but it was comparable to

the decline in contract spending that occurred on other

northern California forests. Interviewees from the case

communities viewed contracting on the Klamath as

having contributed some local opportunities for residents.

However, the season of work was often restricted to a few

months during the summer, and contracts were sporadic,

making it difficult to rely on them as a steady source of

employment.

The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative

(NEAI) brought nearly $2 million in grant money to the

KNF over 9 years. Most of the NEAI money became available during the first 4 years of the Plan. Rural community

assistance grants made up most of this funding. Rural

Community Assistance grants were often used by communities to leverage money from other sources through

matching grants and other means, so that the total benefit

they provided was far beyond their face value. Not only

did the NEAI provide economic assistance to communities, the way in which it was administered caused new

collaborative relationships to form between the KNF and

communities. In general, NEAI money from the KNF and

other agencies supported some worthwhile projects in

communities–particularly in the arena of community

planning and infrastructure development. It did not, however, assist displaced timber workers, or result in sustainable local job creation.

Northwest Forest Plan mitigation measures resulted

in substantially higher payments to counties than would

have been received through forest revenue sharing alone

given diminishing timber harvests. The Secure Rural

Schools Act provided the highest level of payments to

counties since 1990. In addition to being an important

source of revenue to support roads and schools countywide, payments to counties under the Secure Rural

Schools Act have contributed a significant amount of

money to support local resource-related projects on and

around the KNF. The Siskiyou County Resource Advisory
99

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Committee (RAC) was an important source of funding for

joint forest stewardship projects. It made over $1.7

million available for resource-related projects on both

private and national forest lands in the county between

2001 and 2003. The RAC money not only promoted

joint forest stewardship; it was a source of new grant

money to communities that saw NEAI funds largely disappear. Many interviewees expressed concern over the

fact that the Secure Rural Schools Act provisions expire

in 2006.

The overall picture of changing socioeconomic benefits from the KNF since the Plan was adopted is one of

decline. Mitigation measures associated with the Plan

have helped in some small ways, but not nearly at a scale

that compensates for this loss of benefits.

Goal 4: Promote agency-citizen collaboration in

forest management.

The formal institutions established under the Plan to

promote agency-citizen collaboration in KNF management (Provincial Advisory Committees [PACs] and Adaptive Management Areas [AMAs]) apparently did not live

up to expectations, although we did not systematically

investigate their effectiveness. The evidence we did

gather suggests that PACs have provided an important

forum for communication about forest management

issues, and for multiparty monitoring of forest management projects, but have not been a vehicle for collaborative decisionmaking.

At the community level, between 1994 and 2003,

relations between the KNF and most community stakeholder groups grew more distant. Community interviewees viewed the KNF and forest management issues

as becoming less relevant to their daily lives.

Initially, there were sincere attempts at collaboration to successfully implement the Plan and to achieve

its objectives. However, community groups grew frustrated as Plan-related collaborative efforts failed to

achieve their goals. There has been a growing view that

forest managers do not have control over local decisionmaking, and have their hands tied by regulatory requirements, appeals, and litigation. Thus, why invest energy

in collaboration? Moreover, local communities had a

limited capacity to engage in collaboration. Their ability

to collaborate depended on the presence of organized

groups, local leaders, and members that had the time,

money, and motivation to get involved. On the agency

side, the reduction in on-the-ground KNF personnel,

and the emphasis on interagency collaboration, made it

harder for the agency to interact with local communities.

The successes that have occurred have often been the

result of individual KNF personnel who took the initiative to make a local program or collaborative effort work.

Alhough not related to the Plan, RACs and fire safe

councils were viewed as holding some promise for collaborative forest stewardship. Grants and agreements that

support partnerships in forest stewardship projects were

also providing a growing avenue for collaboration.

Goal 5: Protect the forest values and environmental

qualities associated with late-successional, old-growth,

and aquatic ecosystems.

The vast majority of interviewees said that timber

harvest practices on the KNF prior to the Plan were

unacceptable, and undermined the health of the forest.

The Plan was seen as putting a stop to environmentallydestructive forest management practices. However, there

was widespread agreement that some silvicultural activity, particularly thinning, was necessary to promote

forest health. Most interviewees viewed the minimal

amount of active forest management that occurred under

the Plan as being detrimental to the forest, and as undermining many of the forest values and environmental

qualities that the Plan was designed to enhance. They

commonly cited the increased fire risk to spotted owl

habitat as an example of this problem. Some forest protection measures associated with the Plan–particularly

survey-and-manage requirements–were viewed by many

interviewees as being overly protective. Other people felt

the Plan had not gone far enough in protecting oldgrowth habitat. Interviewees reported the greatest successes in the arena of aquatic ecosystem conservation.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Management Implications

It was unrealistic to think that Plan mitigation measures

could have compensated for the dramatic downturn in the

northern California owl-county timber economies that

had been ongoing since the 1970s. By the time the Plan

was signed, the region’s timber sector had already lost

half to three-quarters of its job base and milling capacity.

Even if the Plan had successfully met its goals and expectations, communities would have experienced

dramatic changes associated with the timber industry

decline. The question now is, how can the KNF provide

communities with socioeconomic benefits that will help

them better adapt to change, and that will contribute to

community well-being?

The monitoring data gathered through this study

have a number of management implications. The intent

of this section is not to provide recommendations, but to

summarize the ideas expressed by interviewees and the

authors regarding how the KNF might interact better with

local communities, and provide more socioeconomic

benefits to them.

Timber production—

Many interviewees believed the KNF should try to meet

ASQ and provide a predictable supply of wood products

to support community economic development efforts,

and live up to the unfulfilled public expectations and

Plan commitments. They viewed survey-and-manage

requirements as a major impediment to meeting timber

targets. Interviewees also viewed appeals and litigation

as major factors in stalling or preventing timber sales.

There were two suggestions for addressing this problem.

One was to target sales in areas that are not located on

steep slopes or in key watersheds, and to avoid cutting

old-growth trees (defined as trees that are 80 years or

older). Another was to engage in close monitoring of

timber harvest activities to ensure that timber harvest

contractors were complying with the terms of their

contracts. Such monitoring would help build community

trust, and perhaps make it easier to implement timber

harvest and thinning programs. Interviewees also felt it

was important for the KNF to continue providing local

residents with special forest products that are important

to them, such as fuelwood, mushrooms, and basketry

materials.

Grazing—

Timber workers were not the only local residents who

were affected by the Plan. Ranchers were also experiencing stress, which they attributed in part to more stringent

grazing requirements under the Plan. Measures that

could assist ranchers include active range restoration to

increase grazing opportunities, working with ranchers to

promote hunting or bird-watching opportunities on their

ranches, and continuing communication and sensitivity

to their needs.

Recreation and tourism—

Some community residents believed that the KNF had

not delivered on Plan expectations related to investment

in recreation and tourism development. They wanted to

see better maintenance of existing facilities and development of new recreation infrastructure to attract visitors.

They would also appreciate some developments that

cater to the recreational interests of local residents.

Budgetary and staffing constraints on the KNF have

made it difficult to maintain, much less expand, recreation infrastructure there. However, the recreation

developments that have occurred, such as the east-side

snowmobiling program, were viewed as beneficial by

many community residents, and enjoyed local support.

There is an opportunity to engage community residents

who have an interest in recreation and tourism development in partnerships or volunteer efforts designed to

maintain and develop KNF recreation infrastructure. By

pooling resources, both the KNF and local communities

could benefit.

Contracting—

Several of the contractors interviewed expressed

concerns that contracting bids from some nonlocal contractors were sometimes falsified to meet agency specifications, specifically wage requirements. Contract
101

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

awardees were able to undercut local competitors because they paid their workers lower wages to make up

for low bids. Local contractors wanted to see the KNF

inspect bids more closely to identify false ones. They

also wanted to see the KNF bundle contracts wherever

possible to reduce the burden of paperwork, take past

success in carrying out contracts into account when

awarding new ones, and make more effort to target

contracts to local businesses.

Partnership agreements may be more flexible and

avoid some of the institutional barriers that keep contracting from providing more benefits to local residents.

These were encouraged, but their success depends on

local organizational capacity, and the ability of partners to contribute a share of the costs of a partnership

agreement.

Community economic assistance—

Interviewees’ observations about community economic

assistance money and training opportunities delivered

by the KNF were that these could be more successful if

they were longer lived, delivered in a more timely way in

response to local need, and focused on creating sustainable family-wage jobs locally. It was apparent that community residents were not very aware of the economic

assistance that the KNF does provide. By increasing

public awareness of the contributions the KNF has made,

its image and relations with the public would likely

improve.

Communication—

Agency employees were viewed as information conduits

and were also valued as technical advisors on resource

management and economic development issues. Community interviewees wanted to interact more with KNF

employees. Several interviewees said that interaction

works better in small groups than in big meetings.

They were disappointed that one-on-one interaction

with KNF personnel had become rare because of the

scarcity of KNF employees in the field. It was clear

from the interviews that many local residents observed

management actions that the KNF takes–such as road

decommissioning–but did not understand the rationale

for them, and did not support them as a result. It was

also clear that several residents did not understand the

rationale for not undertaking other management actions–

such as removing snags. Better communication about the

reasons behind forest management activities (or lack

thereof) would likely enhance community-forest

relations.

Collaboration—

Most interviewees believed that there was no point in

attempting to collaborate with the KNF on resource

management decisionmaking. Past attempts had been

frustrated, agreements had been undermined by single

dissenters, input was ignored, appeals and litigation

halted plans that had been collaboratively developed,

or decisionmakers were seen as powerless. For example,

many stated that higher level decisionmakers from the

Pacific Southwest Region office were the agency representatives that they wanted to interact with more

because they believed these people–not local KNF line

officers–were empowered to respond to their needs and

concerns.

More success was reported in the arena of collaborative forest stewardship. The Siskiyou County Resource

Advisory Committee was viewed positively and seen

as helping to build positive relations between the KNF

and local communities. The RAC projects provided local

people with a decisionmaking role in forest stewardship,

created local jobs, and built relations between communities and forests. Continuing to invest in RAC projects

should have positive outcomes. However, not all communities are engaged in the RAC process. Fire safe councils,

also new, were viewed positively in terms of their ability

to promote forest-community relations. The people involved expressed a desire to better coordinate their

activities on private lands with fuels reduction activities

carried out by the KNF.

The KNF could also take more advantage of opportunities to become involved in projects that are meaningful
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

to the community, where they share common values, as a

way of building relations and contributing to well-being.

For example, youth programs such as Youth Conservation

Corps promote resource education and job training. Local

historic event celebrations, interpretation, and recreation

and tourism development are examples.

Finally, community interviewees emphasized the importance of the district ranger as pivotal in building positive relations, collaboration, and working to provide

communities with forest benefits.

Fuels management—

Many community interviewees viewed fuels management as the most needed and appropriate management

activity that the KNF could undertake. Fuels management would reduce fire risk to nearby property owners,

communities, and wildlife habitat. By reducing fire risk,

the KNF would be viewed both as a better neighbor and

a better steward of the forest, which would help improve

community relations. Fuels management through thinning could also provide wood products that a number of

community residents were interested in: fuelwood, a

reliable supply of fuel for biomass cogeneration plants

that there was interest in developing, and material from

which to produce value-added wood products.

The KNF has tried to be more proactive in fuels reduction, but has been constrained by Plan requirements.

This suggests that the Plan is not sensitive to regional

variations and needs, and does not effectively provide

the flexibility needed by managers to manage forests

differently in different ecological zones. A more flexible

Plan would take into account local needs and variations,

as, for example, the Sierra Nevada Framework Project has

tried to do.

More effort to involve local residents in fuels management work would also help the KNF rebuild ties with

local communities that have been lost since logging declined. Community members formerly were on the KNF

regularly, logging and interacting with agency personnel.

Although some people now help fight fires when they

occur, or engage in forest restoration work, the scale at

which communities interact with the KNF and agency

employees has declined dramatically. Fire safe councils

have helped in this regard, although their work is restricted to private land. Using the money now available

through the National Fire Plan to hire local residents to

help with fuels management work is one way of rebuilding these ties. Greater involvement by the KNF in resource education and training programs that are targeted

toward careers in the fire sciences is another avenue.

Coordination with the California Department of Forestry

and the College of the Siskiyous to develop apprenticeship programs would help lead to local natural-resourcebased jobs.

Forest-based jobs—

Local residents wanted family-wage jobs tied to natural

resources that enable them to stay in their communities

and maintain family ties. Timber jobs used to provide

this but no longer do. Any opportunities to find new

ways of creating such jobs by identifying arenas in

which natural resources can be tied to community development–for example, through fire management work,

supplying forest products to support local business

enterprises, or through forest restoration work–would

make an important contribution to community wellbeing.

Acknowledgments

We thank Peg Boland, Supervisor of the Klamath National Forest (KNF), for providing us the opportunity to

work on the KNF as a case study site for socioeconomic

monitoring, and for her support in the process. We are

extremely grateful to the KNF employees who agreed to

participate in interviews and share their knowledge and

perspectives with us, and for the time they took to review

parts of this document. We also thank the many community members who graciously agreed to take part in this

study and share their knowledge, experiences, and
103

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

insights. Other members of the socioeconomic monitoring team–Rebecca McLain, Lita Buttolph, Will Kay, Dick

Phillips, and Lynnae Sutton–contributed to the design of

this monitoring study, provided feedback, and contributed some of the data included here. Judy Mikowski was

extremely helpful in assisting with report preparation.

Finally, we thank Cecilia Danks, Yvonne Everett, and

Vicky Sturtevant for providing thorough peer reviews of a

draft version of this report, and many helpful suggestions

for improving it.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get:

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Board feet, log .0045 Million cubic

scale meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Pounds .454 Kilograms

Literature Cited

Alegria, J.; Hyzer, M.; Mulder, B.; Schnoes, B.; Tolle, T.

1995. Guidance for implementation monitoring for

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth-related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. [Unpublished document]. On

file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First

Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

Baker, D.; Palmer, C.; Tolle, T. 2006. Northwest Forest

Plan—the first ten years (1994–2003): implementation monitoring: accomplishments and compliance

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

Region.

Barber, K. 2004. Personal communication. Regional

analyst, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Drive,

Vallejo, CA 94592.

Bernard, H.R. 2002. Research methods in anthropology:

qualitative and quantitative approaches. Walnut

Creek, CA: Altamira Press. 753 p.

Blackburn, T.C.; Anderson, K. 1993. Before the

wilderness: environmental management by Native

Californians. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press. 476 p.

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; Charnley, S.; Moseley, C.;

Donoghue, E.M. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the

first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of Olympic National Forest and three local communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-679. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 84 p.

Charnley, S., tech. coord. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—

the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic

monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 vol.

Clark, R.N.; Philpot, C.W.; Stankey, G.H. 1999. Overarching assumptions underlying the Northwest Forest

Plan: imbedded implications for research at the PNW

Research Station. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1993. The forest plan for

a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment. Washington, DC: The White House. 7 p. plus

appendices.

Danks, C.; Haynes, R.W. 2001. Socioeconomic research.

In: Haynes, R.W.; Perez, G.E., eds. Northwest Forest

Plan research synthesis. PNW-GTR-498. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 52–62.

Dillingham, C. 1999. Klamath National Forest economic

monitoring report. Yreka, CA: Klamath National

Forest. 62 p.

Doak, S.C.; Kusel, J. 1997. Well-being assessment of

communities in the Klamath region. Taylorsville, CA:

Forest Community Research. 92 p.
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Donoghue, E.M. 2003. Delimiting communities in the

Pacific Northwest. PNW-GTR-570. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006. Socioeconomic

conditions and trends for communities in the Northwest Forest Plan region, 1990 to 2000. In: Charnley,

S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.;

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.;

Phillips, R.H.; Tobe, L. Northwest Forest Plan—the

first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities and

economies. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station: 7–36.

Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Seattle Audubon Society, et al. v.

James Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, et al.

Order on motions for Summary Judgment RE 1994

Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: U.S. District Court, Western

District of Washington.

English, D.B.K. 2003. Recreation visitation to national

forests in the Northwestern United States: a special

analysis in support of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 19 p.

Everett, Y. 2007. Personal communication. Associate

Professor, Environmental and Natural Resource

Sciences, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst St.,

Arcata, CA 95521.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management:

an ecological, economic, and social assessment.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S.

Department of the interior [and others]. [Irregular

pagination]

Gusey, D. 2003, 2004. Personal communication. Regional geologist, Recreation, Lands and Mineral

Resources, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-3440.

Hemstrom, M.; Spies, T.; Palmer, C.; Kiester, R.; Teply,

J.; McDonald, P.; Warbington, R. 1998. Latesuccessional and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-438. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, 37 p.

Kay, W.M.; Donoghue, E.M.; Charnley, S.; Stuart, C.;

Moseley, C. 2007. Northwest Forest Plan—the first

10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of

Mount Hood National Forest and three local communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-701. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 97 p.

Lint, J.; Noon, B.; Anthony, R.; Forsman, E.; Raphael,

M.; Collopy, M.; Starkey, E. 1999. Northern spotted

owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest

Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-440. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p.

Madsen, S.; Evans, D.; Hamer, T.; Henson, P.; Miller, S.;

Nelson, S.K.; Roby, D.; Stapanian, M. 1999. Marbled

murrelet effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-439.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

McLain, R.J.; Tobe, L.; Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.;

Moseley, C. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first

10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of

Coos Bay District and three local communities. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-675. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 144 p.

Mitchell, J.E. 2000. Rangeland resource trends in the

United States: a technical document supporting the

2000 USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 84 p.
105

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Moseley, C. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10

years (1994–2003): procurement contracting in the

affected counties. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-661.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.

Moseley, C.; Balaev, M.; Lake, A. 2003. Long-term

trends in contracting and the impact of the National

Fire Plan in northern California. Eugene, OR: Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. 31 p.

Moseley, C.; Toth, N. 2004. Fire hazard reduction and

economic opportunity: How are the benefits of the

National Fire Plan distributed? Society and Natural

Resources. 17(8): 701–716.

Mulder, B.; Alegria, J.; Czaplewski, R. [et al.]. 1995.

Effectiveness monitoring: an interagency program for

the Northwest Forest Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [et

al.]; report; Monitoring Design Group, Intergovernmental Advisory Committee.

Mulder, B.S.; Noon, B.R.; Spies, T.A.; Raphael, M.G.;

Palmer, C.J.; Olsen, A.R.; Reeves, G.H.; Welsh, H.H.

1999. The strategy and design of the effectiveness

monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 138 p.

Reeves, G.; Hohler, D.; Larsen, D.; Busch, D.; Kratz, K.;

Reynolds, K.; Stein, K.; Atzet, T.; Hays, P.; Tehan,

M. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for the aquatic

and riparian component of the Northwest Forest Plan:

Conceptual framework and options. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p.

Schuster, E.G. 1996. Revenue sharing and resource

management in Western States. Western Journal

of Applied Forestry. 11 (1): 20–24.

Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Youngblood, A.; Hummel,

S. 2006. Conserving old-growth forest diversity in

distrubance-prone landscapes. Conservaton Biology.

20(2): 351–362.

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N. 1992. Social aspects of new

perspectives in forestry: a problem analysis. Milford,

PA: Grey Towers Press. 33 p.

Stewart, O.C. 2002. Forgotten fires: Native Americans

and the transient wilderness. (Lewis, H.T.; Anderson,

M.K., eds.) Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma

Press. 364 p.

Thomas, J.W. 2003. Application of the Northwest

Forest Plan in national forests in California.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/nwfp/plans/nwfpapp.shtml.

(April 2008).

Tobe, L.; Kusel, J.; Neimann, E. 2002. Happy Camp,

California community case study. In: Forest Community Research, ed. Assessment of the Northwest

Economic Adjustment Initiative. Taylorsville, CA:

Sierra Institute. Appendix. 21 p. http://

www.sierrainstitute.us/neai/CA_case_studies/

Happy_Camp.pdf (May 14, 2008).

Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.;

Moriwaki, C.B. 1996. The Northwest Forest Plan: a

report to the President and Congress. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Forestry

and Economic Assistance. 253 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1994a. Klamath National Forest final environmental impact statement, land and resource management plan. Yreka, CA: Klamath National Forest.

[Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1994b. Klamath National Forest land and

resource management plan. Yreka, CA: Klamath

National Forest. [Irregular pagination].
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1995. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the Klamath National

Forest. Yreka, CA: Klamath National Forest

Supervisor’s Office. 15 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1996. Beaver Creek ecosystem analysis. Happy

Camp, CA: Klamath National Forest, Oak Knoll

Ranger District. [Irregular pagination]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1997. Indian Creek watershed analysis. Happy

Camp, CA: Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp

Ranger District. [Irregular pagination]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1999. Thompson/Seiad/Grider ecosystem

analysis. Happy Camp, CA: Klamath National Forest,

Happy Camp Ranger District. [Irregular pagination]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2004. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/. Forest Inventory

and Analysis. (March 2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2005. Klamath National Forest fiscal year 2004

monitoring and evaluation report. Yreka, CA: Klamath National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

klamath/projects/forestmanagement/index.shtml.

(March 2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of

the Interior [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record

of decision for amendments to Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management planning documents

within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place

of publication unknown]: 74 p. (plus attachment A:

standards and guidelines).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 2002. Tribal monitoring

under the Northwest Forest Plan. Interagency executive letter. www.reo.gov.
107

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Appendix A—People Interviewed for This Study

Klamath National Forest

Respondent’s position Additional roles on the forest

Forest landscape architect Interpretation, partnerships, recreation

Forest resource staff officer Fisheries, noxious weeds, earth sciences, timber, wildlife

District ranger Contracting, forest stewardship

Deputy forest supervisor Budget, tribal relations, forest stewardship, contracting

Forest silviculturist Nontimber forest products, project planning issues 

District resource staff Recreation, range, noxious weeds, archaeology, minerals

District archaeologist Partnerships

Forest timber mgmt officer, Klamath National Contracting, timber, forest stewardship

Forest; timber contracting officer, Shasta Trinity

National Forest

Forest earth science, fisheries program manager Partnerships, environmental education, contracting

Forest administrative staff officer Contracting, community assistance program, volunteer programs

Forest environmental coordinator Planning

District recreation, lands/minerals staff

Forest fire management staff officer

Forest assistant engineer Contracting, roads

Wildlife biologist
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Scott Valley

Scott Valley

Respondent’s position Additional stakeholder roles resident

Reforestation nursery owner X

Director, nonprofit natural resources consulting Natural resource management consultant/ X

and training center contractor

Local mayor X

Natural resource management interest group

member

Former county supervisor Natural resource management interest X

group director

Rancher Rural conservation district member X

County board of education member Member of timber worker family

Superintendent of schools (retired) X

Forester Tree farmer

County supervisor X

Wood products company manager (2)

Wood products company employee Forester

Wilderness outfitter (2) Natural resource management consultant/ X

contractor

Shasta Tribe member Feller, timber hauler (retired) X

Shasta Tribe member Member of former timber worker family X

County behavioral health specialist Member of former timber worker family X

State Department of Forestry acting unit chief X

County Economic Development Corporation

director

County natural resource specialist X

Environmental interest group member X

County planning director X

U.S. Forest Service district ranger (retired) X

Salmon River Restoration Council representative Member fire safe council, local contractor, X

board member Mid-Klamath Watershed Council
109

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Butte Valley

Butte Valley

Respondent’s position Other stakeholder roles resident

County Supervisor Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee

member, Ore-Cal Resource Conservation

and Development (RC&D) Director, rancher X

Ore-Cal RC&D Economic development, tourism

Butte Valley Saddle Co. owner,

Chamber of Commerce president

Dorris Lumber & Molding X

Vintage Woodworks owner X

Shasta Tribe member, local environmentalist X

Shasta Tribe member, former timber feller X

Whitsell Mfg., Inc. (lumber remanufacturing) X

TC Ranch owners X

Butte Valley Fire District Fire Chief Cal Or Telephone Co. X

Butte Valley Health Center

Butte Valley Unified School District Superintendent X

Butte Valley school district employee X

Mayor of Dorris X
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-764

Mid-Klamath

Mid-Klamath

Respondent’s position Other stakeholder roles resident

Local business owner/leader County school board member, contractor, X

ex-mill worker 

Fishing outfitter/guide Local school board member X

Director, Happy Camp Family Resource Center Local school board member, tribal council X

(provides social services) member

Retired Happy Camp district ranger Member, Fire Safe Council, health clinic X

board member 

Rancher Retired Forest Service employee X

Miner, logger Member, People for the USA X

Director, Karuk Economic Development Karuk tribal member, Vice President X

Organization Happy Camp Chamber of Commerce,

Chairman Happy Camp Action Committee

Mid-Klamath Watershed Council representative Klamath Forest Alliance representative

Local business owner X

Regional forest manager, fruit growers

Karuk tribal member, special forest products gatherer Basket maker X

Logger X

New 49ers recreational mining club representative X

Forest contractor Ex-logger, local business owner X

Outfitter-guide, owner, local river rafting company X

President, Happy Camp Chamber of Commerce Local business owner, Resource Advisory

Committee member X

Treasurer, Chamber of Commerce Married to ex-logger, local business owner X

Chair, Karuk Tribe X

Vice Chair, Karuk Tribe X

Secretary, Karuk Tribe Spouse of former timber worker X

Anthropologist X

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Group representatives (2) 1
111

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003: Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Klamath National Forest...

Appendix B—Categories of Interviewees

When conducting interviews in the case-study communities, we attempted to select people that represented a cross

section of community leaders and stakeholder groups. We used the following categories to guide our selection:

Community leaders:

Elected official

Civic group leader

School district/education leader

Historic preservation/cultural center leader

Economic development council leader

Business leader/store owner

Social service provider

Fire district leader

Health official

Religious leader

Watershed council representative

Large landowner (timber company?)

Planner

Tribal council members

Stakeholder group representatives:

Recreation/tourism

Environment

Timber industry

Special forest products

Fishing—commercial/recreational

County government

Agriculture/ranching

Minerals

Tribes

Low income/minority groups

It was not possible to interview someone from each of the categories in every community, and many interviewees

represented several categories at once.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300