Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount

Hood 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-701

May 2007

William M. Kay, Ellen M. Donoghue, Susan Charnley, 

and Cassandra Moseley
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

William M. Kay is an independent community development consultant, P.O. Box 464,

Ithaca, NY 14851; Ellen M. Donoghue and Susan Charnley are research social scientists, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890; and Cassandra Moseley is director, Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 5247, University of

Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5247.
Abstract

Kay, William M.; Donoghue, Ellen M.; Charnley, Susan; Moseley, Cassandra. 2007.

Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring

of the 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.

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

on and around lands managed by the Mount Hood National Forest in Oregon to assess

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

there. Three case communities were studied: the Greater Estacada Area, the Upper Hood

River Valley, and the Villages of Mount Hood from Brightwood to Rhododendron. 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 Mount Hood National Forest.

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

rural development, Mount Hood National Forest.

Preface

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

changes in 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

1

 Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1996. The Forest Plan for a sustainable economy and a

sustainable environment. In: Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.;

Moriwaki, C.B. The Northwest Forest Plan: a report to the President and Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and Economic

Assistance: 231–238. App. A.

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 [et al.]. [Irregular pagination].
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 the 24 million federal acres (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 rerquirements, an interagency organization, social and

economic mitigation initiatives, 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):

 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 plan and initial protocols for implementation monitoring were

3

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

of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Record of decision for amendments to

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted

owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p.

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.
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 and monitoring protocols for late-successional and oldgrowth forests (older forests), northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus

marmoratus), tribal, and watershed condition. Socioeconomic monitoring protocols

continue to be tested.

Periodic analysis and interpretation of monitoring data is essential to completing

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

strategy5 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 is linked to the socioeconomic monitoring 10-year interpretive report.6

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.

5

 Mulder, B.; Noon, B.; Spies, T.; Raphael, M.; Palmer, C.; Olsen, A.; Reeves, G.; Welsh,

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.

6

 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.
Contents

1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

3 Methods

3 Determining Changes in Forest Management and Resource Outputs Linked to

the Plan

4 Determining Plan Impacts on Local Communities

7 The Mount Hood National Forest

8 Case-Study Communities

8 Greater Estacada Area

10 Upper Hood River Valley

13 Villages of Mount Hood From Brightwood to Rhododendron

17 Chapter 2: Trends in Socioeconomic Benefits From the Mount Hood

National Forest, 1990–2002, and the Impact of the Northwest

Forest Plan

17 Resource and Recreation Outputs

17 Timber, Fish, and Wildlife

21 Special Forest Products

26 Grazing

28 Minerals

28 Recreation

31 Heritage and Scenic Program

31 Fire

32 Roads

34 Jobs and Income Associated With Timber, Grazing, and Recreation

34 Change in Budget

36 Change in Staff

37 Reorganization

37 Forest Revenue

37 Role of Plan in Changes in Budget and Staff

39 Procurement Contracting for Land Management

39 Land Management Through Procurement Contracting

42 Contractor Concentration and Turnover

42 Location of Mount Hood Contractors

43 Awards to Rural Contractors

43 Awards to Affected Counties

47 Procurement Summary

47 Community Economic Assistance

47 Changes in Community Assistance/Grant Programs

47 Payments to County Governments

51 Summary of Trends in Socioeconomic Benefits

51 Resource and Recreation Outputs

53 Jobs and Income Associated With Timber, Grazing, and Recreation Programs
53 Community Economic Assistance

53 Payments to County Governments

53 Linking Change in Flow of Socioeconomic Benefits to the Plan

53 Land Use Allocations and Procedural Requirements

54 Probable Sale Quantity and Implications of the Decline of the Timber Program

57 Chapter 3: Community-Level Change and the Impact of the

Northwest Forest Plan

57 Introduction

57 Greater Estacada Area

57 Community Change and the Effects of Forest Management Policy

62 Adaptation to Change and the Role of Forest Service Assistance

63 Changing Relations Between the Greater Estacada Area and the Mount Hood

National Forest

63 Upper Hood River Valley

63 Community Change and the Effects of Forest Management Policy

67 Adaptation to Change and the Role of Forest Service Assistance

68 Changing Relations Between the Upper Hood River Valley and the Mount Hood

National Forest

68 Villages of Mount Hood From Brightwood to Rhododendron

68 Community Change and the Effects of Forest Management Policy

72 Adaptation to Change and the Role of Forest Service Assistance

73 Changing Relations Between the Villages of Mount Hood and the Mount Hood

National Forest

73 Summary of Community-Level Change and Perception of the Northwest

Forest Plan

73 Types of Communities

75 Changes Taking Place 1990 to 2000

76 Change in Flow of Socioeconomic Benefits From Forest to Community

77 Other Causes of Change

77 Addressing Change

78 Community-Forest Relations

79 Chapter 4: Communities and Forest Management

79 Collaboration in Forest Stewardship

79 General Trends in Collaboration

79 Types of Collaboration

80 Factors Promoting Collaboration

80 Challenges to Collaboration

82 Protecting Forest Values and Environmental Qualities: Managing for

Noncommodity Forest Values

83 Issues and Concerns Relating to Forest Management

83 Income Opportunities

84 Recreation

85 Forest Health and Catastrophic Fire

85 Firewood
85 Access to the Forest

85 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat

85 Wildlife

86 Timber Harvest

86 Lack of Clarity

86 Local Views of the Plan

87 Administration

87 Cost

87 Lawsuit-Ability/Applying Pressure on the Agency

87 Land Use Allocations

89 Chapter 5: Conclusions–Meeting Northwest Forest Plan Goals and

Expectations

89 Monitoring Questions and Socioeconomic Goals: An Evaluation

89 Goal 1: Predictable and Sustainable Levels of Timber and Nontimber Resources

Are Available and Are Being Produced

89 Goal 2: Help Maintain the Stability of Local and Regional Economies and

Contribute to Socioeconomic Well-Being in Local Communities on a

Predictable and Long-Term Basis

90 Goal 3: Minimize Adverse Impacts on Jobs and Assist With Long-Term Economic

Development and Diversification in the Area

91 Goal 4: Protect Nontimber Values and Environmental Qualities Associated With

the Forest

91 Goal 5: Improve Relations Between Federal Land Management Agencies and

Local Communities and Promote Collaborative Forest Management and Joint

Stewardship Activities

92 Overall Goal: Balance the Need for Forest Protection With the Need to Provide a

Steady and Sustainable Supply of Timber and Nontimber Resources to Benefit

Rural Communities and Economies

93 Acknowledgments

93 Metric Equivalents

93 References

96 Appendix
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

1

This case study of the Mount Hood National Forest and area

communities was undertaken as part of the Northwest Forest

Plan Socioeconomic Monitoring Program. It is one of four

clusters of 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

carurina). This document is a supplement to Charnley

(2006), which presents socioeconomic monitoring results

for the entire Plan area from 1990 to 2003. This report

presents findings for the Mount Hood National Forest

cluster of case studies, providing a level of detail not found

in the Charnley report, and is intended to be useful to the

Mount Hood National Forest and surrounding communities.

Four case-study communities associated with the Mount

Hood National Forest are the focus of this report:

the Mount Hood National Forest administrative unit, the

Greater Estacada Area, the Upper Hood River Valley, and

the Villages of Mount Hood from Brightwood to Rhododendron (fig. 1). See Charnley (2006) and Donoghue (2003) for

a discussion of how communities were defined for purposes

of this study.

 The four case studies were 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 non-timber resources available

and being produced?” (USDA and USDI 1994b: 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 1994b: 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 1994b: 26) and to contribute to community well-being. Third, where timber

sales could not proceed, the goal was to minimize adverse

impacts on jobs by assisting with long-term economic

development and diversification opportunities in those

rural communities most affected by the cutbacks (USDA

and USDI 1994b: 3). The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) 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 that members of the public cared deeply about

(Clark et al. 1999: 15, Clinton and Gore 1996, USDA and

USDI 1994b: 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 (Clinton

and Gore 1996, Tuchmann and others 1996: 6, 44–48).

Greater collaboration in forest management was also expected between agencies and citizens (Danks and Haynes

2001: 54).

One component of the monitoring program uses case

studies to investigate how the Plan has been implemented

on individual forests within the Plan area, and how resultant

shifts in forest management have affected forest users and

surrounding communities. This report documents one

cluster of case studies. Specifically, we looked at how the

flow of socioeconomic benefits associated with the Mount

Hood National Forest has been affected by the Plan. The

socioeconomic benefits we examined include the production of forest commodities (timber, minerals, grazing,

nontimber forest products) and forest-based recreation; jobs

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

2

Figure 1—The Mount Hood National Forest and case-study communities.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

3

and income associated with timber production, grazing,

and recreation; agency jobs; procurement contract work

(focusing on ecosystem management activities); grant

money for community economic assistance; benefits

associated with payments to county governments; and opportunities to engage in collaborative forest management

and stewardship activities, including partnership agreements. We obtained data from Forest Service databases and

from the Mount Hood National Forest to document trends

in the production of these benefits. We also interviewed 21

forest employees to gain an understanding of how the Plan

has influenced these trends (see appendix). In addition, we

interviewed 69 members of three communities adjoining

the Mount Hood National Forest regarding their perceptions of the ways in which implementation of the Plan had

affected their communities.

Methods

Determining Changes in Forest Management

and Resource Outputs Linked to the Plan

The monitoring team used a combination of quantitative

and qualitative methods. The baseline year for the socioeconomic monitoring program is 1990. 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 and

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 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, regional, or state offices, rather than

requesting data from individual Forest Service and BLM

field units (unless warranted by special circumstances1

).

The analytical framework adopted by this module calls

for showing that changes reflected by the trend data were

1

Data provided by the Mount Hood National Forest will be

noted.

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, management actions under the Plan, and other explanatory variables by

using a case-study approach. For this case study, we interviewed 21 Forest Service employees from the Mount Hood

National Forest and 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 our monitoring program. But the interview results provide a starting point for

developing and testing hypotheses about how the Plan

has affected the ability of the Forest Service and BLM to

produce predictable quantities of timber sales and nontimber resources. Our team believes that understanding how

the Plan has contributed to the observed trends is necessary

for making informed policy decisions that address undesirable trends.

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 of agency data that is comparable from year to year

and across the four case-study forests. For some resource

indicators (such as much of the recreation data), we could

obtain status but not trend data. We report the status data to

provide a baseline for future monitoring. In some cases

(such as minerals and special forest products), the resource

data tracked by the agencies did not serve as adequate

indicators for answering the monitoring question directly.

We believe that providing some information about trends in

these resource areas is better than providing no information

at all. Thus, we made the most of the available data,

assessing what we could learn related to the monitoring

question and goal.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

4

We obtained some resource and recreation data directly

from the four case-study forests. When we compared these

data with the case-study forest data in corporate databases,

we sometimes found differences in the numbers. In those

instances we used the data from forest units for our analysis,

assuming they were correct.

Determining Plan Impacts on Local Communities

The second evaluation question has two components: Are

local communities and economies experiencing positive

or negative changes and can these changes be associated

with federal forest management? To assess whether local

communities and economies were experiencing positive

or negative changes, the team delineated 1,314 nonmetropolitan communities in the Plan area, and used social

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

change in the communities between 1990 and 2000 (see

Charnley 2006 and Donoghue 2003 for more details). The

team also developed a socioeconomic well-being index

used to compare community well-being scores in 1990 and

2000 (Donoghue and Sutton 2006).

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 residents

of forest-based communities. Benefits included jobs and

income associated with forest resources and recreation,

agency jobs, and procurement contracting opportunities.

We examined local-scale trends for the four case-study

forests by 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 integrating

forestry and economic development goals by creating new

jobs in ecosystem restoration, the NEAI, and providing a

safety net for payments to counties to help compensate for

the loss of revenue sharing based on timber receipts.

To supplement the quantitative monitoring data, the team

employed a community case-study approach to gather and

analyze qualitative data. These data provided a more detailed understanding of the social and economic conditions

and trends described by the quantitative data, how changes

in the flow of forest benefits contributed to change in local

communities, how the Plan affected the flow of socioeconomic benefits, and how agency efforts to mitigate Plan

impacts did or did not help communities adapt to change.

We identify key patterns, themes, and insights that emerge

from the cases and use them to advance our understanding

of how federal forest management policy may be linked to

socioeconomic well-being in forest-based communities.

These interviews are also the main source of data for

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.

Selection of case-study forests—

Case-study forests were chosen to represent one national

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

area, and one BLM unit in Oregon, the only place that the

BLM has significant land holdings inside the Plan area.

They were also chosen to represent different provinces (the

Plan area is broken up into 12 planning provinces). The

monitoring program team leader sent a letter to all of the

national forests and BLM districts in the Plan area and

asked for volunteers to participate in socioeconomic

monitoring. We took this approach because the monitoring

effort was considered a pilot program, and we wanted to

conduct it on forests that were interested in participating

and making use of the resulting information. The Mount

Hood National Forest volunteered to participate in this

study.

Selection of case-study communities—

Case-study communities associated with each forest were

chosen on the basis of a number of criteria. First, the team

identified a sampling frame of communities that included

all of the community block group aggregates whose
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

5

polygons lay, at least partially, within a 10-mile radius of

the case-study forest boundaries. The team chose this

distance because it 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 each case-study forest 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 case forest and the

managing agency. Using this process, we narrowed the

sample frame to those communities identified as having a

significant relationship to the forest.

We selected three communities associated with each

case-study forest from the sample frame for monitoring. We

recognize, however, that in only choosing three communities around each forest, we did not capture all of the variation in community “types” or in community-forest relations

in each case-study 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 as measured in 1990, by using

three categories: high, medium, and low. We randomly

chose one community from each stratum, unless there were

no communities in one of the strata (one case-study forest

did not have any communities that measured high in

socioeconomic well-being in 1990). In this case, we

randomly chose two communities from the stratum that

contained the largest number of communities–generally

the middle category.

Once we selected the case communities, we visited

them and talked with community members to determine

whether the community did indeed have historical or

present ties to the case forest. We also used the interview

process to determine how the communities should be

defined for case-study purposes. The census block group

aggregate (BGA) delineations were initially used for

randomly selecting case communities; however, the model

we used did not necessarily correspond geographically to

the place that community members considered to be their

“community.” Thus the BGA community delineations were

starting points for defining study communities, and we

adjusted those definitions once we got to the field and

learned how local residents conceptualized their community. In many cases, we further aggregated the original

randomly chosen BGA with surrounding BGA(s) in response to feedback from local residents to ultimately define

the case-study community boundaries.

For this case study, the three communities selected were

the Greater Estacada Area, the Villages of Mount Hood from

Brightwood to Rhododendron, and the Upper Hood River

Valley.

Census statistics—

We compared U.S. census statistics from 1990 and 2000 for

the case-study communities (i.e., census BGAs) to determine changes in socioeconomic conditions. The indicators

that we selected included demographic variables, such as

total population, median age, school enrollment, percentage of population that completed high school, percentage

of population with a bachelor’s degree or greater, age distribution, ethnicity, population by race, and Hispanic

population. We also looked at economic indicators, such

as median household income, percentage unemployed,

percentage of households living in poverty, household

income distribution, and employment by industry. We

compared community data to county-level data.

Interviews—

Interviewing to obtain qualitative data is a social science

research method used to understand a specific process or

phenomenon, such as the relation between federal forest

management and community socioeconomic well-being.

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 this chapter. We also chose a sample

that would represent variation in the populations under

study; we identified specific categories of people to interview in each community and on each forest unit about the

monitoring question of interest, so that we could document

a range of perspectives on them. We interviewed 27 people

from the Greater Estacada Area, 18 people from the Upper
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

6

Hood River Valley, and 24 people from the Villages of

Mount Hood from Brightwood to Rhododendron. Not all

interviewees were residents of the communities. Some were

individuals who worked in the community or had a connection to either the community or the portion of the forest that surrounded the community. The appendix provides

a general description of the interviewees from the three

communities. Because of the potentially sensitive nature

of some of the interview questions, we kept the names of

interviewees confidential. In addition, several Forest

Service employees were familiar with, worked in, or were

long-term residents of the case-study communities, and

were thus interviewed about management and resource

output changes on the forest as well as changes in community-forest relations and socioeconomic conditions for the

case-study communities.

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

snowball sampling approach to locate interviewees. Snowball sampling is an effective method of building a sampling

frame where 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 most of the communities

and all of the forest units that we sampled. It entails

locating key individuals in a 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 initially identified, people

who had lived in the case community or worked on the

case forest at least since 1994 when the Plan was adopted,

people who were knowledgeable about the topics under

study, people who were considered able to provide a

window into the community or the forest unit of interest,

and people who were articulate and willing to talk with us.

Our interviewees fit most, if not all, of these criteria.

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 by using an interview

guide that contained a list of questions and topics to be

covered during the interview (see Charnley 2006 for a

copy of the interview guide). Interviews with community

members focused on the following topics:

• The role of forest management policy in the

socioeconomic changes taking place in their

communities between 1990 and 2000.

• How their communities have responded to those

changes.

• How well the Plan has provided the forest values

stakeholders consider important.

• Current issues and concerns relating to

management of the forest.

• Trends in Forest Service-community collaboration.

We also showed interviewees charts of quantitative data

from the U.S. census comparing socioeconomic conditions

in 1990 and 2000, and asked them to reflect on both the

accuracy of the data relative to their perceptions of the

changes in those conditions and possible explanations for

observed changes.

We recorded and transcribed most of the interviews.

We compared qualitative data from the interviews with

quantitative data obtained from secondary sources to develop a response to the monitoring questions. We did not,

however, investigate all of the details given in the narrative

accounts to check the accuracy of the “facts.” Rather, we

used people’s understandings and perspectives to construct

a more general understanding of the effects of the Plan and

agency mitigation measures on communities.

Archival information—

We also examined archival data, including community and

agency planning documents, Web sites, and informational

reports. We developed detailed descriptions of the changes

that took place in community-forest relationships and the

role of the Plan in changing those relationships by synthesizing the interview and archival data.

Limitations of the case-study community approach—

By focusing on residents of the three case-study communities, the findings tend to privilege the perceptions of
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

7

members of these particular communities of place over the

perceptions of other citizens (e.g., communities of interest,

residents of metropolitan communities). This is problematic given the Forest Service mandate to manage its lands

for the benefit of all U.S. citizens.

Because the case-study communities and the interviewees were not chosen randomly, the interview results

do not serve the purpose of generalization to the entire

universe represented by the Plan area. Instead, the approach

helped us develop a more indepth understanding of the effects of agency management actions, policies, and programs

on forest-based communities in different locations to help

us answer the monitoring questions. The number of cases

examined for purposes of this report was limited by the

time and funding available. We thus are careful not to overgeneralize results beyond our cases. The interviews were

not conducted in the context of a research project designed

to test specific causal hypotheses relating to the monitoring

trends or to the effects of forest management policy on local

communities. The results, can, however, be used to develop

such hypotheses to be tested in future research projects. We

view the case communities as an initial sample that will

form part of a larger community sample to be monitored in

the future as part of the Plan socioeconomic effectiveness

monitoring program.

The Mount Hood National Forest

The Mount Hood National Forest consists of 1.1 million

acres of forest land in north-central Oregon. The forest

is bounded by the Columbia River to the north, the

Willamette National Forest to the south, and the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to the

southeast. The forest straddles the Cascade mountain range,

and includes moist western slopes as well as drier east-side

ecosystems. Elevations range from 65 feet above sea level

at the Columbia River to 11,235 feet on Mount Hood’s

summit. The forest encompasses portions of Clackamas,

Multnomah, Hood River, and Wasco Counties. Approximately 2 million people live in proximity to the west side

of the forest. By contrast, counties on the east side of the

forest are sparsely populated and possess rural characteristics.

Since the early 1990s, seven district ranger offices have

consolidated into four districts on the Mount Hood National Forest. District offices are now located in the towns of

Parkdale, Dufur, Zigzag, and Estacada. At the Supervisor’s

Office in Sandy, staff officers oversee five areas of work: fire,

engineering, administration, natural resources, and a program that combines recreation, lands, planning, and public

affairs. Contracting and law enforcement officers are shared

with other national forests. Currently, the Mount Hood

National Forest has about 240 permanent employees and an

annual budget of $20 million.

The forest includes a variety of land use allocations,

many of which existed in similar form prior to the Plan.

These land use allocations are presented in detail in chapter

2 of this report. The Mount Hood National Forest fiscal year

2002 monitoring and evaluation report states that harvesting of commercial forest products from the Mount Hood

National Forest has dropped significantly since the listing

of the spotted owl as a threatened species in the early 1990s

(USDA FS 2002). It also reports that at one time, between 9

and 11 mills operated in proximity to the Mount Hood

National Forest and purchased most of the timber sales.

Two or three local mills remain in the area and none has

purchased timber from the forest in the past decade or

so. Recent sales have drawn bidders from as far away as

Springfield, Oregon, to the south, Willamina, Oregon, to the

west, Vancouver, Washington, to the north, and John Day,

Oregon, to the east (USDA FS 2003). Because the timber

program budget has steadily declined, other programs,

including recreation, have assumed a greater proportion of

overhead costs. Program budgets have also been declining,

and the additional share of overhead costs further compounds the impact.

Recreation management has evolved into the dominant

resource management issue on the Mount Hood National

Forest. Owing in part to the growth of the Portland metropolitan area, recreation use on the forest has been consistently high and increasing over the years relative to other
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

8

national forests in the region. Recreation use is increasing

in terms of the number of users and the types of uses. The

decline in the timber program has had direct and indirect

implications for recreation and other programs. Details of

these changes will be discussed in the following chapter.

Case-Study Communities

Greater Estacada Area

The Greater Estacada Area is located on State Highways

211 and 224, 34 miles from Portland, Oregon. Situated at

the eastern edge of the Willamette Valley in the foothills

of the Cascade mountain range, the Greater Estacada Area

straddles “wild and scenic” portions of the Clackamas River

and is adjacent to the west side of the Mount Hood National

Forest.

Located in Clackamas County, the Greater Estacada

Area includes seven BGAs. For an explanation of BGAs

see Donoghue 2003 and Donoghue and Sutton 2006.

The BGAs encompass the city of Estacada and surrounding

unincorporated areas northwest of Estacada extending

to Eagle Creek, west half way to Molalla, and extending

east into the Mount Hood National Forest (fig. 2). The

population in 2000 was 9,315. The city of Estacada reported a population of 2,371, and the other 75 percent of

the population—6,944 people—lives in unincorporated

portions of the study area. Residents and county officials

typically define the community of Estacada as the area

located within the school district boundaries and describe

the community as an extensive area with the seven BGAs

encompassing most of it.

The city of Estacada includes a number of wellestablished businesses, including several banks and grocery

stores, quick markets, restaurants, churches, a small number

of other service and retail businesses, and a utility company.

Areas outlying the city are sparsely populated agricultural

and timber lands with a limited amount of commercial and

industrial development. The city provides basic goods and

services for the local population and is the last stop for

goods and services for recreationists visiting the Mount

Hood National Forest.

Eastern portions of the study area are within the Mount

Hood National Forest. Popular destinations on the Mount

Hood National Forest that are accessible from Estacada

include Table Rock, Bull of the Woods Wilderness Area,

and portions of the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness Area,

as well as Timothy Lake and Bagby Hot Springs. Tens of

thousands of acres within the study area are owned and

managed by timber companies, such as Longview Fiber and

Weyerhaeuser. Additionally, several thousand acres are

managed by the state of Oregon, Clackamas County, and

the BLM.

Prior to Anglo-European settlement, the Clackamas

people lived in permanent fishing communities along the

Clackamas River. Contact and trading with Anglo-Europeans and other tribes led to a smallpox outbreak (Kohnen

2002) in the winter of 1829–30, annihilating nine-tenths

of the Clackamas people. In 1855, the remaining 88

Clackamas County Indians were forcibly removed to the

Grand Ronde Reservation.

The first Anglo-European settlement was established by

Phillip Foster at Eagle Creek, just north of Estacada in the

1850s.2

 Foster’s farm was located on the Barlow Road, the

toll road used by settlers traveling west to the Willamette

Valley. Foster’s farm was a noted resting place for weary

travelers and for its abundance of cattle, hay, and fruits that

the farm produced (see footnote 2).

Agriculture subsequently played a central role in the

area’s development. Local boosters portrayed the area as

having a booming agricultural industry, with its cash crops

transported to Portland area market. They reported that the

rolling land was heavily timbered with Oregon [Douglas]

Fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco], some cedar

[Thuja L.], spruce [Picea A. Dietr.], and larch [Larix P. Mill.],

and that the land was good for producing apples, prunes,

berries, pears, peaches, cherries, et cetera.3

 Today, local

chamber material proclaims “Ample water, moderate climate

2

 Clackamas County News. [n.d.].

3

 Anonymous. 1911. Estacada, Oregon. A Land of Peace

and Plenty.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

9

Figure 2—Greater Estacada area case-study community.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

10

and fertile soil make this area a perfect heaven for agricultural enthusiasts from hobby to commercial operations.”

Clackamas County calls itself the “Christmas Tree Capital

of the World,” and Christmas tree farms are ubiquitous in

the unincorporated areas around Estacada.

Settlement of the Greater Estacada Area began in

earnest at the turn of the century. The impetus for its growth

was the Oregon Water and Power Company’s development

of the Clackamas River for power generation to meet

Portland’s burgeoning energy demands (Wollner 1990).

A railroad was built along the Clackamas River to haul

supplies to build the Cazedaro, Faraday, and River Mill

dams and a power facility. The railroad opened access to the

upper Clackamas River, hastened the development of the

area, and led to Estacada’s incorporation in 1905. The dams

remain in place and are operated by Portland General

Electric Company (PGE). A PGE office complex is located

in Faraday, and the company maintains a close relationship

with the Greater Estacada Area.

Beginning with the development of the interurban rail

line and the Estacada Hotel in 1904, recreational tourism

has played a minor but consistent role in the area’s development and its local economy. In 1947, it was reported that

20,000 visitors came to the area to picnic, fish, and pursue

other activities.4

 Today, more than 4 million people visit

the Mount Hood National Forest (USDA FS 1998) including a small number who access it via Estacada. Increasingly,

residents and entrepreneurs are focusing on generating

income from tourists who pass through Estacada on their

way into the Mount Hood National Forest. Recreational

tourism remains a small part of the area’s economy.

The dam project opened the forest for logging. As

access increased, the local timber industry grew and many

loggers settled in the Greater Estacada Area. Timber sales

on the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests,

including those stemming from the creation of Timothy

Lake in the early 1950s, spurred Estacada’s development

into a timber-dependent community.

4

 Estacada Old Times Festival Association. 1955.

In the mid-1950s there were 6 major and 20 smaller

logging operations in the Greater Estacada Area (see footnote 4). It is estimated they logged nearly 189 million

board feet off the Mount Hood and Willamette National

Forests that year, which amounted to 150 to 200 log trucks

moving 5,000 board feet downriver through Estacada each

day during the summer months. A mill just outside of the

city, owned by Crown-Zellerbach until 1984, employed

over 300 people. Until 1990, the mill, which is now owned

by RSG Forest Products was supplied predominantly by

logs from national forests. In 1979, full-time employment

with the Forest Service and the local Crown Zellerbach mill

accounted for 370 jobs.

The predominance of the timber-based economy extended through the 1980s. The city’s 1989 comprehensive

plan indicated that two of the three largest employers in the

area were forest product companies.5 The supply of timber

from the national forests declined sharply at the close of the

1980s with the spotted owl injunctions and has remained

low since the Plan was adopted in 1994.

The community’s economic, social, and cultural

relationship with the forest has changed immensely, transitioning away from a timber-based economy over the past

15 years. These changes are described in greater detail in

chapter 3 of this report.

Upper Hood River Valley

The Upper Hood River Valley consists of the aggregation

of two BGAs. Located in Hood River County on the north

side of Mount Hood, the Upper Hood River Valley is 10

miles south of the Columbia River (fig. 3). There are no

census places in the Upper Hood River Valley, and the

nearest census place is the county seat, the City of Hood

River, along the Columbia River. The combined BGAs consist of 19,968 acres of private and public lands, including

national forest and county forest land. Roughly two-thirds

of the study area is within the boundaries of the Mount

Hood National Forest. The Upper Hood River Valley’s

population is 4,288 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

5

 City of Estacada Comprehensive Plan. 1990.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

11

Figure 3—Upper Hood River Valley area case-study community.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

12

Private land in the Upper Hood River Valley consists of

residential, agricultural (including orchards, forests, and

some livestock), and some commercial land. Most commercial and government services in the Upper Hood River

Valley are located in the town of Parkdale. The primary

school, fire department, several social services offices, two

grocery stores, a few restaurants, a museum, several shops,

and a bed and breakfast are located along or within a couple

blocks of a main street in Parkdale. Other bed and breakfasts, a gas station, convenience store, country store, and a

few restaurants are located in other parts of the Upper Hood

River Valley, including the hamlet of Mount Hood. Mount

Hood Meadows Ski Resort and Cooper Spur Mountain Resort are located at the high elevations of the Upper Hood

River Valley, above residential and agricultural areas.

Portions of the Upper Hood River Valley and Hood

River County are within the ceded lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. In addition to tribal

members using the area for traditional harvesting, hunting,

and fishing practices, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm

Springs is the lead administrator of Bonneville Power

Administration-funded programs for anadromous fish conservation and reintroduction. A fish acclimation station and

fisheries office is located within the Upper Hood River

Valley.

The City of Hood River, with a population of 5,831

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000), is the largest population center in Hood River County, offering commercial, medical,

banking, and government services. The primary industries

for Hood River County include agriculture, timber, hydroelectric production, and recreation. Hood River County

is one of few counties in Oregon that own and manage

forest land as a source of revenue. The lands are under

the management of the County Forester’s office. Some of the

approximately 31,000 acres of county forest land are within

or adjacent to the Upper Hood River Valley.

The Upper Hood River Valley is part of the larger Hood

River Valley. Residents note distinctions between upper,

mid, and lower portions of the valley. These distinctions

relate mainly to zoning regulations and natural conditions

that affect population density, soils and climate, and

orchard sizes. Although interviewees differentiate the Upper

Hood River Valley area from the middle and lower valleys,

they share a common history, and residents throughout the

valley interact in civic, social, and economic activities.

Agricultural and timber industries began in the Hood

River area in the mid to late 1800s (USDA FS 1996a,

1996b) and were the dominant industries for a century or

so. Much of the land in the valley was logged and then sold

to orchardists for fruit production.

Orchards remain an important economic and social

component of the Upper Hood River Valley. The Upper

Hood River Valley has fertile soils and good climate for

growing apples, cherries, and pears, and other fruit. More

than 50 percent of the agricultural acreage in Hood River

County is in the upper valley (USDA FS 1996a). International and regional competition and trends in fruit markets

have affected the types of fruits orchards are growing.

Presently, agriculture is the primary source of local

employment.

Over the past century, timber mills of varying sizes have

come and gone throughout Hood River County (USDA FS

1996a, 1996b). There were three main mills and a number

of smaller mills in operation over the past 40 years. Interviewees report that the larger mills employed several

hundred people. Mills closed for varying reasons, with the

last mill closing in the late 1990s. One mill site has been

converted for other industrial purposes, including a glass

manufacturing plant, and another, although closed, appears

to be equipped and maintained.

A small number of residents continue to work in forestry, either on private or county forest lands in the area, or

outside the county. Many people who worked in the timber

industry moved out of the area as the mills were closed in

the 1990s.

Over 4 million people visit the Mount Hood and

Columbia River Gorge areas each year, mainly to engage

in outdoor or scenic activities (USDA FS 1998). Tourism

plays an important role in the social and economic dynamics of the Upper Hood River Valley, as people pass through

the small towns between the Mount Hood National Forest
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

13

and the Columbia River. The increase in tourism has led

to increased congestion, traffic accidents, and recreational

accidents in the national forest. The increased number of

accidents has placed greater demand on the local volunteer

fire department in the Upper Hood River Valley. The expansion in tourism has also led to increased exposure to

people who see the area, “fall in love” with it, and want to

move there. Tourism has also led to economic opportunities

in retail, lodging, restaurants, and outfitter services. All

interviewees noted an increase in tourism, although they

had differing perspectives on whether tourism had positive

or negative impacts.

The Upper Hood River Valley is experiencing demographic changes similar to other high-amenity scenic areas

close to metropolitan areas. New people, including retirees,

people working from home, and people starting up new

businesses or occupations, are moving into the Upper Hood

River Valley area, although probably not to the extent that

they are moving into the lower valley, such as areas immediately outlying Hood River. People are drawn to the

natural amenities, including clean air, clean water, and

scenic and recreational amenities.

Although the types of relations are varied, the connection between the forest and the people remains important

to the social and economic well-being of the community.

The dominant sectors of the Hood River County economy,

namely tourism/recreation and agriculture, are closely tied

to forests: water for agriculture; mountain/forest landscapes

for recreation; and scenic amenities for tourists.

Villages of Mount Hood From Brightwood to

Rhododendron

The Villages of Mount Hood from Brightwood to Rhododendron (Villages of Mount Hood) include the populated

area along Highway 26, beginning 41 miles east of Portland

in the narrow Sandy River valley. Thirteen miles east of

Sandy, the study area is defined by BGA 2842. The BGA

includes the string of villages: Brightwood, Wildwood,

Wemme, Welches, Zigzag, and Rhododendron (fig. 4). The

study area is bounded to the north, east, and south by the

Mount Hood National Forest, and encompasses portions of

several tributaries to the Sandy River including the Salmon

and Zigzag Rivers and Alder, Wildcat, and Boulder Creeks.

The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Mount Hood

Wilderness, and Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness Area are

adjacent to the study area in the Mount Hood National

Forest. In addition, there are several blocks of land under

BLM jurisdiction dispersed across the study area, including

the popular Cascade Streamwatch educational trail. The

Villages of Mount Hood population is 3,670 (U.S. Census

Bureau 2000).

Residents generally agreed that Brightwood formed a

suitable western boundary for the study area although many

interviewees wanted to extend the boundary west to include

Alder Creek and Cherryville. Owing to census block group

boundaries this was not practical, and the areas were not

included in this study. On the eastern front, there was a

divergence of opinion about whether Government Camp

should be included. All of the settlements, including

Government Camp, are considered “east county,” and are

governed by Clackamas County. Furthermore, residents

and properties are in the same school and fire districts, and

businesses have organized under a single chamber of commerce. Business interests, in particular, see Government

Camp as part of the Villages of Mount Hood community.

However, Government Camp is in a separate block group

encompassing a large area that has little relation to the

Villages of Mount Hood and it is not part of this study.

The Villages of Mount Hood’s settlement originated

with the initial Anglo-European settlement of Oregon. The

community is located along the Barlow Road near the end

of the Oregon Trail. A few families settled the area and they

remain as small enclaves along the travel route to Oregon

City. The road later became U.S. Highway 26, a major transportation route over Mount Hood to the Warm Springs Reservation, Madras, Bend, and other destinations in central

Oregon. Highway 26 has long served as the route for

visitors traveling from the Portland metropolitan area to

destinations on the Mount Hood National Forest, including

Timberline Lodge or one of the numerous ski areas, lakes,
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

14

Figure 4—Villages of Mount Hood area case-study community.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

15

or trails. Although many local businesses see the area as a

transportation corridor, there are diverse views among

residents, including those who consider the Villages of

Mount Hood a “mountain community.”

From west to east up the study area, the villages that

make up the study area transition from more strictly

commuting to more strictly recreation-based communities

and economies.

• Brightwood is characterized by a predominance of

riverside rural residential development. There are

only a handful of businesses serving the local

community, including a store, tavern, and post

office.

• Wildwood encompasses a small residential

development on the north side of Highway 26.

There are a small number of businesses along the

highway, primarily catering to tourists, including a

recreation vehicle (RV) park, restaurant, and visitor

center.

• Wemme consists of a concentration of commercial

businesses on the highway and a mix of residential

and seasonal housing off the highway. Businesses

include several eating and drinking establishments, a fly fishing shop, a hardware store, and a

few other basic goods and service businesses

serving the local population and tourists.

• Welches also consists of a concentration of

commercial businesses on the highway and

housing developments. The commercial area, with

a gas station, large grocery, post office, and coffee

shop, is the primary commercial hub serving the

study area. The village includes a golf course and

resort with a mix of housing developments ranging

from year-round residences and rentals, to timeshares and a hotel.

• Zigzag has very limited commercial services and a

number of residential properties off the highway. A

Forest Service ranger district office is located in

Zigzag. Faubion is a residential neighborhood

adjacent to Zigzag.

• Rhododendron is characterized by a limited

number of tourism- and recreation-based

businesses, including a grocery store and

restaurant. Forest Service lease properties extend

east from Rhododendron toward Government

Camp.

The Villages of Mount Hood have evolved over the

past 30 years in fits and starts away from a community with

a strong and direct relationship to the Forest Service into a

community with important social and economic ties to nonresource-related activities.

Residents observed that the local logging economy

has been in a steady decline since at least the beginning of

the 1970s and perhaps earlier. Many people noted the last

big timber sale was associated with the salvage operations

in the Bull Run watershed in the early 1980s. Although

private logging operators slowly moved out of the area or

changed careers, logging activity on the Mount Hood

National Forest continued to intensify through the late

1980s, suggesting that logging contractors came from surrounding communities and logs went to mills in outlying

areas as well. Demographic and economic trends in the

1970s and 1980s, led to a more diversified community

incorporating resort, retirement, recreation, and bedroom

community elements. The widespread real estate boom, the

development of a resort in Welches, and the widening of

Highway 26 all contributed to these changes. The community now divides into a number of fairly disparate populations, the most distinct of which are the commuters, retirees,

and seasonal residents.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

16

Mount Hood has been a popular destination for

Portland area residents seeking mountain-based recreation

since the late 1800s. Recreational uses of the Mount Hood

National Forest are heaviest in the summer and winter

months, but people visit year round. Skiing and snowboarding are the main draws in the winter, whereas hiking

and sightseeing are the largest draws in the summer, particularly visits to Timberline Lodge. The redevelopment and

expansion of the Resort at the Mountain in Welches and

subsequent development in the Villages of Mount Hood in

the 1970s enhanced Mount Hood’s reputation as a destination and seasonal mountain community. In addition, there

are over 550 Forest Service lease properties in the Mount

Hood National Forest scattered along Highway 26. These

properties are leased to seasonal residents, predominantly

from Portland, who visit regularly and recreate in the area.

The lease holders are a stable population who have a close

relationship with the forest and support a number of local

businesses. The community’s natural and built amenities,

the long-term relationship many residents and visitors have

with Mount Hood, and the area’s affordability and proximity to Portland have been the foundation of its steady

development as a retirement community.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

17

Resource and Recreation Outputs

One of the socioeconomic goals of the Northwest Forest

Plan (the Plan) was to produce a predictable and sustainable

supply of timber and nontimber forest products and recreation opportunities on federal forest lands within the Plan

area. Consistent with this goal, one of the monitoring questions posed in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision

(ROD) was, “Are predictable levels of timber and non-timber

resources available and being produced?” (USDA and USDI

1994b: 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 or commercial fishing. The following sections examine whether predictable levels of timber and nontimber

resources and recreation opportunities have been produced

on the Mount Hood National Forest since 1990, the baseline year for this monitoring program. The data presented

below were collected through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Chapter 2 is informed by

Forest Service reports and documents and interviews with

Forest Service employees. Community perceptions are not

represented in this portion of the report.

Timber, Fish, and Wildlife

The timber resource program’s goal is to help attain sustainable forest ecosystem conditions, produce a continuing

supply of forest products, and provide a positive economic

return (USDA FS 2003). The silviculture program includes

work for thinning, reforestation, genetics, prescriptions for

recreation management, site preparation, vegetation management, and more.

The allowable sale quantity1

 (ASQ) of the 1990 Mount

Hood National Forest Plan was 189 million board feet

(MMBF). Under the Plan, the probable sale quantity2 (PSQ)

was set at 67 MMBF, then lowered to 64 MMBF in 1995.

Figure 5 shows the annual harvest volumes from the forest

from 1923 to 2001. For three decades, between 1958 and

1988, the annual volume harvested averaged greater than

300 MMBF. Board feet harvested declined 90 percent

between 1989 and 1995, before leveling somewhat to preWorld War II volumes in 1996. The volumes harvested

annually were fairly stable between 1997 and 2000 at

roughly 40 MMBF (fig. 6). Since the early 1990s, the forest

has experienced a sharp decrease in budgets and outputs of

the timber and vegetation management programs. The

Mount Hood National Forest has twice offered and never

attained PSQ between 1995 and 2002 (tabulation below

and fig. 7).

Year PSQ attainment3

Million board feet

1995 36.8

1996 54.6

1997 52.7

1998 46.5

1999 26.2

2000 5.1

2001 29.3

2002 25.9

1

 Allowable sale quantity = The gross amount of timber

volume, including salvage, that may be sold annually from

a specified area over a stated period in accordance with

agency management plans (FEMAT 1993: IX-27).

2

 Probable sale quantity = The allowable harvest level that

could be maintained without decline over the long term if

the schedule of harvest and regeneration from matrix is

followed (USDI and USDA 1994a: Glossary 13).

3

 Source: Mount Hood National Forest Timber Program

office. These data include convertible products such as

firewood, posts, and poles.

Chapter 2: Trends in Socioeconomic Benefits From the Mount Hood National

Forest, 1990–2002, and the Impact of the Northwest Forest Plan
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

18

Figure 5—Volume of timber harvested, Mount Hood National Forest, 1923 to 2001. (MMBF =

million board feet). Source: Personal communication, Mount Hood National Forest Supervisor,

October 2003.

Figure 6—Volume of timber harvested on the Mount Hood National Forest, 1977–2003.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

19

Given the decreasing budgets and increasing needs of

the programs, timber program staff believes the timber

program budget will not likely be adequate for meeting the

PSQ of 64 MMBF.

The ecology program has also experienced staff and

budget cutbacks over the past decade. Despite these reductions, there has been an increased focus on inventory work

with particular attention to species that appear under survey

and manage requirements that did not receive emphasis

prior to the Plan. Inventory work on streams has helped the

Forest Service identify areas for restoration to support the

increasing emphasis on restoration, especially fisheries, as

part of the Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). The

ecology program’s watershed analyses, also conducted as

part of the Plan’s ACS, have helped in planning at the landscape level. Furthermore, this work has led to employees

working across programmatic units. The integrated approach at the watershed and landscape levels has required

increased levels of in-house coordination and planning.

The wildlife program emphasizes maintaining persistent and viable populations of native and desirable nonnative wildlife by (1) protecting and restoring biological and

physical components, functions, and interrelationships of

forested and rangeland ecosystems; (2) providing quality

recreation experiences with minimal impact to ecosystem

stability and condition; and (3) conserving populations of

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species through

recovery and management efforts (USDA FS 2003).

The fisheries program focuses on the forest’s populations of salmon, steelhead, and resident trout. There are

over 1,600 miles of fish-bearing streams on the Mount Hood

National Forest, including 300 miles of streams that support

anadromous populations of steelhead and salmon (USDA FS

2003). Although specific trend data were not reported, the

Mount Hood National Forest stated that the overall abundance of anadromous fish and bull trout continues to be

low in the streams monitored by the forest fisheries program.

Figure 7—Volume of timber harvest offered and probable sale quantity (PSQ) on the Mount Hood National Forest.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

20

Although the distribution of bull trout is reportedly expanding, the overall abundance remains low. Since the

Plan’s implementation, the forest has increased its emphasis

on partnerships with watershed councils and landowners

adjacent to the forest to assist in all aspects of fish recovery.

Causes of change and the role of the Plan—

Land use allocations (LUAs) define allowable, restricted,

and prohibited uses and activities. Land use allocations are

expressed in terms of acres or miles, etc. Each allocation is

associated with a specific management objective (USDA

and USDI 1994b). Although many of the Plan LUAs were

consistent with those found in the Mount Hood National

Forest Plan that predated it, the delineation of matrix lands,

late-successional reserves (LSR), and the development of

the ACS, including the establishment of riparian reserves,

led to an overall decrease in acreage where timber harvesting could take place. Matrix is the federal land outside

the six categories of designated areas. It is the area in

which most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities

take place. The LSRs are used in combination with other

allocations to “maintain a functional, interactive, late

successional and old-growth forest ecosystem” and to

“serve as habitat for late successional and old-growth

related species including the northern spotted owl”

(USDA and USDI 1994b). Riparian reserves are “areas

along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable

or potentially unstable areas where the conservation

of aquatic and riparian-dependent terrestrial resources

receives primary emphasis” (USDA and USDI 1994b). The

riparian reserves are interspersed throughout all land use

allocations.

The change in LUAs had a number of impacts on the

timber program’s operations and outputs. The change in

allocations interrupted existing management regimes in

areas where plantations planted prior to the Plan now fall

within the LSRs. One interviewee questioned whether the

desired LSR stand structure can be achieved given existing

regulations. The ACS, and LUAs in general, created highly

dissected lands within matrix areas, resulting in tracts of

forest where sales are a challenge to offer and consummate.

Whereas LUAs created new designations to establish

the location of various land management activities, Plan

procedural requirements affected the manner and timing of

these activities. Procedural requirements associated with

survey and manage and the ACS, in particular, added time,

cost, and uncertainty to resource management activities.

These procedural requirements were particularly burdensome during the initial years of the Plan. Although the requirements remain problematic today, recent changes in

how they are implemented have reduced their impact on

management planning and implementation. Many interviewees noted their program budgets were not adequate for

achieving Plan-prescribed PSQ sales or harvest levels given

the procedural requirements. Furthermore, they believe that

procedural requirements have served as an effective point

of leverage for public interest groups working to prevent

timber sales.

The combined effect of the change in land use allocations and the procedural requirements of the Plan has been

the additional time and cost of planning and carrying out

stand management activities and timber sales. These in turn

have contributed to a situation where supplies of timber are

unpredictable from one year to the next.

The changes in the timber program, including declining harvest levels, budgets, and staff, have affected other

programs. For instance, the genetics program is now less

active, as there is less need for planting genetically improved trees. Other programs, such as recreation, roads, fire,

and volunteers have been affected by the decline in timber

program activities and budgets. The changes in these

programs are discussed elsewhere.

Although many changes in the timber, fish, and wildlife

programs were instigated by the adoption and implementation of the Plan, budget reductions and program integration

activities that would have taken place even in the absence

of the Plan, were also identified as causes of change. The

scope of this project did not include gathering the data that

would have allowed us to analyze the extent to which the

Plan is responsible for budget declines and program integration. Some staff members indicated that, in their view,
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

21

changes in budgeting procedures that occurred independently of the Plan contributed substantially to the costs and

complexity of timber management. For example, they noted

that under the “primary purpose” funding approach, there

has not been the money in the wildlife program to do the

type of planning necessary for management actions to benefit wildlife in the LSRs.

Budgetary constraints and the Plan have both functioned to catalyze greater integration of timber, fish, and

wildlife programs to achieve resource management goals on

the forest. Reportedly, prior to the Plan, many programmatic

areas functioned as fairly independent units. They are now

more integrated. Although staff members viewed this as a

positive change that has benefited resource management,

the transition toward a more integrated approach has not

occurred without some challenges and costs. For example,

it has taken time for agency staff, particularly specialists

(botanists, hydrologists, soil scientists, etc.), to work efficiently and effectively across programmatic lines. An

integrated approach also requires a good deal of coordination and planning. At the same time, budget and staffing

declines have increased employee responsibility or shifted

the focus of their work. Some interviewees reported that

budget and staff cuts have reinforced the need for coordination and integration.

Special Forest Products

The Forest’s special forest products (SFP) coordinator is

stationed on the Estacada District, the district with the

highest level of nontimber forest product (NTFP) use on

the Mount Hood National Forest. The coordinator manages

the SFP program for all four districts on the Mount Hood

National Forest. Because of the forest’s proximity to a large

urban population and the abundance of high-value products on the forest, the SFP program is relatively large (USDA

FS 2003). The forest supplies NTFPs both for commercial

and personal use: common commercial products include

boughs for holiday wreaths, beargrass (Xerophyllum

Michx.) for floral arrangements, and mushrooms; personaluse products include carving stock, landscape greenery

transplants, mushrooms, firewood, huckleberries (Vaccinium

spp.), and Christmas trees. Firewood and Christmas trees

are the most commonly permitted personal-use NTFPs.

Although the forest makes relatively little money from

NTFPs, the products reportedly provide high value to the

users. Allowing the harvest of Christmas trees and firewood

serves an important public relations function for the forest,

particularly with respect to local communities.

The program manager reported the demand for NTFP

harvesting on the forest is strong for both commercial and

personal uses. Forest data indicates fluctuating demand for

NTFP permits between 1996 and 2002, with peaks in 2001

for many NTFPs (fig. 8). The total value of NTFP permits in

1996 was $243,343 and $194,118 in 2002 (fig. 9). The

average annual value was just under $160,000 annually.

In fiscal year 2002, sales amounted to $33,060 for firewood; figure 10 shows a downward trend in the number of

cords sold. Christmas tree sales have fluctuated over the

years (fig. 11), with sales amounting to $24,993 in 2002

(USDA FS 2003). For personal use permits, Christmas trees

and firewood constitute roughly 30 percent of the total

value of NTFPs, with bough, moss, cones, foliage, and

fungi harvesting, posts and poles, transplants, and nonconvertibles contributing the difference. For volumes of mushrooms, limbs and boughs, cones, and poles and posts see

figures 12, 13, 14, 15.

Program data indicate that the number of cords of firewood permitted has declined steadily since 1990. The program manager said that in 1994-95, roughly 2,700 to 3,000

firewood permits were sold, and 3,020 permits were issued

in 1996. The number of firewood permits sold averaged

2,225 annually between 1997 and 2002, ranging from a low

of 1,729 cords in 2000, to a high of 2,554 cords in 1994.

The price per cord remained stable at $5 to $15 per cord,

with the personal-use limit set at five cords per household.

Demand for Christmas tree permits has also fluctuated from

year to year. In 1996, 2,464 Christmas tree permits were

sold, whereas in 2002, 1,770 permits were sold. The price

of Christmas trees has been $5 per tree (limit five per household) for a number of years. The supplies of Christmas trees,
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

22

Figure 8—Number of special forest products permits sold, Mount Hood National Forest.

Figure 9—Value of special forest product permits sold, Mount Hood National Forest.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

23

Figure 10—Volume of firewood sold, Mount Hood National Forest. (Piece x 1.1/80 = cords,

cubic feet/80 = cords).

Figure 11—Number of Christmas trees sold, Mount Hood National Forest. (Linear feet/7 = 1 piece).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

24

Figure 12—Quantity of mushrooms sold, Mount Hood National Forest.

Figure 13—Quantity of limbs and boughs sold, Mount Hood National Forest. (1997 has been

omitted owing to absence of verifiable data). (Tons x 2000 = pounds).
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

25

Figure 14—Quantity of dry and green cones sold, Mount Hood National Forest.

Figure 15—Volume of poles and posts sold, Mount Hood National Forest. (1993 has been omitted

owing to absence of verifiable data). (Thousand board feet x 200 = cubic feet, linear feet x 0.3 = cubic

feet, piece x 1.1 = cubic feet).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

26

firewood, and boughs are expected to be lower in the future,

owing to the decrease in acres of regeneration forests. The

SPF program coordinator did not site specific reasons for

trends, such as peak harvests in 2001 for many NTFPs.

Causes of change and the role of the Plan—

The change in land use allocations, procedural requirements of the Plan, and the effects of decreased logging

activity have combined to reduce the predictability of

supply of NTFPs on the Mount Hood National Forest. The

decrease in matrix lands and the allocation of land in latesuccessional reserves reduced acreage available for some

NTFP harvesting activities. The ACS, and its accompanying riparian reserve requirements, impacted harvesting

activities in riparian areas, notably ending cedar harvest

for shakes and shingles. The change in land use allocations

also shifted stand management regimes, which may one

day reduce the supply of NTFPs available, such as Christmas trees and boughs.

Historically, SFP program operations have depended on

the timber program. Timber sales and related management

activities enhanced the availability of some NTFPs, such as

Christmas trees and boughs. Roads constructed to facilitate

timber harvest and provide fire protection also facilitated

access to many NTFP harvesting sites. Given the high level

of timber harvesting prior to the Plan, the NTFP manager

typically viewed certain stands with the expectation they

would be thinned and would issue NTFP permits accordingly. As stand management activities have become less

predictable, the process for identifying sites for permits has

been adapted to mesh with new forest management practices. For example, whereas permits once coincided with

timber sales that were frequent, now they coincide with

other activities, such as brush clearing along roads, that are

less consistent and more varied. The SFP program administration is more challenging and time consuming as a result.

The cost of NTFP program administration has also increased. As fewer areas are available to harvesting activities,

the process for identifying areas that meet the necessary

criteria is more complicated and time consuming. Additionally, the changes in land management have led to a great

deal of confusion among harvesters regarding what they

can harvest and where they are allowed to harvest. This

in turn has increased demands on the program manager to

communicate with harvesters to address their concerns and

to educate them on changes in forest management practices.

Finally, many areas in the forest are no longer accessible

owing to a decline in road maintenance activities and an

increase in road closures. This is due to forest management

changes that occurred as a result of the Plan’s implementation and budget constraints.

Although access to NTFPs has declined overall, the

supply of NTFPs remains sustainable. However, future supplies of some NTFPs may be available at a reduced level

owing to changes in forest management practices tied to the

Plan, such as a decline in easily accessible stands of young

trees suitable for Christmas trees. Changes in demand for

NTFPs, as indicated by permit numbers, are not clearly

linked to changes in supply, with the possible exception

of firewood. The change in firewood permits may result

from reduced supplies related to the Plan, but the demand

for permits may have diminished because fewer people are

dependent upon firewood for heat. In short, the Plan has

affected the SFP program by decreasing the area in which

certain NTFPs are open to harvesting activity and by

decreasing the predictability in some NTFP supplies.

Grazing

The range management program provides forage for

domestic livestock on lands determined suitable and capable of producing range vegetation (USDA FS 2003). A

program manager runs the range program and is responsible

for meeting with permittees, monitoring permits for compliance, communicating with permittees about the need to

move livestock, implementing range improvements, and

more. The program manager shares his time with two

national forests in the region. Owing to budgetary constraints there is no staff to assist the program manager.

Consequently, the program has been slow in aligning itself

with current management plans and programs.

The range program is relatively small, with five active

allotments on three districts, and one vacant allotment. The
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

27

permittees are local individuals, some of whom have had

permits in their family for many years. The allotments cover

about 16 percent of the total acres on the Mount Hood National Forest. The vegetative composition on the allotments

includes grass and shrub lands, meadow complexes, forested areas, and harvested lands, all located on the dry,

eastern portions of the Mount Hood National Forest. Data

supplied by Mount Hood National Forest indicate that

between 1993 and 2002 allotted acres decreased, whereas

authorized and permitted animal unit months (AUMS)

increased (table 1).

An emerging issue for the range program is user conflicts resulting from unexpected encounters between recreationists and livestock. This has occurred owing to increased

recreational uses. Allotment permits are renewed every 10

years, and there is likely to be discussion about whether or

not to renew permits in areas where recreation use is high.

Current management emphasis is on preventing resource

damage, primarily in riparian areas. To do this, the program

identifies resource improvements, such as fencing or water

developments for livestock that are incorporated into the

management plan for each allotment.

Causes of change and the role of the Plan—

To a great extent, the Plan is directed at achieving certain

forest conditions and addressing issues on the west side of

the Cascades, whereas the range program is implemented

predominately on the east side of the Cascades. This has

led to some challenges in interpreting and implementing

the range program in the context of the Plan. These issues

include land use allocations, procedural requirements, and

the effects of changes in harvest management regimes.

The change in land use allocations has had relatively

minor effects on the grazing program. One area where

changes have been felt is in the number of acres of transitory range available to livestock. Owing to the decrease in

timber harvesting and related activities, less acreage is open

to temporary use by livestock. This trend is expected to

increase and may have implications for allotments where

transitory range makes up a significant portion of the available forage and where areas with forage converge with

recreation sites.

Plan procedural requirements have increased the grazing program’s costs as well as the demands on the program

manager’s time. Interpreting the ACS in the context of range

management has been difficult; specifically, the program

has struggled with clarifying how site-specific actions (e.g.,

fencing off a stream area) fit in the context of broader watershed management goals. Furthermore, it has been challenging to ensure compliance with procedural requirements in

a cost-effective manner when dealing with allotments that

cover up to 56,000 acres. The program manager has dealt

with this issue by stratifying the acreage and focusing management attention on riparian sites. Another challenge has

been communicating with and educating cattle grazers

about the Plan’s management standards.

The supply of land for the grazing program has remained predictable. How much land will be available for

Table 1—Grazing on the Mount Hood National Forest, 1993 and 2002

Active Authorized Permitted

Year allotments/leases Allotment Permittees AUMsaAUMs

Number Acres – – – – – – – – Number– – – – – – – –

1993 5 159,787 8 3,492 4,089

2002 5 152,564 9 5,587 5,613

a

 AUMS are animal unit months.

Sources: These data are from the Northwest Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring Module, which in turn obtained

the data from the Forest Service INFRA database.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

28

future use by livestock, however, remains an open question

given the costs of administering the program and the increasing likelihood of user conflicts.

Minerals

The minerals program provides a flow of mineral resources

while maintaining compatibility with other resources potentially affected by mineral extraction (USDA FS 2003).

The minerals program on the Mount Hood National Forest

is relatively small compared with other national forests,

where there is higher supply and demand for minerals.

Rocks are acquired by a variety of contractors and users;

the Oregon Department of Transportation is the single

largest user of minerals sold on the forest. Personal use permits for small quantities of mineral material are common on

the Mount Hood National Forest, owing to the proximity of

the forest to the heavily populated Portland metropolitan

area. One employee manages the mineral program for the

entire forest. This person is the only geologist on the forest

and provides expertise to other programs where necessary.

The forest has large quantities of high-quality rock, and

with proper management, should be able to satisfy demand

for many years (USDA FS 2003). Sources of easily accessible material known as “landscape rock” are being depleted and efforts to create additional loosened, accessible

material may be needed.

The overall budget and staffing declines on the Mount

Hood National Forest have not affected the personal use

component of the mineral program; permits continue to

be issued from the front desks of each district office. Implications of budget decreases on long-term planning are

unknown. Currently funds are not going toward long-term

planning for potential quarry development. The tabulations

below indicate there have been few new mining claims and

little mining activity since the Plan was initiated. The effect

of the Plan on the minerals program has been minimal.

Some quarries have been reduced or eliminated in the past

decade, but not as a result of the Plan. Some expansions

have been delayed owing to complications arising from

survey and manage procedures. Because the forest’s use of

the material has decreased over the years with the decline of

roadwork related to the timber program, the forest anticipates being able to meet demand for resources with its

existing quarries.

Locatable minerals activity Mount Hood National Forest

New claims New plans

Year located of operation

1991 2 No data

1995 0 0

1999 0 2

2003 0 0

Salable materials removed from Mount Hood National

Forest

Year Amount

Tons

1994 No data

2000 158,538

2003 14,029

Recreation

The recreation program provides a range of year-round

developed and dispersed recreation opportunities (USDA

FS 2003). The Mount Hood National Forest estimates there

were just over 4 million recreational visits each year. Most

recreation users are from the Portland metropolitan area,

but visitors also come from across the Nation and around

the world. A recreation program officer works from the

supervisor’s office; in addition each district has a recreation

manager. Some districts have one or two additional staff in

the recreation program or staff who share duties with other

programs.

The Mount Hood National Forest contains a number of

developed recreation facilities of varying types, including

Timberline Lodge and facilities that are geared toward auto

camping, boat launching, or picnicking. Recreation use on

undeveloped sites occurs throughout the Mount Hood National Forest. Dispersed recreation activities include hiking,

rafting, kayaking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and

mountain climbing. The wilderness areas are smaller than

many other Northwest wilderness areas, and visitor trip
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

29

duration is generally short. Recreation managers report

that most recreation use is day use, and overnight uses are

decreasing. Currently, 85 percent of the use of popular wilderness trails is day use (USDA FS 2003). Between 75 to 90

percent of all campsites are operated by concessionaries.

Campground concessionaires of several popular campgrounds report that the campgrounds are often below full

occupancy, particularly midweek.

Table 2 shows an increase in the number of outfitter and

guide permits issued from 53 in 2000, to 89 in 2002. This

increase may result from the expansion of the permitting

system, particularly for rafting on the Clackamas River.

The recreation program’s budget has remained stable since

the early 1990s. At the same time, receipts have approached

the level of timber program receipts, as timber receipts have

steadily declined (see “Forest Revenue” section). The

periodic high points on recreation receipt data may coincide with good snow years when ski area use is higher (fig.

16). Overall, visits for skiing have steadily increased since

1994. Program specialists differ in their views regarding

increases in use of the forest for recreational purposes, but

all agree recreational uses are diversifying. Snowboarding,

paint balling, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use have all increased; snowboarding and paintballing represent new uses.

Program officers reported the Plan affected the recreation program. Most of the impacts derive from the procedural regulations of the Plan rather than from land use

allocations. The Plan’s procedural requirements have increased the time and cost of the planning and administrative processes. Survey and manage requirements, in

particular, were identified as increasing the cost and time

Table 2—Recreation data, Mount Hood National Forest

1989–1990

Recreation indicator (unless otherwise noted) 2001–2003

Annual forest visits 4,076,119b(2003)

Developed campgroundsaThere are over 100 developed 95c(2003)

Picnic sites campgrounds and picnic sites 18c(2003)

Number of trailheads 131c(2003)

Miles of trails 1,200a

Miles of system roadsd3,858 (1989) 3,430 (2001)

Recreation residencesc544 (2000) 589 (2002)

Acres of wilderness 186,200a189,200e

Number of outfitter/guide permitsc53 (2000) 89 (2002)

Number of downhill ski areas 5a

5

f

Lodges/hotels 3c(2003)

a Source: USDA FS Mount Hood National Forest 1990.

b

 Source: Kocis et al. 2004.

c

 Source: USDA Forest Service 2004 INFRA database.

d

 Source: Erkert 2004.

e

 Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/

f Source: Hardcopy hand-written records kept by individual ski resorts, which use them to report to the Pacific

Northwest Ski Areas Association.

Note: The Mount Hood recreation program officer stated that the recreation residence data reported here are inaccurate,

and that the number of recreation residences did not change between 2000 and 2002. The number of lodges/hotels on

the forest did not increase between 2000 and 2003.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

30

of the decisionmaking process. Trail construction or

reconstruction and hazard-tree removal were two activities

cited where survey and manage studies are required before

management activities can take place. The cost of the

studies places a financial strain on the recreation program.

High levels of planning, preparation, and costs are

associated with the Plan for most recreation development

activities. Plan regulations have reportedly reduced the

program’s flexibility to the point of inefficiency. Besides

increasing the complexity and cost to the administrative

process, the Plan also created a significant amount of

uncertainty for the recreation program. This uncertainty

results from both lack of clarity over how to manage

recreational activities in the new land use allocations and

increased public scrutiny of recreation projects. The lack

of clarity about the aquatic procedural requirements has

resulted in uncertainty when dealing with recreation sites

that intersect with riparian areas. Two affected recreation

resources include dispersed campsites and recreational

residences, both of which often fall within riparian areas

and are prevalent throughout the Mount Hood National

Forest. Several campsites have been closed, and recreational

residence permit renewals may be contingent upon meeting

the requirements of the ACS. This reportedly affects the

complexity and cost of the planning process.

These issues contribute to the concern that tradeoffs are

made in recreation management between activities that can

get through the procedural process in the quickest and least

costly way, versus activities that might provide the biggest

enhancements in long-term resource integrity. In addition,

prior to the Plan, managers could make decisions and act in

a timely manner. Managers now perceive that it is increasingly difficult to conduct business in a timely way, a situation they view as problematic given the increased demand

for an array of recreational uses.

In addition to the effects of the Plan, broader changes in

recreational uses on the forest and management trends have

also affected the recreation program. These changes include

the reduction in timber harvests, a shift to use of concessionaires and permittees, and the change in demand for

recreational opportunities.

The diminution of the timber program has added to

the management costs that the recreation program must

pay. For example, the timber program formerly supported

Figure 16—Annual visits to Mount Hood ski areas.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

31

the majority of the forest’s overhead costs. As a result of the

decline in the volume of timber sold and the associated

decrease in funds available for the timber program, the

recreation program has assumed an increased share of overhead costs even though its budget has remained relatively

flat.

Another key change in recreation management is the

Forest Service’s shift from directly providing recreational

services to delivering recreation services to visitors largely

through concessionaires and permittees, including ski area,

rafting, and campground vendors. Recreation program managers expressed concern that this trend decreases opportunities for the Forest Service to educate and communicate with

the public. This comes at the same time as office closures,

reduced operating hours, and increased use of automated

phone systems. Many Forest Service personnel believe the

agency’s lack of visibility negatively affects their ability to

manage the forest and carry out its mission.

Finally, there has been an increasing demand for a wider

array of recreational opportunities. The Mount Hood National Forest is struggling to ensure that its infrastructure is

adequate for meeting the needs and expectations of visitors.

The Mount Hood National Forest views communication as

particularly important for responding to public needs, to

clarify policy (i.e., such as why certain roads are closed),

and enforce regulations all while still meeting visitors’

expectations. It is difficult to determine if the supply of

recreational opportunities is adequate to meet current demand, and staff members are concerned whether the Mount

Hood National Forest will be able to maintain even its current level of services over the long run.

Heritage and Scenic Program

The standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan stipulate

that the Heritage Program is to locate, protect, maintain

and/or enhance significant prehistoric and historic sites for

scientific study, public enjoyment, education, and interpretation. In addition, the program ensures that American

Indian rights are protected on national forest lands and that

appropriate coordinating activities occur (USDA FS 2003).

The Heritage Program manager also manages the Columbia

River Gorge National Scenic Area.4

 The forest’s fiscal year

2002 monitoring report describes recent consultations with

nearby tribes, namely the Confederated Tribes of the Warm

Springs Reservation, but does not provide information

about how the program has changed since the Plan.

Fire

The fire management program is an umbrella program

encompassing the fire prevention, preparedness, suppression, and emergency response, aviation, and fuels programs

on the forest. The forest also dispatches its personnel to

other regional and national fire assignments.

The hazardous fuels program coordinates a collaborative approach to reduce wildland fire risk to communities

and to restore and maintain land health within fire-prone

areas (USDA FS 2003). The fuels program is part of the fire

management program but is integrated with timber sales,

precommercial thinning, and other aspects of the timber

program. The fuels program on the west side of the Cascades historically has been fairly small. The program on the

east side, although not large, has been stable. The Mount

Hood National Forest projects that it will treat 800 acres

annually for hazardous fuels. Planning for prescribed fires is

more extensive than it once was.

Although humans are the most common cause of fire

on the Mount Hood National Forest (fig. 17), they do not

result in the greatest amount of burned acreage. These fires

typically occur in the more popular recreation areas and are

expected to increase as the number of recreation users and

types of uses expand. In terms of acreage burned, between

1998 and 2002, lightning-caused fires burned 48.7 percent

of the total acres burned for that period. Human-related fires

burned 5.57 percent, and fires of unknown origin burned

45.5 percent (USDA FS 2003). According to the fire program

officer, 98 percent of the fires between 1998 and 2002 were

less than 10 acres. Five fires that burned 10 or more acres

4

 This person is now also responsible for the Heritage

Program on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

32

burned 87 percent of the total acres burned. Standards and

guidelines for some of the new land use allocations, such

as LSRs and riparian areas, have reduced the acreage and

ability to work in areas historically considered for fuel

treatments (fig. 18).

Roads

The roads/transportation program seeks to provide safe

and efficient access for people who use the transportation

system for recreation or management of the forest (USDA FS

2003). There are approximately 40 engineers in the roads

and engineering program. The roads infrastructure on the

Mount Hood National Forest is extensive, owing to decades

of intensive timber extraction. There are over 4,000 miles of

roads on the Mount Hood National Forest.

Reducing road densities in key watersheds is a primary

road objective related to the Plan and is reflected in road

obliteration and decommissioning trends. Figure 19 shows

road work trends between 1991 and 2001. The spike in road

reconstruction in 1997 reflects repairs made in response to

damage caused by storm events in 1996. Since 1992, road

densities have been reduced in 12 key watersheds and

remained unchanged in 13 key watersheds (USDA FS 2003).

The roads program has been downsized as has the road

system. Many roads have been closed or are maintained at a

lower level of service. Where there are typically a number of

routes into key recreation areas, the Mount Hood National

Forest is identifying and targeting one route into each of

these key recreation areas for road maintenance. The roads/

transportation program is currently maintaining and improving 620 miles of mainline roads, and decommissioning,

closing, or downgrading maintenance levels on the remaining 3,450 miles. This has resulted in reduced motor vehicular access to recreation areas and fewer landslides, subsequently decreasing the sediment load in waterways.

Project planning now involves specialists who carry out

procedures required under the Plan. As a result, it reportedly

takes longer to get road work done now than before the

Plan. In some cases, the delays have increased the cost of

management activities as roads have degraded further

while studies were being conducted. On the positive side,

following Plan procedures has reportedly led to the growing

awareness of the interconnectedness of various types of

management activities and better understandings of how

management actions in one program potentially affect other

Figure 17—Human-caused and naturally occurring fires. Source: USDA FS 2002.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

33

Figure 18—Acres treated by prescribed fire. Source: USDA FS 2002.

Figure 19—Road work.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

34

programs and resource integrity. The connections between

the roads program and other programs have increased,

owing to budgetary necessity and a more holistic view of

resource management. Overall, the number of miles of roads

has been reduced, and there is concern whether the supply

is adequate to meet agency and public demand.

Jobs and Income Associated With Timber,

Grazing, and Recreation

Change in Budget

The Mount Hood National Forest’s budget consists of permanent and trust funds, income from its various programs,

including recreation, and annual federal allocations. The

Forest Service receives its reforestation budget through trust

funds and annual appropriations. Figure 20 shows a steady

decline and leveling off of the annual budget for the Mount

Hood National Forest from 1993 to 2003. Funding from

permanent and trust funds declined by 82 percent. Another

source of revenue that contributes to the forest’s annual

budget is the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (Fee

Demo).

The Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (act) established

a special trust fund to collect a portion of timber sale receipts to pay for reforesting the area from which the timber

was cut. The act provided a way for national forests to tap

into funds independently of appropriations from the general

treasury. The act was amended in 1976 to allow the Forest

Service to use these funds for other activities, such as creating wildlife habitat or improving recreation facilities on the

sale area lands. The Forest Service’s oversight and management of the Knutson-Vandenberg Trust Fund (KV) and the

reforestation program is decentralized. District rangers are

ultimately responsible for overseeing the planning and

implementing of KV projects. Figure 21 shows budget

expenditures for 1993 to 2002, with predicted amounts for

1990. The KV funds were an income stream tied to timber

sales that funded management activities in a number of

programs. According to interviewees, without timber sales,

some of the activities supported through KV funds are no

longer receiving funds although the management activities

they supported are still necessary. This is particularly

evident in the road system. Many interviewees noted the

loss of KV trust funds and the number of activities they

supported. For instance, KV funds were used in the range

program for range betterment, fences, water development,

and salary support. For the range program, the decrease in

KV funds has been substantial.

The Fee Demo Program was authorized by Congress

in 1996. The program provides incentives to agencies

to charge fees by allowing the agencies to retain all the

revenues collected. Eighty percent of the fees are used for

improvements at the site where the fees were collected and

the remaining 20 percent are used agencywide.5

 Although

the Fee Demo Program has tripled recreation revenues

across the National Forest System, they doubled on the

Mount Hood National Forest, increasing from approximately $150,000 to $370,000 annually.6

 These funds

have helped to offset the loss of other funds and work that

once resulted from the timber program and harvest activities. Recreation program managers say they now use Fee

Demo dollars to support activities such as brushing (brush

removal), grading, and signing of roads that were once

funded through other programs. Such activities provided

recreation goods and services, but were largely supported

through timber budgets. One manager suggested that if the

forest achieved PSQ, they would not be using Fee Demo

dollars to brush roads, but would use those dollars for

other resource improvements. Recreation managers rely

heavily on these funds for trail maintenance and trailhead

improvements.

The Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) has been

funded at levels that would permit the region’s forests to

produce only 38 to 42 percent of its PSQ, implying that

even if the Mount Hood National Forest wanted to harvest

at Plan levels, it would be hard pressed to do so. The timber

orientation of the budgeting process does not reflect the

mix of forest and recreation management needs of the

5

 Interim Report to Congress 2002.

6

 Estimate provided by Mount Hood National Forest.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

35

Figure 20—Budget, Mount Hood National Forest.

Figure 21—Budget by program area, Mount Hood National Forest. (Source USDA FS 2003).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

36

Mount Hood National Forest. Such needs are brought on

by 4 million recreation visitors a year and the Bull Run

watershed that serves over a million residents and businesses. Managers are concerned that if the Forest Service

does not have the financial resources to meet current

demands, it will be unable to successfully manage its

natural resources for the future.

Change in Staff

The number of employees on the Mount Hood National

Forest dropped from over 700 in 1991, to about 320 fulltime equivalents (FTEs) in 2000 (fig. 22). In 2004, there

were 240 full-time employees. Because of the difficulty in

obtaining accurate data, we were not able to discern employment changes by general schedule (GS) levels. Staffing

cutbacks particularly affected the timber program and related specialist positions, including wildlife biologists and

botanists. With fewer specialists, there are a limited number

of employees qualified to perform specific functions. Reportedly, when specialists are not available to work on a

project, projects are put on hold. Additionally, the reduced

number of specialists has increased and diversified the

responsibilities of remaining specialists. A commonly held

perception is that backup people are no longer around,

employees are spread thin, and programs are “just holding

on” in their ability to achieve program goals. There are

fewer field staff members to support program areas, and

program and project managers are now doing work that was

performed by field staff employees, such as planning and

supervising volunteer activities. Program managers for the

special forest products, grazing, and minerals programs are

the only employees of their programs and cover the entire

forest, whereas a decade ago they had support staff on some

districts. Finally, many of the employees that remain are at

higher grade levels and have higher salaries. This contributes to the budget concerns within many programs.

Figure 22—Full-time equivalents (FTEs), Mount Hood National Forest. Source: Stuart 2006.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

37

Reorganization

Reorganization on the Mount Hood National Forest took

place to address declining budgets and management needs,

owing in large part to the diminution of the timber program.

For many program officers, “reorganization” meant moving

employees from the timber program into other programs.

Reorganization was also part of the forest’s effort to meet

high-priority programmatic areas, such as meeting PSQ and

emphasizing partnerships and collaboration. The program

areas that serve collaborative functions, namely public

relations, volunteer coordination, and partnerships, have

recently integrated to reduce duplication of services, to

enable better communication, coordination, and service

delivery, and to serve as a resource for staff that engage in

partnerships.

Forest Revenue

Timber receipts, which include purchaser road credits,

KV collections, and salvage sale fund payments, have been

and continue to be the largest component of collections

(fig. 23). The next most important program for collection is

recreation (fig. 24). The majority of recreation fees collected

by the Forest Service are fees from special use permits such

as recreation residences, ski areas, and outfitter guides.

These fees all go to the U.S. Treasury and are not retained

by the Forest Service. The recreation fees generated by concessionaires operating Forest Service facilities are based on

a percentage of revenue generated by the facilities and can

be used for landlord maintenance of the facilities. Fees received from facilities managed by the agency are deposited

in the U.S. Treasury and are not retained for maintenance.

Receipts collected under the Fee Demo program are not a

component of the Payments to States7

 revenue sharing.

7

 Since 1908, 25 percent of Forest Service revenues have

been returned to states in which national forest lands are

located as payment in lieu of taxes. Because receipts from

timber sales fluctuated so much over time, the Secure Rural

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000

(referred to as Payments to States) was developed to

stabilize payments to counties. Beginning in 2001 and

through September 30, 2006, payments are based on the

average of the state’s high three payments between fiscal

year 1986 and fiscal year 1999.

Figure 23 was presented to several program managers to

obtain employee perceptions of forest revenue trends in the

1990s. The recreation program manager commented that the

closing gap between timber and recreation receipts was

consistent with her perception of trends, but does not reflect

the actual economic benefit of the resources. She suggested

that the value of recreation resources to local communities

and the region, through purchases of recreation goods and

services, greatly exceeds the value of timber resources. She

also said that the value of the Bull Run Watershed as a

source of clean water for the Portland metropolitan area also

exceeds the value of the timber resources. One recreation

program manager commented that the convergence of the

timber and recreation receipts lines in figure 23 would have

been inconceivable 15 years ago.

Role of Plan in Changes in Budget and Staff

Line officers and program specialists had varying perceptions about the effect of the Plan on staffing and budget

levels. Some interviewees attributed budget and staff declines to the Plan. Some were not clear about the reasons for

change. A few noted that reduced timber harvests have led

to decreased program budgets and staff.

The 82-percent decline in KV funds–the largest single

funding stream–reduced funds available for roads and

restoration activities. This is a direct result of the reduction

in timber harvests, in part owing to the PSQ set by the Plan,

which is lower than the harvest levels in previous decades.

Many agency personnel report that the Mount Hood

National Forest’s budget has been reduced because of the

lower PSQ and the forest’s inability to attain the PSQ.

The Plan had both intended and unintended consequences on the flow of socioeconomic benefits associated

with the forest. Many interviewees noted the connection

between the declining timber program budget and the

subsequent impacts on other programs. As a line officer

described, a decade ago the forest was a large organization

with the institutional capacity to carry out many forest

management activities. Back then, it was appropriate for the

timber program to carry a large share of costs for facilities,

firefighting, and other functions because it was generating

the need for those specialists (e.g., wildlife biologists,
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

38

Figure 23—Mount Hood National Forest collection receipts by program area.

Figure 24—Mount Hood National Forest collection receipts by program area, excluding timber.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

39

engineers, etc.) and infrastructure. The forest has encountered difficulties in reconfiguring its budgets and programming to fit the new management conditions engendered by

a considerably scaled-down timber program. In part, these

difficulties stem from the large number of functions the

timber program performed or funded beyond timber

management. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the timber

program’s budget items constituted roughly 60 percent of

the forest budget. Staffs were organized and foci were set

based on supporting the timber program. When the timber

program’s budget declined, other program areas that had

previously received a large portion of their funding

through timber-related activities, also experienced declines in their budgets. Monies to support programs, such

as wildlife biology and fisheries, both of which acquired

greatly enhanced relevance beyond their timber management support functions under the Plan, were not forthcoming. Thus, when the timber program declined, the budget

for supporting those specialists decreased while the need

for their services increased under procedural requirements

under the Plan.

Procurement Contracting for Land

Management

Land Management Through Procurement Contracting

Between 1990 and 2002, the Mount Hood National Forest

spent $76.2 million procuring land management services.

Of this, the forest spent $29.7 million on labor-intensive

activities, $33.3 million on equipment-intensive activities,

and $13.1 for technical work. The Mount Hood National

Forest procured a total of $19.7 million during 1990-92 and

$16.8 million during 2000-2002, a 15-percent decline (fig.

25). The 1997 spike most likely reflects activities related to

storm events in 1996.

Most of the Mount Hood National Forest is located in

Hood River and Clackamas Counties. Data from the Federal

Procurement Data Center show that, in 1990-92, the Forest

Service spent $15 per acre on national forest land in Hood

River County and $18 per acre in Clackamas County on the

procurement of land management services. Indicative of the

overall decline in spending, by 2000-2002, these numbers

dropped to $8 and $15 per acre, respectively.

Spending on labor-intensive contracting declined

between 1990 and 2002 while procurement spending for

equipment-intensive and technical work increased (fig. 26).

The change in contract activities is reflective of a shift in

forest management activities from labor-intensive activities

to more equipment-intensive and technical work. For example, spending on tree planting, the largest category of

labor-intensive activities, declined by over 87 percent from

1990-92 to 2000-2002 (fig. 27). Simultaneously, procurement of production of seeds and seedlings, the raw materials

of tree planting activities, declined. Unlike spending for

tree planting, spending on thinning declined from 1990-92

to 1995-97, but increased again in 2000-2002. Among

equipment activities, the most noticeable change was the

increase in spending over time on road construction (fig.

28). The forest’s contract registers show that of its $4.6

million road construction spending in 1995-97, at least

$609,000 was spent on road obliteration and decommissioning. The remaining amounts could not be more clearly

identified than the general category of “road work.” Additionally, in 1995-97, the forest contracted $785,000 worth

of flood-related road maintenance and another $733,000 in

2000-2002. Other road maintenance activities included

bank stabilization, reconstruction, ripping, and subsoiling.

In addition to increased spending on equipmentintensive contracting, the forest also increased its spending

on technical work. The category, “other natural resource

management and conservation” increased throughout the

study period and represented the largest portion of technical contracting spending (fig. 29). This category includes

surveys for threatened and endangered species. The forest’s contract registers document $276,000 in 1990-92,

$948,000 in 1995-97, and $617,000 in 2000-2002 in contracted surveying. There are likely other surveys recorded

only in the Federal Procurement Data Center data that could

not be distinguished from “other natural resource management and conservation” activities. In addition to increased

spending on surveys, the forest spent more on environmental assessments and natural resource and wildlife studies,
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

40

Figure 25—Annual land management procurement spending by work type, Mount Hood National Forest.

Figure 26—Land management procurement spending by work type, Mount Hood National Forest, fiscal years 1990–92,

1995–97, and 2000–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

41

Figure 27—Labor-intensive contracting by detailed work type, Mount Hood National Forest, fiscal years 1990–92, 1995–97, and

2000–2002.

Figure 28—Equipment-intensive contracting by detailed work type, Mount Hood National Forest, fiscal years 1990–92,

1995–97, and 2000–2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

42

although these activities make up a relatively small

percentage of the overall contracting of technical activities.

Contractor Concentration and Turnover

The number of contractors working for the Mount Hood

National Forest declined by 38.7 percent (from 178 to 109)

between 1990-92 and 2000-2002. This decline was more

than double the rate of decline of the Mount Hood National

Forest’s procurement spending, which fell 15.2 percent. The

decline in contractors did not occur evenly across the size

classes of contractors. Rather, concentration increased

among contractors receiving the largest-valued contracts.

In 1990-92, 10.1 percent of the contractors captured 50 percent of the forest’s contract value. However, by 2000-2002,

5.6 percent of contractors captured 50 percent of the contract value (table 3).

Of the 178 contractors working for the Mount Hood

National Forest in 1990-92, 70 of them were no longer

working for the forest a decade later, and new contractors

replaced 98 of them. Ten contractors worked for the forest in

both periods, capturing 9.5 percent of contract value in

1990-92 and 13.4 percent in 2000-2002, indicating that a

limited number of contractors’ businesses grew slightly. On

average, these returning contractors captured more contract

value on the Mount Hood National Forest than the rest of

the contractor pool.

Location of Mount Hood Contractors

Contractors that worked on the Mount Hood National

Forest were heavily concentrated in the Willamette Valley

to the west of the forest. If we compare labor-intensive to

equipment-intensive contracting, we see that even on the

Figure 29—Technical contracting by detailed work type, Mount Hood National Forest, fiscal years 1990–92, 1995–97, and 2000–2002.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

43

Mount Hood National Forest, where the forest is close to

a major center of contracting capacity, labor-intensive

contractors came from up and down Interstate-5, whereas

equipment-intensive contractors were more concentrated in

towns and cities in and near the Portland metropolitan area

(fig. 30). For both equipment and labor-intensive contracting, there is a small scattering of distant rural contractors

who worked on the Mount Hood National Forest during the

study period.

In 1990-92, the Mount Hood National Forest awarded

contracts to contractors in and around the Portland area, as

well as throughout the Interstate-5 corridor in Oregon and

Washington. Over time, contractors became increasingly

concentrated in the Willamette Valley and in the Portland

area (fig. 31). The level of information on contracts in the

Mount Hood National Forest does not allow reliable

statistical tests to be performed. However, the apparent

increasing localization of contract recipients may be

attributable, in large part, to the decline in the amount of

labor contracting that the Mount Hood National Forest

undertook between 1990 and 2002.

Awards to Rural Contractors

The forest awarded more contract value to urban contractors

(businesses located in cities with populations of more than

50,000 people) than to rural contractors (businesses located

in communities with fewer than 5,000 people). For example,

in 1990-92, urban contractors captured 32.6 percent of the

forest’s contract value, and in 2000-2002, this number

increased to 48.2 percent (table 4). At the same time,

contract awards to rural contractors decreased slightly from

23.3 percent to 22.8 percent. Contract awards to communities with between 5,000 and 10,000 people also declined

over the study period. Given the general decline in contract

awards, rural and small-town contractors captured considerably less contract value in 2000-2002 than they did in

1990-92 (a decrease of $2.8 million).

Awards to Affected Counties

Over the course of the study period, the Mount Hood National Forest awarded 91 percent of its contract value to

contractors located in the Plan-program-affected counties

(fig. 32). The purpose of the program is to provide more jobs

to workers in counties affected by the Plan. The proportion

of contract value awarded to contractors from affected counties increased from 92.7 percent in 1990-92 to 96.8 percent

in 1995-97, but then dropped to 83 percent in 2000-2002.

The increase in contract awards during the mid 1990s may

be attributable to the Jobs-in-the-Woods program, which

sought to create new employment opportunities for people

Table 3—Number of contracting awards by size of contract, Mount Hood

National Forest, fiscal year 1990–1992 and 2000–2002

 Contracts awarded

Contract value 1990–92 2000–2002

Number Percent Number Percent

1

st quartile 4 2.25 1 0.93

2

nd quartile 14 7.87 5 4.63

3

rd quartile 31 17.42 15 13.89

4

th quartile 129 72.47 88 81.48

Total 178 100.00 109 100.93

Note: This table groups contracts by size of contract awards.

The largest contracts that together capture one-fourth of the contract value are in the first

quartile. The smallest contracts that together capture one-fourth of the contract value are

in the 4th quartile. Thus, for example, the largest 4 contracts in 1990–92 captured the

same total value as the smallest 129 contracts.

Chi square: p < 0.609.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

44

Figure 30—Comparison of labor-intensive and equipment-intensive contractor locations by ZIP code, Mount Hood National

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

45

Figure 31—Location of contractors by ZIP code and total contract awards, Mount Hood National Forest, fiscal years 1990–92

and 2000–2002.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

46

Table 4—Percentage of contract value by contractor’s community size, Mount Hood

National Forest, fiscal year 1990–1992 and 2000–2002

Community population (1998) 1990–1992 2000–2002

Real dollars Percent Real dollars Percent

<5,000 4,588,000 23.3 3,764,000 22.8

5,000-9,999 3,113,000 15.8 1,178,000 7.2

10,000-50,000 3,516,000 17.9 2,945,000 17.9

>50,000 6,406,000 32.6 7,945,000 48.2

Unknown 2,042,000 10.4 641,000 3.9

Total 19,664,000 100.0 16,472,000 100.0

Chi square: p < 0.064.

Chi square: p < 0.065 (excluding unknown category).

Figure 32—Contract awards to Plan-affected counties, Mount Hood National Forest.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

47

displaced by the decline of the timber industry by training

them in restoration and technical work. However, this effect

was short lived.

Procurement Summary

Procurement spending on the Mount Hood National Forest

declined less than for the Forest Service as a whole during

the study period (Moseley 2006). Contracting for laborintensive activities and activities associated with intensive

forest management shifted toward ecosystem management

work. Despite this shift, the Mount Hood National Forest

contracted activities associated with timber management

activities into the late 1990s. Procurement spending on the

forest did not decrease significantly over the study period,

but spending per acre decreased. Rural and small-town

contractors captured a lower percentage of contract value

by the end of the study period. However, local contractors

in the greater Portland area appear to have captured more

contracts than distant contractors by 2000-2002.

Community Economic Assistance

Changes in Community Assistance/Grant Programs

Community Economic Assistance made available by

the Mount Hood National Forest increased substantially

between 1994 and 2002 as a result of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI). The Rural Community

Assistance (RCA) program was initially administered by

program staff located on each district. Between 1992 and

2003, communities and counties around the Mount Hood

National Forest received approximately $47.7 million in

grants and loans associated with the NEAI (table 5), disbursed through the forest’s RCA, USDA Rural Development, the Economic Development Administration, and the

Department of Labor. For example, the RCA program

awarded approximately $588,000 in grants and another

$575,000 in Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts to entities in

Hood River and Clackamas Counties. The NEAI grants

funded small business development, worker retraining,

physical infrastructure development, planning activities,

and community development projects. As part of the NEAI,

the Mount Hood National Forest awarded approximately

$100,000 for planning activities, $350,000 for physical

infrastructure, and the remaining funds for technical

assistance (table 6).

The RCA program’s funding was cut to pre-Plan levels

when the NEAI ended in 2000; one program coordinator

remains on the Mount Hood National Forest. New sources

of funds have been made available to communities through

resource advisory committees (RACs) as part of the Secure

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

Funds are also available through the National Fire Plan.

Mount Hood National Forest staff reported that interagency coordination increased during the administration

of NEAI funds. Some reported that because the funds were

administered at a regional level, however, the role of the

forest in contributing funds to a local community was not

always obvious. As a result, the program did little to retain

or reestablish relations between communities and the forest.

Payments to County Governments

Under the Payments to States Act of 1908, county governments received 25 percent of National Forest revenues generated through collection receipts. Timber receipts (including purchaser road credits, KV collections, and salvage

sale fund payments) were reportedly the largest source

of revenue to the Mount Hood National Forest during

the 1970s and 1980s. The 25-percent payments to counties

were used by counties to fund public schools and roads. In

1993, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act, which provided an alternative payment to 72 counties

in Washington, Oregon, and northern California affected by

the drop in federal timber harvest and associated timber

revenues that resulted from administrative and judicial

decisions designed to protect the northern spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis caurina). These payments were known

as “spotted owl safety nets” or “owl guarantee payments.”

Under this act, counties were to receive a declining percentage of the average annual payment they received between

1986 and 1990. This percentage would decline until the
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

48

Table 5—Economic program grants to communities, Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, 1992–2000

Year of Amount

award funded Applicant Project name

Dollars

1994 5,500 Clackamas County Establish North Clackamas County Watershed

Council

1994 385,912 Employment Training and Business Dislocated worker training

Services

1994 429,559 Employment Training and Business Dislocated worker training

Services

1994 120,072 Estacada Estacada Industrial Park Waterline Extension

1994 382,500 One business Guaranteed loan

1994 67,500 Two businesses Guaranteed loans

1994 425,880 Two businesses Guaranteed loans

1994 70,505 Oregon Consortium Dislocated worker training

1994 1,039,205 Seven businesses Guaranteed loans

1994 95,994 Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts

1994 39,000 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Planning grant

Reservation

1994 1,000,000 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Infrastructure, machinery for mill site

Reservation

1994 27,900 Maupin Visitor center parking area

1994 70,505 Oregon Consortium Dislocated worker training

1994 25,000 Wasco County Strategic action plan

1994 52,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Capacity building

District

1994 63,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Planning grant

District

1995 810,350 Colton Water system improvements

1995 8,065,835 58 businesses Guaranteed loans

1995 68,847 Sabin Skills Center, North Clackamas Project bridge

School District

1995 194,000 Oregon Consortium Dislocated worker retraining

1995 2,241,882 Seven businesses Guaranteed loans

1995 200,000 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Warm Springs Composite Products

Reservation

1995 250,000 Maupin Maupin City Park and comfort station: phase 2

1995 128,000 Oregon Consortium Dislocated worker retraining

1995 88,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Columbia Gorge economic opportunity study and

District industrial land inventory

1995 137,472 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Capacity building

District

1995 34,097 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Comprehensive analysis

District

1995 29,100 Wasco County Soil and Water Fifteenmile Creek watershed improvement

Conservation District project phase 1

1996 5,957,000 City of Sandy Sewer system planning, design and construction

1996 4,917,500 City of Sandy Tickle Creek stormwater runoff treatment

1996 45,000 City of Estacada Estacada storm drainage master plan
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

49

Table 5—Economic program grants to communities, Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, 1992–2000 (continued)

Year of Amount

award funded Applicant Project name

Dollars

1996 200,000 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Warm Springs water treatment plant automation

Reservation

1996 32,205 Wasco County The Kitchen Collaborative

1996 160,000 Wasco County Columbia Gorge Discovery Center and Wasco

County Historical Museum

1996 32,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Comprehensive analysis

District

1997 33,334 Clackamas County Development Agency Technical assistance for Molalla and Estacada

1997 150,060 Port of Cascade Locks Port of Cascade Locks marina project

1997 175,000 Hood River Hood River County economic development

action plan

1997 55,000 Columbia Gorge Community College Columbia Gorge Community College commercial

kitchen

1997 13,700 South Wasco County High School South Wasco County community kiosk

1997 60,000 Wasco County Wasco County infrastructure project 2000

1997 80,000 Wasco County Riverfront Trail

1997 40,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development WASCO 2000

District

1997 175,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Capacity building

District

1997 16,000 White River Health and Living White River Health and Living Center—initial

Center, Inc. project consultation

1998 3,079,500 City of Estacada Estacada water system improvements

1998 27,000 City of Estacada Wastewater facility plan

1998 10,000 City of Dufur Dufur wastewater treatment system improvements

1998 117,955 Port of The Dalles Chenoweth Creek site subdivision and infrastructure

development

1998 54,000 Wasco County The Dalles Convention Center design

1999 2,152,600 City of Estacada Industrial property infrastructure extension

1999 4,983,189 City of Hood River Wastewater treatment plant renovation

1999 398,569 Port of Cascade Locks Industrial park infrastructure improvement phase II

1999 36,000 City of Mosier Waterfront project

1999a

80,000 City of The Dalles Downtown renaissance

1999 450,000 Public Works Department Chenoweth area storm sewer

1999 50,000 Wasco County Discovery Center water treatment improvement

project

1999 1,000,000 Mid-Columbia Economic Development Loan: small business revolving loan fund for rural

District Wasco, Sherman, and Hood River Counties

Total 41,128,227

a

Indeterminate additional funding was received in 2000.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

50

Table 6—Economic program grants to communities, Mount Hood National Forest, 1994–2000

Year Amount

award funded USFS Applicant Project name

– – – Dollars – – –

1994 11,890 11,890 Government Camp Government Camp trail information network

1994 30,996 30,996a

Estacada Community Action Plan

1994 394,758 394,758 Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts

1994 5,500 Clackamas County Establish North Clackamas County Watershed

Council

1994 385,912 Employment Training and Business Dislocated worker training

Services

1994 429,559 Employment Training and Business Dislocated worker training

Services

1994 120,072 Estacada Estacada industrial park waterline extension

1994 382,500 One business Guaranteed loan

1994 67,500 Two businesses Guaranteed loans

1994 425,880 Two businesses Guaranteed loans

1995 810,350 Colton Water system improvements

1995 8,065,835 58 businesses Guaranteed loans

1995 32,000 32,000a

Estacada Chamber of Commerce Fisher Fabrication modernization

1995 68,847 Sabin Skills Center, N. Clackamas Project bridge

School District

1996 5,957,000 City of Sandy Sewer system planning, design, and

construction

1996 4,917,500 City of Sandy Tickle Creek stormwater runoff treatment

1996 22,500 22,500 City of Molalla Main Street program (revitalizing downtown

Molalla)

1996 45,000 City of Estacada Estacada storm drainage master plan

1997 29,892 29,892 Molalla Molalla River Civic Auditorium equipment

1997 33,334 Clackamas County Development Technical assistance for Molalla and Estacada

Agency

1998 3,079,500 City of Estacada Estacada water system improvements

1998 60,000 60,000 City of Molalla Bear Creek Green Space Trail engineering

and planning

1998 27,000 City of Estacada Wastewater facility plan

1999 22,500 22,500 Clackamas County Development Geothermal heating district

Agency

1999 2,152,600 City of Estacada Industrial property infrastructure extension

Total 27,578,425 604,536

a

 Forest Service-Rural Community Assistance grant.

Source: William M. Kay/Forest Community Research.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

51

year 2003, when it would have reached 58 percent of the

1986-90 average, and then expire.

In 2000, Congress replaced the spotted owl safety net

measure with the Secure Rural Schools and Community

Self-Determination Act, set to expire in 2006. Under this

act, counties receive money each year equal to the average

of the payments received during the three highest years

between 1986 and 1999. At least 85 percent of this money

must be used to fund education and transportation projects

(Title I). The remaining 15 percent is used to fund RACs

and their activities (Title 2), and the general county budget

(Title 3). Resource advisory committees were established

by the act to promote collaborative relationships and to

advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the use of Title 2

money. They comprise 15 members that represent a balance

between the environmental community; industry, commodity, and recreation interest groups; and government officials,

educators, and general members of the public. Resource

advisory committees review and recommend funding for

projects that are proposed by members of the public. These

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 occur on federal land, or on

nonfederal land where they would benefit federal land. Not

only do RACs promote collaborative relationships between

members of the public and federal agencies, the projects

they fund provide employment opportunities for local

residents.

Figure 23 summarizes the downward trends in forest

collection receipts that occurred on the Mount Hood National Forest between 1988 and 2001. Revenues generated

by nontimber programs were meager compared with those

that had come from the timber program. Figure 33 shows

the amount of money county governments received from

the Mount Hood National Forest between 1990 and 2002.

The “Not Adjusted” bars to the left represent the amount

that county governments would have received based on

25 percent of the Mount Hood National Forest collection

receipts alone, without the mitigating legislation. The “Owl

Adjusted” bars to the right indicate the amount of money

that county governments actually received under the owl

safety net payments and the Secure Rural Schools Act. The

act resulted in substantially higher payments to counties

than they would have received through forest revenue

sharing alone. The Secure Rural Schools Act has provided

the highest level of payments to counties since 1990.

Figure 34 shows how these payments have been distributed

between the counties that contain Mount Hood National

Forest land. This demonstrates the importance of mitigation

measures for maintaining a stable flow of payments to

counties.

Summary of Trends in Socioeconomic

Benefits

Resource and Recreation Outputs

Under the Plan, the PSQ was set at 67 MMBF and then

lowered to 64 MMBF in 1995. Board feet harvested declined 90 percent between 1989 and 1995. The Mount

Hood National Forest offered the PSQ only twice between

1994 and 2001.

The roads/transportation program is currently maintaining and improving 620 miles of mainline roads, and decommissioning, closing, or downgrading maintenance levels

on the remaining 3,450 miles. Since 1992, road densities

have been reduced in 12 key watersheds and remained

unchanged in 13 key watersheds (USDA FS 2003).

The total value of NTFP permits for commercial and

personal use was $243,343 in 1996 and $194,118 in 2002.

The average annual value is just under $160,000. Christmas

trees and firewood permit sales constitute roughly 30 percent of the total value of NTFPs, with bough, moss, cone,

foliage, and fungi harvesting, posts and poles, transplants,

and nonconvertibles contributing the difference.

Over 4 million recreational users visit the Mount Hood

National Forest each year seeking developed and dispersed

recreation opportunities. Recreational uses are diversifying,

and snowboarding, paintballing, mountain biking, and

OHV use have all increased. At the same time, concessionaires of several campgrounds report that the campgrounds
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

52

Figure 33—Mount Hood National Forest payments to counties 1990–2002. Source: Philips 2003.

Figure 34—Distribution of payments to counties, 2000.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

53

are often below full occupancy, particularly midweek.

Between 75 and 90 percent of all campsites are now

operated by concessionaries.

The Minerals, Heritage and Scenic, and Fire programs

changed little or insufficient data were available to determine changes since the implementation of the Plan.

Jobs and Income Associated With Timber,

Grazing, and Recreation Programs

Funding from permanent and trust funds declined by 82

percent. In 1991, KV trust funds were the largest budget

item totaling $15 million. By 2000, KV trust funds declined

to approximately $2.5 million. Employment on the Mount

Hood National Forest dropped from over 700 FTEs in 1991,

to about 320 FTEs in 2000. In 2003, there were 240 fulltime employees. The Fee Demo Program has resulted in an

increase of funds available for recreation, approximately

$350,000 annually.

Community Economic Assistance

Between 1992 and 2003, communities and counties around

the Mount Hood National Forest received approximately

$47.7 million in grants and loans associated with the Plan;

$588,000 was disbursed through the forest’s RCA program.

Payments to County Governments

Payments to county government decreased from roughly

$13 million annually in 1990 to $8 million in 2000.

Payments have since increased to just over $14 million

annually as a result of the Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000

and will remain at that level through fiscal year 2006.

Linking Change in Flow of Socioeconomic

Benefits to the Plan

The trends above indicate there was change in the nature

of the socioeconomic benefits associated with the forest,

including a demonstrable decline in the flow of benefits to

communities near the forest. A number of forces affected

resource and recreation outputs on the forest. These include

but are not limited to land use allocations, procedural

requirements, and staff and budget reductions. Land use

allocations and procedural requirements were part of the

Plan. However, we were not able to determine the extent to

which budget and staffing reductions were linked to the

Plan. It is clear, though, that budget and staff reductions

directly affected the flow of socioeconomic benefit.

Land Use Allocations and Procedural

Requirements

The shift in natural resource management goals were expressed in part by new or altered LUAs. Land use allocations define allowable, restricted, and prohibited uses and

activities and are associated with specific management

objectives (USDA and USDI 1994b). Across the region,

the most notable changes in LUAs under the Plan were

the decrease in land available to timber harvesting (i.e.,

of matrix lands), an increase in land with much greater

restrictions on timber harvesting (i.e., LSRs), and the development of the ACS, which included the establishment

of riparian reserves. The Mount Hood National Forest had

considerable acreage in LSR-like allocations, namely wilderness areas and the Bull Run watershed, prior to the Plan

and had provisions for riparian area management. However,

the change in land use allocations under the Plan reduced

the amount of acreage available for timber production,

special forest products, access to recreational resources,

and fuels management.

Plan procedural requirements affected the manner and

timing of management activities taking place in the newly

established land use allocations. Procedural requirements

and administrative processes–survey and manage requirements in particular–added time, cost, and uncertainty to

resource management activities. The time, cost, and

uncertainty of resource management activities led to lower

predictability of the supplies of resources available for harvest or extraction on the Mount Hood National Forest in

the near term. The obstacles—time, cost, and uncertainty–

presented by procedural requirements at the outset of the

Plan remain problematic today, albeit to a lesser extent.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

54

Interviewees reported that procedural requirements have:

• Rendered timber program budgets inadequate for

achieving PSQ sales or harvest levels indicated in

the Plan.

• Reduced funds available for overall program

management needs.

• Reduced the recreation program’s capacity to

construct and reconstruct trails and conduct

ongoing maintenance activities, such as hazardtree removal.

• Increased the need of forest employees to

communicate with and educate forest users to

ensure compliance with new regulations.

The lack of clarity about LUAs and how to apply procedural

requirements of the Plan has contributed to the delays and

increased the cost of management activities. Interviewees

reported the following:

• Interpreting the ACS in the context of range

management has been difficult: specifically,

clarifying how site-specific actions (e.g., fencing

off a stream area) fit in the context of achieving a

broader watershed management goal.

• The lack of clarity about the aquatic procedural

requirements has resulted in uncertainty when

dealing with recreation sites that intersect with

riparian areas.

• Work delays and increases in the costs of

management activities: roads have degraded

further while studies were being conducted.

• Procedural requirements of the Plan have served as

a point of leverage for environmental interest

groups to bring legal action against the forest.

Probable Sale Quantity and Implications of the

Decline of the Timber Program

The forest’s 64 MMBF PSQ level under the Plan is viewed

by several program and line officers as a commitment to

nearby communities and to the region. For most years since

the initiation of the Plan in 1994, the forest has been unable to deliver 64 MMBF in timber sales. Some employeeinterviewees perceive this as a failure in the Mount Hood

National Forest’s ability to honor its commitments to local

communities.

At least one staff person perceived that budgeting

processes at the national level have reallocated dollars

away from regions that seem less able to get the cut out to

those that are able to deliver timber volumes closer to the

PSQs noted in the Plan.

The change in management activities has resulted in a

shift in procurement contracting trends. Where stand management activities and contracts were once common, contracts for surveys and road work (decommissioning) are now

more common. This has affected the location and distribution of businesses that receive contracts to work on the

forest. Many of the contracts to do survey and other intensive work have been awarded to contractors on the Interstate-5 corridor as opposed to those based in the study or

other buffer communities. The Plan had immense impacts

on timber harvest levels and harvest-related activities, as

indicated by the reduction in volumes harvested and the

consistent below-PSQ level of timber sales.

In anticipation of the loss of income that resulted

from decreased timber sales, two programs were strengthened or otherwise altered to ensure that the flow of capital

to communities would continue. The Economic Assistance

Program (EAP) was significantly expanded from 1994 to

2000 to replace the loss of timber and related jobs, and to

help communities transition away from timber dependency.

Likewise, payments to county governments that were

linked directly to timber sales were supplemented temporarily through the spotted owl guarantee system to ensure

county governments received funds for roads and schools.

As of 2004, the EAP had become virtually nonexistent, but

the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes remained in place.

We were not able to determine the extent that budget

and staff cuts from 1994 onward can be attributed to the

Plan. However, several issues associated with staff and

budget cuts bear mentioning. The budget and staff cutbacks
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

55

have affected the Mount Hood National Forest’s ability to

achieve some programmatic goals in a timely and effective

manner. This, in turn, has affected its ability to maintain

effective working relations in the communities adjacent to

the Mount Hood National Forest and with the numerous

stakeholders who use or are concerned about the Mount

Hood National Forest. Additionally, the recreation program

that serves millions of forest users each year, is not able to

meet all the demands and needs of society. Managers of

the recreation, NTFP, and grazing programs note that the

diminishing number of forest personnel has led to a situation in which the forest has less contact and communication with the public and permit holders. As a result, forest

personnel have fewer opportunities to educate, share information, and build connections with the public. Employees

are concerned the decrease in connections with the public

will compromise the ability of the forest’s programs to fulfill

their objectives.

Compounding the limitations imposed by lean staffing

levels, specialists have encountered difficulties in planning

and prioritizing their work owing to the lack of clarity

about agency priorities. These types of inefficiencies and

frustrations were mentioned for projects relating to fuel

management, timber planning, fisheries, recreation, and

others. For instance, a silviculturist may be needed for both

a recreation and a timber project, yet it may not always be

clear which project has priority.

The socioeconomic goal of the Plan was to produce a

predictable and sustainable supply of timber and NTFPs,

as well as recreation opportunities on federal forest lands

within the Plan area. Answering the monitoring question,

“Are predictable levels of timber and non-timber resources

available and being produced?” can help assess whether

this goal is being achieved. This analysis suggests that

the answer differs by the resource in question. For example,

the volume of timber put up for sale by the Mount Hood

National Forest from 1994 to 2003 was significantly lower

than the volumes sold in years prior to the Plan, and also

has been relatively unpredictable, ranging from a high of 75

MMBF in 1997 to a low of 5.1 MMBF in 2000. In contrast,

although the volume of firewood sold by the forest also

declined significantly from pre-Plan levels (from an average

of roughly 11,000 cords per year from 1990 through 1993

to an average of roughly 3,950 cords per year from 1994 to

2002), the amounts sold annually since 1994 have been

somewhat steady, with a high of 5,803 cords in 1994 and a

low of 2,947 cords in 2000.

The Plan does not appear to have significantly affected

availability of livestock forage or minerals from the forest,

neither in terms of absolute quantities nor in terms of variability in quantities available from year to year. Recreation

program managers report that a combination of budget cuts,

reduced staffing levels, and procedural requirements of the

Plan has resulted in disinvestment in the forest’s recreational infrastructure, such as trails and dispersed camping

sites. However, the statistical data on Mount Hood National

Forest’s recreational use and facilities is inadequate to

permit us to draw clear conclusions regarding the predictability in availability of recreational opportunities since

the implementation of the Plan. Similarly, the data for

Christmas trees is inadequate to determine whether the

observed decline in number of permits (which predated the

Plan by 2 years) is linked to lack of supplies or to changes

in demand. Likewise, the data for other NTFPs, such as wild

mushrooms, boughs, and posts and poles, do not permit us

to determine whether changes observed in numbers of

permits issued are due to supply or demand factors.

The interview data suggest that the Plan has had shortand long-term impacts on the capacity of the Mount Hood

National Forest to provide predictable flows of socioeconomic benefits. In the short term, higher levels of planning,

preparation, and costs have been associated with the Plan

for most resource management activities. Plan regulations

have reportedly reduced the timber, roads, and recreation
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

56

program flexibility to the point of inefficiency and sometimes inaction. Despite the overly prescriptive nature of the

Plan, many Forest Service employees believe that they have

overcome many of the procedural and land use allocation

obstacles and found ways to achieve resource management

goals.

Program managers interviewed during this study expressed concerns about the potential effects of the Plan’s

requirements in the long term. Specifically, they noted that

they often must make tradeoffs between management

activities that they know will get through the procedural

process in the quickest and least costly way, versus activities that might provide the biggest enhancement in longterm resource integrity. Additionally, many managers

expressed frustration over the length of time it now takes to

make decisions regarding resource management actions. In

particular, recreation program managers stated that in their

view, the delays they experienced in decisionmaking

hampered the Mount Hood National Forest’s ability to meet

the growing demand for an array of recreational uses.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

57

Introduction

Chapter 3 focuses on three case-study communities associated with the Mount Hood National Forest, using them to

assess the following: (1) how communities around the

Mount Hood have changed since 1990; (2) how changes in

forest management and the flow of socioeconomic benefits

from the forest under the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan)

have contributed to those changes; (3) how communities

have adapted to change, and the role the forest has played

in helping them do so; and (4) changing relations between

the Mount Hood National Forest and the case-study communities since 1990. This assessment is informed by U.S.

census data and interviews with community residents.

Statements made by residents are noted when they reflect

commonly held views or when they are indicative of the

range of perspectives that exist within the community.

To put the case-study communities in perspective, we

examined changes in community socioeconomic wellbeing that occurred between 1990 and 2000 in all of the

communities lying within 5 miles of Mount Hood National

Forest boundaries. Each community was ranked on a scale

of 1 to 5, with 1 representing very low well-being, and 5

representing very high well-being. The well-being index

was calculated on the basis of six U.S. census indicators

(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 of Arts degree

or higher, average travel time to work, and diversity of

employment by industry. Well-being as reported here serves

as a coarse indicator of the nature of change that has occurred in communities around the forest since 1990. Figure

35 shows that more communities within 5 miles of the

Mount Hood National Forest had low well-being in 2000

than in 1990, and that there was a corresponding drop in the

number of communities that had high well-being during

this period. Table 7 shows the change in socioeconomic

well-being in the three case-study communities. The socioeconomic well-being average for the Villages of Mount

Hood decreased slightly, from 73.74 to 72.97, while that of

the Upper Hood River Valley increased slightly, from 71.31

to 72.01. The Greater Estacada Area had a higher percentage

decrease in socioeconomic well-being, dropping from 61.74

to 58.36. The case examples provide deeper insight into the

observed changes in social and economic well-being.

Greater Estacada Area

Community Change and the Effects of Forest

Management Policy

Population in the Greater Estacada Area increased 11 percent, from 8,098 in 1990 to 8,335 in 2000. Change in the

racial composition of the local population cannot be

adequately determined because the U.S. Census Bureau

collected these data differently in 1990 and 2000. However

in 2000, about 90 percent of the area’s population was

Caucasian. As to changes in ethnic diversity, the Hispanic

population more than doubled, from 260 people in 1990 to

682 people in 2000. Hispanics now make up 7.3 percent of

the area’s population (table 8).

The median age in the Greater Estacada Area increased

at nearly three times the rate of the whole county’s age

increase. However, at 37.4, it remains a tick under 37.5, the

median age of Clackamas County residents (table 8). In

terms of age distribution, the Greater Estacada Area lost

34.1 percent of its 0–4-year-old population and 15.8 percent of its 20–29-year-old population. It experienced a 2.1

percent increase in its 30–44-year-old age group. The 45–

64-year-old age cohort grew most rapidly, increasing by

62.3 percent. The same age group increased roughly 56

percent in Clackamas County. The 65-and-older cohort

also increased but only by 2.5 percent (table 9). The area’s

school-age population increased nearly 15 percent, and as a

Chapter 3: Community-Level Change and the Impact of the

Northwest Forest Plan
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

58

Figure 35—Socioeconomic well-being of communities within 5 miles of the Mount Hood National Forest.

Table 7—Socioeconomic well-being (SEWB) in case-study communities near the Mount Hood

National Forest, 1990 and 2000

1990 2000

Case-study SEWB Average SEWB Average

communities category SEWB category SEWB Change Change

Percent

Greater Estacada Medium 61.74 Low 58.36 -3.38 -5.47

Area

Villages of Mount High 73.74 Medium 72.97 -0.77 -1.05

Hood from

Brightwood to

Rhododendron

Upper Hood River Medium 71.31 Medium 72.01 0.70 0.98

Valley

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

59

Table 8—Greater Estacada Area and Clackamas County population, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, Greater Estacada Area 8,098 8,335 3.00

Total population, Clackamas County 268,989 308,512 21.35

Population by race, Greater Estacada Areaa:

Total Caucasian population 8,335

Total African American population 0

Total Native American population 135

Total Asian population 91

Other 412

2+ races (recorded in the 2000 census only)a342

Hispanic population (percent) 3.10 7.32 136.13

Median age, Greater Estacada Area 31.7 37.4 17.98

Median age, Clackamas County 35.2 37.5 6.53

a

 Census questions about race were different in 1990 and 2000 and are not comparable, so 1990 data cannot

be shown.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Table 9—Age distribution, Greater Estacada Area and Clackamas County population, 1990 and

2000

Age classes

0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 Greater Estacada Area 718 2,069 1,189 2,018 1,572 830

2000 Greater Estacada Area 473 2,377 1,001 2,061 2,552 851

Change (percent) -34.12 14.89 -15.81 2.13 62.34 2.53

1990 county 19,373 61,969 33,239 75,740 56,543 31,986

2000 county 21,875 74,796 37,475 78,395 88,327 37,523

Change (percent) 12.91 20.70 12.74 3.51 56.21 17.31

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

60

result, school enrollment has also increased, by 13.4 percent (table 10). These data indicate that Clackamas County

and Greater Estacada Area are increasingly populated by

a middle-aged population, including some families with

school-age children. The percentage of the population

with high school diplomas, bachelor’s degrees, and graduate degrees has increased but remains lower than in surrounding areas.

The median household income in the Greater Estacada

Area increased 11.4 percent between 1990 and 2000. In

1990, the average household in the Greater Estacada Area

earned $35,898 (2000 dollars), 82 percent of the county

average (table 11). That gap increased in 2000, when the

median household in the Greater Estacada Area earned

$40,010, falling to 77 percent of the county median.

Despite the rise in median household income, the percentage of the population living in poverty increased, from

11.5 percent in 1990 to 12.4 percent in 2000. During the

same period, poverty decreased from 6.9 to 6.6 percent in

Clackamas County.

In the 10-year period between 1990 and 2000, the

unemployed population increased from 8.5 percent to 9.6

percent. The number of people employed in agriculture,

forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining decreased 25 percent,

from 239 to 179. Forestry and agriculture are both in the

same census category and it is likely that the growth of

employment on Christmas tree farms and in nurseries

obscures the full extent of the decline in people reporting

employment in forestry. There was an 11-percent decline in

the number of residents reporting employment in manufacturing, from 781 to 694. At the same time, employment in

transportation and utility industries increased 52 percent,

from 185 to 281. The construction industry and the education, health, and social service industry each increased just

less than 50 percent. Only moderate increases occurred in

the percentage of people employed in professional services,

such as finance and real estate.

Figure 36 shows employment by each industry as a

percentage of total employment. Relative to other categories, agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining, and

manufacturing had the biggest decreases in percentage of

total employment (2.2 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively), whereas construction, and education, health, and

social services had the greatest increases (2.8 percent and

3.7 percent, respectively).

Residents of the Greater Estacada Area attributed the

decline along various dimensions of well-being to the

spotted owl injunctions in the late 1980s and subsequent

changes in forest management on the Mount Hood National

Forest. Although respondents noted that forest management

was not directly responsible for all of the changes in the

area, most people identified it as the impetus for change,

and thus partly attribute the protracted decline of timberrelated businesses and the constriction of the local

economy to forest management policy. There was lack

of clarity about the relation between forest management

policies and changes in the community, but most residents

stated that the reductions in timber harvests, loss of employment opportunities for logging contractors, the downsizing

of the Forest Service, and curtailments in local mill activity

were connected.

The changes in the timber industry and employment

trends caused a broad constriction of the local economy.

Many residents described a stagnating local economy,

noting that timber-related business, such as fueling stations and logging supply stores, had closed down, downsized, or changed their focus. As a result, a number of other

retail businesses closed down. Businesses in the city of

Estacada now serve a smaller number of people who are, for

one reason or another, dependent on local goods and

services. According to interviewees, these changes created

hardship for many residents and businesses.

The decline in timber harvesting and harvest-related

business activities caused profound shifts in the community’s social and economic composition. The mill

stopped buying federal timber sales, and its operations

have fluctuated over the years; opportunities for logging

and other contractors diminished perhaps 90 percent, and

the Forest Service closed and downsized local offices. The

result was a substantial drop in employment opportunities

and earnings for area residents and an outmigration of the
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

61

Table 10—Education indicators, Greater Estacada Area and Clackamas County, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, Greater Estacada Area 1,832 2,078 13.43

School enrollment, county 55,146 71,830 30.25

Completed high school, Greater Estacada Area (percent) 76.30 80.08 4.95

Completed high school, county (percent) 85.67 88.95 3.83

Bachelor’s, graduate, professional degrees, Greater

Estacada Area (percent) 9.67 14.07 45.50

Bachelor’s, graduate, professional degrees, county (percent) 23.63 28.37 20.06

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Table 11—Economic indicators, Greater Estacada Area and Clackamas County, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

 – – Dollarsa – – Percent

Median household income, Greater Estacada Area 35,898 40,010 11.45

Median household income, Clackamas County 43,955 52,080 18.48

– – – – – – Percent – – – – – –

Unemployed, Greater Estacada Area 8.49 9.63 13.43

Unemployed, Clackamas County 4.23 5.00 18.20

In poverty, Greater Estacada Area 11.50 12.40 7.83

In poverty, Clackamas County 6.92 6.56 -5.20

a

 Adjusted for inflation.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Figure 36—Employment by industry for Greater Estacada Area.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

62

0-to-4 and 20-to-44-year-old segments of the population.

The decrease in local job opportunities prompted many

residents to obtain work requiring them to commute to

Clackamas, Oregon City, and other locations in the Portland

metropolitan area.

Perhaps owing to the dynamic nature of the area, business turnover has been steady for the past 10 to 15 years.

Many of the people who moved to the Greater Estacada

Area, predominantly into the unincorporated areas, retained

their jobs in the Portland metropolitan area. Combined with

the increase in number of long-term residents commuting,

this has further hastened its transition into a bedroom

community.

Adaptation to Change and the Role of Forest

Service Assistance

Individuals, groups, and governmental entities in and

around Estacada implemented a number of strategies to

assist the community in adapting to changing social and

economic circumstances. These efforts included broadbased community planning, infrastructure upgrades to

spur business and industrial development, uncoordinated

individual and group efforts, and “belt-tightening” measures by local government to make the most of scarce resources. Residents responded to the decrease in the number

of available timber industry jobs in different ways. A

number of loggers sought out work in other areas, such as

Alaska, on a seasonal basis, whereas several contractors

remained in the area but bid on sales situated in a wider

geographic area. An equally sized or larger group of loggers retired, moved out of the area, or found work in

construction or with retail and service businesses on the

Interstate-205 and Interstate-5 corridors. Interviewees noted

that working elsewhere on a seasonal basis did not prove an

effective strategy and observed that, owing to competition

and the instability of the wood products market, only a

small number of loggers who remain in the area stayed in

business. Many Forest Service employees retired early or

relocated.

A small number of area residents continue to work in

the industry or for the Forest Service. One local logging

business employs about 30 people—half its former workforce. The firm is not able to bid competitively on sales on

the Mount Hood National Forest and does not log sales on

the Mount Hood National Forest. Whereas in the past, 90

percent of the contractors’ logs went to mills in the county,

now the mill’s supply of logs comes from private lands or

is harvested on lands located out of the area. The RSG

mill in Estacada reports that it has not bid on a sale in the

Clackamas District in 10 years.

Despite the downturn in the local timber economy

and the Forest Service’s diminished role in the community,

the Forest Service continues to provide economic benefits

through contracting opportunities, direct employment,

grants, and other activities and programs. Several local

businesses still obtain contracts awarded by the Forest Service. Additionally, a local logging supply business derives

some income from sales of supplies to the Forest Service

and logging contractors from Estacada and other areas.

The Forest Service was formerly one of the largest employers in the Greater Estacada Area. Employment with the

Forest Service declined 60 percent on the Mount Hood

National Forest from 1990 to 2000, including the loss of a

number of high-paying jobs in the Greater Estacada Area.

Some community members whose positions were eliminated moved out of the area. Nevertheless, the Forest Service is still a large and highly valued local employer. In

addition to direct employment, the Forest Service has

expanded use of the Clackamas River for rafting and

kayaking by increasing the number of commercial use

permits, thus supporting some opportunities for small business development.

Finally, as a beneficiary of Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) investments, Estacada received over

$5 million in grants and loans. These funds were used for

water and sewer system improvements, business loans and

development, and planning activities. The Forest Service

awarded three grants to Estacada, each intended to address

emerging needs in the community (table 12). The Forest

Service funded a community action planning process in

1994, the first year of the NEAI. Estacada residents used the

strategic plan as the basis for developing, getting funding
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

63

for, and implementing a number of community development projects. A number of projects have been successfully

implemented, including a murals project. According to

some interviewees, these projects helped the community

maintain a positive community spirit and construct a new

identity in the wake of the loss of the timber-based elements

of Estacada’s economy and heritage. Although some interviewees doubt the benefits of the projects, a greater number

of interviewees thought that it was too soon to tell if the

infrastructure developments will have the results intended.

Changing Relations Between the Greater

Estacada Area and the Mount Hood National

Forest

Between 1990 and 2000, local forest use and relations with

the Mount Hood National Forest have changed markedly.

Specifically, community members indicated that recreational use of the forest among local residents, as well as

local reliance on the Mount Hood National Forest for subsistence activities, such as hunting and fishing, have declined. Nevertheless, a small number of residents continue

to use the forest for recreation, a few maintain their livelihoods by working in the forest, and a number of newer

residents report they appreciate the benefits derived from

simply living adjacent to forested public lands.

Some interviewees reported that in recent years residents have been unable to access areas they were accustomed to using for camping, hunting, fishing, or gathering

firewood. Several people specifically mentioned the Fish

Creek road closure that resulted from floods in 1996 as the

reason for the increasingly limited access to the Mount

Hood National Forest. The area was a very popular destination for residents and tourists and it remained closed for an

extended period of time. Some interviewees attributed this

closure to the time-consuming nature of the procedural requirements of the Plan. Other interviewees, however, linked

the closures of certain areas of the forest to destructive behavior on the part of local residents, such as illegal dumping, the shooting of trees, and using motorized vehicles in

areas designated as off-limits to motorized use. Many interviewees reported using the forest less because they felt less

secure owing to the increased incidence of vandalism.

Upper Hood River Valley

Community Change and the Effects of Forest

Management Policy

The Upper Hood River Valley experienced moderate population growth between 1990 and 2000. The population

increased 14 percent, roughly two-thirds the level of growth

experienced in Hood River County (table 13). The median

age increased only slightly while the 45-to-64-year-old age

cohort increased nearly 80 percent between 1990 and 2000

(table 14).

The data on race (table 13) are reported for 2000 only,

because the census survey question on race differed from

1990 to 2000 and data are not comparable. The census

asked similar questions pertaining to Spanish, Hispanic, or

Latin origin in 1990 and 2000, thus comparisons can be

made. In 2000, nearly 30 percent of the population in the

Upper Hood River Valley reported Hispanic ancestry, up

Table 12—Forest Service Rural Community Assistance grants awarded to Estacada as part of the

Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative

Year Recipient Project Grant award

Dollars

1994 City of Estacada Community action plan 20,000

1995 Estacada Chamber of Commerce Fisher Fabrication 32,000

1996 City of Estacada/Clackamas River Area Chamber Visitor center facilities 20,742

Source: William M. Kay/Forest Community Research.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

64

Table 13—Upper Hood River Valley and Hood River County population, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, Upper Hood River Valley 3,752 4,288 14.29

Total population, Hood River County 16,903 20,410 20.75

Population by race, Upper Hood River Valleya

:

Total Caucasian population 3,204

Total African American population 21

Total Native American population 6

Total Asian population 101

Other 845

2+ races (recorded in the 2000 census only)a 110

Hispanic population (percent) 21.48 29.04 35.20

Median age, Upper Hood River Valley 32.9 34.9 6.08

Median age, Hood River County 34.2 35.4 3.51

a

 Census questions about race were different in 1990 and 2000 and are not comparable, so 1990 data cannot be

shown.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Table 14—Age distribution, Upper Hood River Valley and Hood River County population, 1990

and 2000

Age class

0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 Upper Hood River Valley 267 950 420 1,101 614 400

2000 Upper Hood River Valley 273 1,067 469 963 1,098 418

Change (percent) 2.25 12.32 11.67 -12.53 78.83 4.50

1990 Hood River County 1,402 3,620 2,073 4,393 3,037 2,378

2000 Hood River County 1,479 4,740 2,515 4,666 4,391 2,620

Change (percent) 5.49 30.94 21.32 6.21 44.58 10.18

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

from 21.5 percent in 1990, a 35-percent increase in the

number of Hispanics. The population reporting Hispanic

ancestry increased nearly 60 percent in Hood River County.

The percentage of the population that completed high

school increased in the Upper Hood River Valley and Hood

River County but both remain lower than the regional average at 72 percent and 78 percent, respectively, for 2000.

The percentage of the population with high school degrees

increased from 67.5 to 72.5 percent in the Upper Hood

River Valley and the percentage of the population with

bachelor’s, graduate, or professional degrees increased

from 16.9 to 21.8 percent (table 15).

Unemployment and poverty decreased in the Upper

Hood River Valley and Hood River County. The unemployment rate dropped nearly 25 percent in the Upper Hood

River Valley but remains high at 7.5 percent (table 16). The

median household income (adjusted for inflation) increased

in Hood River County but remained nearly unchanged in

the Upper Hood River Valley. Categorical data on income

distribution are difficult to adjust for inflation. However,
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

65

there was between a ten- and twentyfold increase in the

number of households earning more than $75,000 between

1990 and 2000 (table 17).

Figure 37 shows employment by each industry as a

percentage of total employment. Manufacturing, wholesale

trade, transportation, and professional services sectors experienced decreases in percentage of total employment

between 1990 and 2000. Construction, retail trade, and

other service sectors experienced the largest increases.

Logging is one of many subcategories that appear under

the agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining sector.

Employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and

mining increased marginally, from 22 to 23 percent, likely

reflective of changes in the orchard industry. Wood product

manufacturing, including sawmills and other millwork,

falls under the manufacturing sector, along with many

other types of manufacturing. Employment in manufacturing jobs dropped in half, from 14 percent to 8 percent of

total employment.

Population data obscure the extent of the in- and

outmigration of residents. The population grew 14 percent,

but given the 35-percent increase in the population with

Table 15—Education indicators, Upper Hood River Valley and Hood River County,

1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, Upper Hood River Valley 892 1,071 20.07

School enrollment, Hood River County 3,386 4,562 34.73

Completed high school, Upper Hood River Valley (percent) 67.48 72.49 7.42

Completed high school, Hood River County (percent) 71.35 78.15 9.54

Bachelor’s, graduate, professional degrees, Upper Hood

River Valley (percent) 16.91 21.84 29.15

Bachelor’s, graduate, professional degrees, Hood River

County (percent) 17.99 23.06 28.18

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Table 16—Economic indicators, Upper Hood River Valley and Hood River County,

1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

– – Dollarsa – – Percent

Median household income, Upper Hood River Valley 32,533 33,073 1.66

Median household income, Hood River County 31,326 38,326 22.35

– – – – – Percent – – – – –

Unemployed, Upper Hood River Valley 10.03 7.46 -25.62

Unemployed, Hood River County 8.60 6.55 -23.84

In poverty, Upper Hood River Valley 17.32 13.22 -23.67

In poverty, Hood River County 15.66 14.23 -9.13

a

 Adjusted for inflation.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

66

Table 17—Household income distribution, Upper Hood River Valley (UHRV) and Hood River County, 1990 and 2000

Household income (dollarsa)

10,001– 15,000– 25,000– 35,000– 50,000– 75,000– 100,000– 150,000

<10,000 14,999 24,999 34,999 49,999 74,999 99,999 149,999 and up

Number of households

1990 UHRV 220 163 254 310 244 147 12 0 0

2000 UHRV 74 53 206 295 258 226 128 80 41

1990 county 1,098 699 1,361 1,206 1,038 701 173 97 13

2000 county 523 502 987 1,256 1,459 1,487 507 383 156

a

 Categorical income data are not adjusted for inflation.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Figure 37—Employment by industry for Upper Hood River Valley area.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

67

Hispanic ancestry, the increase of up to 200 households that

now earn more than $75,000 annually, and the increases in

educational attainment, it is likely the growth of the area’s

population obscures the loss of a substantial number of

residents.

Interviewees noted that over the past 10 years many retirees and people who are seen as financially well off have

moved to the Upper Hood River Valley. The increase in the

45-to-64-year-old population and the number of households earning more than $75,000 annually are indicative

of this inmigrant population. Furthermore, they noted a

high level of inmigration of people of Hispanic decent.

They attribute the increase to single migratory workers

with a history of working in the area bringing their families

to the Upper Hood River Valley. Although the Hispanic

population was historically largely migratory and connected to agriculture, as they have settled the area, their

involvement in the community has broadened. There are

several Hispanic-owned businesses, for example.

In discussions about changes in the timber industry,

most interviewees refer to recent history and the closure

of the three mills in the Upper Hood River Valley. All three

mills closed in the 1990s. One was a fiber plant that burned

down. Some residents believe that if the Plan had functioned as it was supposed to there would still be a mill in

the Upper Hood River Valley. Others report that the area’s

mills were headed for closure independent of the supply of

federal timber because the industry was not economically

viable in the area.

In the mid-1990s, the mill that people in the area refer

to as the “lower Hanel mill” closed. A portion of this mill

site has been converted to a glass manufacturing plant and

was scheduled to open in 2004. The last mill, “the upper

Hanel mill,” closed in the late 1990s. Some residents remain

hopeful that the upper mill may reopen in the near future.

Residents report that a couple of decades ago the local economy was supported by the timber and orchard industries.

The local mills, for instance, supported about 300 to 400

jobs. Interviewees reported times were difficult for a number

of residents after the mill closures. The poorest of the population who could no longer afford to live in the area left

for work elsewhere. One person estimated that about half

the people who lost jobs in the timber industry found

replacement jobs locally in the fruit industry, manufacturing (welding), trucking, service industries, or work odd jobs

or as handymen, although these were at wages below what

they made in the timber industry. This shift could be

accounted for in the larger increase in employment in the

construction industry.

Adaptation to Change and the Role of Forest

Service Assistance

Historically, residents of the Upper Hood River Valley were

economically and culturally connected to agriculture and

timber industries. Changes in the timber industry and how

the community coped with these changes are numerous and

diverse. Despite obvious shifts in demographics and economics, the Upper Hood River Valley has outwardly changed

little as the resident population and economic base have

diversified. Much of the adaptation to change for longer

term residents in the community was individual; residents

simply moved to find work in other areas or changed occupations. Many residents work outside the Upper Hood

River Valley, and for this reason residents do not think of

the area as having a functional economy.

Despite the downturn in the local timber economy and

the Forest Service’s diminished role in the community, the

forest tries to provide economic and other benefits through

contracting opportunities, direct employment, grants, and

other activities and programs in addition to providing a

supply of timber or access to firewood. By and large, however, residents have not been able to access contract opportunities, timber sales, or firewood for personal use or

otherwise capture benefits. Insofar as employment with the

Forest Service, residents report there are few full- or parttime opportunities. Several interviewees noted decreases in

Forest Service personnel at the district level and decreases

in seasonal jobs, in general. Some say the loss of local

Forest Service positions and the outmigration of Forest

Service employees has reduced dollars coming in to local

businesses and has been detrimental to the community.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

68

The Upper Hood River Valley derived minimal benefit

from the NEAI. According to NEAI records, Hood River

County received over $15 million dollars in NEAI dollars

between 1994 and 1999. One grant for $10,000, for the

Mount Hood Town Hall Technical Assistance, may have

been for the Upper Hood River Valley. The project was reportedly derailed owing to the strong and opposing views

on the issue of development.

Changing Relations Between the Upper Hood

River Valley and the Mount Hood National Forest

A prevalent concern among community members is that the

Forest Service, in recent years, has not been living up to

their expectations of what a resource management agency

should be, in terms of leadership, decisionmaking authority,

and action. Interviewees recall when, over a decade ago,

employees at the district office made decisions and responded to inquiries from the public. Residents perceive

that local employees lack decisionmaking authority, and

that decisions that are made are heavily influenced by

people in Washington, D.C. Many people also spoke of a

lack of trust in the Forest Service resulting from what they

perceive to be a poor track record of forest management.

People believe it is important for the Forest Service to rebuild that trust and suggest that it could best be achieved

by working with high-quality contractors and logging

companies. A few people noted the lack of Forest Service

involvement in community activities.

Many interviewees said that they live in the Upper

Hood River Valley area because of the amenities offered by

Mount Hood and the Mount Hood National Forest. Residents value the clean water, clear air, and scenic vistas of

their area. People value the peace and quiet of living near

the forest. And although it was once common for local residents to use the forest to hunt, fish, hike, and engage in

other activities, no resident described him/herself as an

avid outdoor enthusiast or skier. A number of interviewees

mentioned that residents gather mushrooms and berries.

Villages of Mount Hood From Brightwood

to Rhododendron

Community Change and the Effects of Forest

Management Policy

Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the Villages of

Mount Hood increased more than 50 percent, from 2,445

to 3,670 (table 18). During the same period, Clackamas

County grew 21 percent. Although the area’s median age is

38.7, comparable with Clackamas County, the median age

was 32.9 in 1990, low compared to 35.2 in Clackamas

County. Nearly all age cohorts increased except the 0-to-4-

age group, which experienced a 1.5-percent decline (table

19). This contrasts with a 13-percent increase in Clackamas

County. The school-age population, i.e., residents aged 5 to

19, grew nearly 25 percent and school enrollment increased

25 percent as well. In the Villages of Mount Hood, the 20-

to-29-year-old population grew 55 percent. By contrast,

the same age cohort grew only 13 percent in Clackamas

County. The 30-to-44-year-old population increased by

8.5 percent, just over twice the rate of increase experienced

in Clackamas County. The most notable change was in the

45-to-64-year-old population, which grew 206 percent from

330 people to 1,012. The same age group increased 56.2

percent in Clackamas County, twice the area’s overall population increase. The 65-and-up age cohort also expanded

greatly, increasing 83 percent from 221 in 1990, to 405, in

2000 (table 19). These data indicate that the Villages of

Mount Hood community is increasingly populated by

younger couples, families with school-age children, retirees,

and people approaching the traditional retirement age.

Because of changes in the census questions and reporting methods, it is impossible to accurately determine

how racial composition changed between 1990 and 2000.

However, the percentage of the population reporting

Hispanic ethnicity increased slightly from 4.6 percent of

the population in 1990 to 5.3 percent of the population

in 2000 (table 18). During the same period, the county’s

Hispanic population doubled from 2.5 percent of the

population in 1990 to 5 percent, in 2000.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

69

In 1990, area residents were more educated than

Clackamas County residents. However, with a 2.5 percent decline in the percentage of the population with

bachelors, graduate, or professional degrees, this was no

longer true in 2000 (table 20). As the area’s population

changed, so has the economic well-being of its residents.

The median income in the Villages of Mount Hood community increased 25 percent between 1990 and 2000,

unemployment decreased by nearly 13 percent, and the

percentage of the population living in poverty decreased

8.25 percent. Although these data suggest area residents

were better off at the time of the 2000 census than at the

time of the 1990 census, they continue to lag behind the

Clackamas County population (table 21).

In 1990, the median household income in the Villages

of Mount Hood was $35,872. The median household income increased 25 percent, to $45,143 in 2000. Household

income in Clackamas County increased 18.5 percent, from

$43,955 in 1990, to $52,080 in 2000 (table 21). As should

be expected, the percentage of the population living in

poverty declined with the rise in median household income.

Table 18—Villages of Mount Hood and Clackamas County population, 1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, Villages of Mount Hood 2,445 3,670 50.10

Total population, Clackamas County 278,850 338,391 21.35

Population by race, Villages of Mount Hooda

:

Total Caucasian population 3,369

Total African American population 23

Total Native American population 12

Total Asian population 19

Other 146

2+ races (recorded in the 2000 census only)a 101

Hispanic population (percent) 4.62 5.34 15.58

Median age, Villages of Mount Hood 32.9 38.7 17.63

Median age, Clackamas County 35.2 37.5 6.53

a

 Census data on race is not comparable between 1990 and 2000, so 1990 data cannot be shown.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Table 19—Age distribution, Villages of Mount Hood and Clackamas County population,

1990 and 2000

Age class

0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 Villages of Mount Hood 204 610 262 818 330 221

2000 Villages of Mount Hood 201 759 406 887 1,012 405

Change (percent) -1.47 24.43 54.96 8.44 206.67 83.26

1990 Clackamas County 19,373 61,969 33,239 75,740 56,543 31,986

2000 Clackamas County 21,875 74,796 37,475 78,395 88,327 37,523

Change (percent) 12.91 20.70 12.74 3.51 56.21 17.31

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

70

The unemployed population decreased from 6.9 percent

in 1990 to 6 percent in 2000. Countywide unemployment

increased from 4.2 percent to 5 percent (table 21). There

were some revealing changes in employment by industry

sector. There was a 23-percent decline–a loss of 12 jobs–

in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining. Additionally, there was a 10-percent decline, from 242 to 218, in

employment in professional and other services industries.

Employment in the retail trade industry increased 49 percent, from 123 in 1990 to 183 in 2000. Employment in

the wholesale trade industry increased 50 percent from

31 to 46. Employment in the finance and real estate sector increased nearly 500 percent, from 27 in 1990 to

159 in 2000. Employment in health and education services

increased 28 percent, from 223 in 1990 to 287 in 2000.

Figure 38 shows employment by each industry as a

percentage of total employment. A given industry sector

may have increased in percentage of people employed in

that sector but may have decreased in percentage of total

employment. For instance, employment in retail trade increased by almost half, but actually decreased slightly in

its share of percentage of total employment. Also notable

Table 20—Education indicators, Villages of Mount Hood and Clackamas County,

1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, Villages of Mount Hood 581 726 24.96

School enrollment, Clackamas County 55,146 71,830 30.25

Completed high school, Villages of Mount Hood (percent) 89.10 91.85 3.09

Completed high school, Clackamas County (percent) 85.67 88.95 3.83

Bachelor’s, graduate, professional degrees, Villages of

Mount Hood (percent) 28.21 27.50 -2.52

Bachelor’s, graduate, professional degrees, Clackamas

County (percent) 23.63 28.37 20.06

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

Table 21—Economic indicators, Villages of Mount Hood and Clackamas County,

1990 and 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

– – Dollarsa– – Percent

Median household income, Villages of Mount Hood 35,872 45,143 25.84

Median household income, Clackamas County 43,955 52,080 18.48

– – – – – Percent – – – – –

Unemployed, Villages of Mount Hood 6.87 6.00 -12.66

Unemployed, Clackamas County 4.23 5.00 18.20

In poverty, Villages of Mount Hood 6.91 6.34 -8.25

In poverty, Clackamas County 6.92 6.56 -5.20

a Adjusted for inflation.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

71

is that although employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing,

hunting, and mining declined 23 percent, it made up only

5 percent of total employment in 1990 and even less (2 percent) in 2000.

The area’s socioeconomic well-being category dropped

from “high” to “medium,” but its score dropped less than a

point, from 73.74 to 72.97 (table 7). Although there has

been little change in the area’s socioeconomic well-being,

demographic and economic data suggest the area has experienced a good deal of change over the past 10 years.

Residents reported the following changes: an increased

number of people commuting to work elsewhere; more

partially retired residents; and a larger “lower income”

population. They reported there was little change in the

local economy besides the housing and real estate market

and the proliferation of snowboard camps.

The housing market was reportedly affected by downsizing within the Forest Service. Whereas residents formerly

lived on the mountain and worked for the Forest Service, in

the logging trades, or visited seasonally, people now live on

the mountain for a number of different reasons. The central

reasons are to take advantage of the housing market and

to live in the forested environment for the recreational opportunities it provides. Several residents said Forest Service

employees who transferred to other locations, retired early,

or lost their jobs and moved elsewhere left a supply of

“affordable” houses. Forces external to the community

also came into play. The housing market was affected

by the growth and the demographic composition of the

Portland metropolitan area and the Villages of Mount

Hood’s location in proximity to Portland. According to a

Figure 38—Employment by industry for Villages of Mount Hood area.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

72

number of residents, what were once “recreational homes”

became affordable housing for first-time homeowners willing to commute to the Portland metropolitan area. Although

many residents said newer full-time residents were “at the

lower economic scale,” census data indicated there was a

decline in the number of households that earned less than

$45,000 annually. This suggests that “first time” or “lower

economic scale” home-buyers are earning above the median

household income.

Most residents commented on the importance of the

Forest Service presence in the community, but few drew

con-nections between forest management or the Plan, and

social and economic changes that have taken place in the

Villages of Mount Hood.

Some of the connections interviewees made between

the Plan and social and economic change included the

following. Some interviewees stated that the loss of Forest

Service jobs was likely due to changes in forest management resulting from the Plan. Some interviewees noted that

the Plan’s implementation was accompanied by a loss of

local, family-wage jobs and a slight reduction in the number of residents with graduate educations or professional

degrees. The loss of Forest Service employees affected the

local housing market by temporarily increasing the stock

of affordable houses and expedited the community’s transition toward a bedroom community. Aside from the loss of

permanent and part-time positions with the Forest Service,

people report there were no appreciable changes in employment in forestry, manufacturing, and transportation occupations. Residents noted logging activity on private lands

offset the loss of employment opportunities on the Mount

Hood National Forest for the few contractors and log

haulers that remained in the area.

Business owners generally said the Plan did not affect

them. Many business owners said the loss of Forest Service

employees was the biggest change in the community that

“might be related” to the Plan. The reduction in Forest

Service employees, however, was offset by a 50-percent increase in the area’s population. Many of the new residents

are retirees on fixed incomes or relatively high-paid commuters; both provide a stable customer base to the small

number of local businesses.

Interviewees identified the following factors as the key

drivers for social and economic changes taking place in the

community: increased traffic on Highway 26, the expanding regional economy, developments at the Mount Hood

ski areas, and weather. Local business and the residents in

the community employed by local service businesses rely

heavily on visitors that bring money into the local

economy.

Adaptation to Change and the Role of Forest

Service Assistance

The Villages of Mount Hood experienced a good deal of

change over the past decade. Much of this change was the

continuation of trends that began in the 1970s: the growth

of the retirement and commuter populations, the continued

growth and development of the recreation-based economy,

and the contraction of forest-based employment. Each of

these trends continued along on their own trajectories and

spurred some changes but had little effect on overall community socioeconomic well-being.

The community has grown steadily over the past 10 to

15 years; at least a third of the population is new to the

community since 1990. Groups such as the Neighborhood

Missions provided emergency help to residents in need.

Traditional community service groups such as the Lions

Club—formerly a “rallying point” in the community—did

community projects. The local Citizen’s Planning Organization, a citizen group dealing with land use planning issues,

convened regularly, but interviewees reported that its meetings were poorly attended unless controversial issues were

on the meeting agenda. In addition to the strategic planning

group, local businesses are organized under the chamber of

commerce, whose activities ebb and flow, partly owing to

the steady turnover of business owners, the time demands

of running a business, and the fluctuations in the economy.

Generally, the chamber promotes the area to draw more

visitors to the community and the Mount Hood National
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

73

Forest. Finally, interviewees indicated that low rent and

inexpensive housing had resulted in the increase in

methamphetamine labs and drug use. A few residents

successfully organized efforts to root out the labs and

decrease drugs, earning statewide recognition for their

work.

Residents cited a number of reasons for the lack of success of community-wide efforts including lack of governance, the level of volunteerism required to support the

efforts, fragmentation within community, and polarized

views about the community’s development. The outmigration of Forest Service employees combined with the community’s changing composition has affected the ability of

community members to work together and address changing economic and social conditions. Residents report that

Forest Service employees and resources constituted important elements in the organizing capacity of the community in the past; as individuals they played an active role in

holding the community together and enabling it to address

issues as they arose.

Until fairly recently, the Forest Service had done little

to help build community capacity or to support economic

development. Residents were unaware of Forest Service or

NEAI grants. We were unable to find any records of NEAI

funds that were awarded to the community. The Forest Service and the Chamber of Commerce worked together under

a cooperative grant to provide “guest services,” sharing the

responsibility of selling permits and giving information and

directions to visitors. The cooperative efforts did not have

the desired results initially, but efforts were renewed after

the NEAI ended. There is also a broad-based initiative to

address recreation on the Mount Hood National Forest, but

the local business community is not engaged in the process.

According to interviewees, the forest has not played a

significant role in residents’ adaptation strategies. Contracting, employment, and grants have not contributed in a

meaningful way to change within the community over the

past 10 years. Few residents were aware of contracting

opportunities with the Forest Service. Residents associated

with logging and the timber industry reported that most of

the small number of contractors moved out of the area. The

loggers who remain in the area reportedly log private lands,

work that primarily involves falling trees on residential

properties. Employment related to the Mount Hood National Forest has declined and its local workforce has been

cut substantially. One resident claimed the Zig Zag District

office eliminated or transferred up to 70 percent of its employees to Sandy or other locations. The result is there are

fewer Forest Service employees working in the Villages of

Mount Hood and fewer Forest Service employees living in

the area.

Changing Relations Between the Villages of

Mount Hood and the Mount Hood National Forest

Many people live in the Villages of Mount Hood because

they want to live in a mountain community, they work in

businesses that serve tourists and people that visit the area

to recreate, or because the area is affordable. For many,

there is a very intimate relation between the forest and

themselves. As such, they are concerned about access to

and management of the forest for recreation but also for

water quality and habitat for wildlife populations. However, unlike in the past, very few residents rely on the Forest

Service for their livelihoods.

The reduction of the local Forest Service workforce has

certainly diminished the Forest Service’s presence in and

relations with the community. Although the local community views itself as a stakeholder with an interest in forest

management, this entails much less of a direct, multifaceted,

and meaningful relation with the Forest Service than in the

past.

Summary of Community-Level Change

and Perception of the Northwest Forest

Plan

Types of Communities

The three communities selected for the Mount Hood

National Forest study differ considerably in location,

history, and demographic and economic composition. It is

not surprising therefore, that the effects of changes in flows
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

74

of socioeconomic benefits from the forest were notably

different in each community. How the communities are

similar and different and the changes they experienced in

the 1990s are summarized here.

The Greater Estacada Area and the Villages of Mount

Hood are located in Clackamas County, an urban county

that includes portions of the Portland metropolitan area.

The Greater Estacada Area is located on a state highway

34 miles from Portland, Oregon. The study area encompasses the City of Estacada and surrounding unincorporated

areas. The City of Estacada includes established commercial, industrial, and residential areas. Areas outlying the city

are sparsely populated agricultural and timber lands with a

limited amount of commercial and industrial development.

Just to the north and east, the Villages of Mount Hood

from Brightwood to Rhododendron (Villages of Mount

Hood) begin 41 miles east of Portland. The villages comprise a narrow strip of private lands along Highway 26, a

major transportation route from the Portland metropolitan

area over Mount Hood to the Warm Springs Reservation,

Madras, Bend, and other destinations in Central Oregon.

From west to east, the Villages of Mount Hood transition

from more strictly commuting to more strictly recreationbased communities and economies.

Located on the drier and more sparsely populated

east side of the forest, the Upper Hood River Valley is the

southernmost third of the Hood River Valley that extends

south from the city of Hood River, which is located on

Interstate-84 next to the Columbia River. Private land in

the Upper Hood River Valley consists of residential, agricultural, and some commercial land. Most commercial and

government services in the Upper Hood River Valley are

located in the town of Parkdale.

A significant portion of the area surrounding the casestudy communities is under Forest Service management.

This includes tracts of U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), state, and county

lands and private industrial timberlands. Although the

types of relations with the forest are varied, the connection

between the forest and the people remains important to the

social and economic well-being of the communities.

All three communities evolved over time to include

forest-based economies. Of the three communities, the

Greater Estacada Area, developed as the most timberdependent community in which a mill, loggers, Forest

Service employees, and a host of support business relied

on the flow of timber from the national forests. Although

the supply of timber from the forest was important for community socioeconomic well-being in Villages of Mount

Hood and Upper Hood River Valley, other sectors provided

for economic diversity, namely agriculture in the Upper

Hood River Valley, and recreation and tourism in the

Villages of Mount Hood.

The timber-based element of the Villages of Mount

Hood’s economy has been in steady decline since the

beginning of the 1970s, and perhaps earlier. There was little

or no timber industry infrastructure or employment left in

the Villages of Mount Hood during the 1980s and 1990s.

The most significant legacy of the timber-based economy

was the number of people employed by the forest, a substantial number of whom lived in the community. As jobs

were cut or transferred in the 1990s, these people and their

families left the area. Development trends in the 1970s and

1980s, led to a more diversified community incorporating

resort, retirement, recreation and tourism, and bedroom

community elements.

Services for tourism and recreation exist in all three

communities. Tourism and recreation serves as an important component of the Villages of Mount Hood community,

and therefore the number of services and development of

resources is greatest there. This is not to say there are not

significant developments in Upper Hood River Valley

however. Some major draws in the Upper Hood River

Valley include Mount Hood Meadows Ski Resort and

Cooper Spur Mountain Resort. Increasingly, visitors are

accessing the forest via Highway 35—the Mount Hood

Highway—that runs through the Upper Hood River Valley.

There are limited recreation and tourism services in the

Greater Estacada Area, but it provides access to the upper

Clackamas River, Table Rock, Bull of the Woods, and

portions of the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness Area, as

well as Timothy Lake and Bagby Hot Springs. Recreational
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

75

tourism has played a minor but consistent part of the area’s

development and its local economy. Increasingly, residents

and entrepreneurs are focusing on generating income from

tourists who pass through Estacada on their way into the

Mount Hood National Forest.

Recreation and tourism are playing increasingly important roles in the socioeconomic well-being of the Upper

Hood River Valley community, although recreation and

development are controversial issues among residents. Until

the 1980s, the Upper Hood River Valley was primarily supported by timber and agriculture (orchards) industries.

Although the local mills played important roles in the local

economy throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s,

agriculture also was a primary source of local employment

in the Upper Hood River Valley. Agriculture played an

integral role in Estacada’s early history and remains a vital

component of the local economy and culture. Specialty

nurseries, and Christmas tree farms in particular, dominate

the local agriculture sector.

The similarities between the three communities stem

from commonalities in their histories and their geographic

placement adjacent to the forest. However, a few key

differences between the communities have served to either

facilitate or constrain the communities’ development over

time. A significant factor affecting the study communities’

development is governance. The Upper Hood River Valley

and Villages of Mount Hood are both unincorporated areas.

As such, land use zoning strictly determines the location,

intensity, and type of development. Estacada, on the other

hand, includes an incorporated area and therefore has

greater flexibility in pursuing commercial, industrial, and

residential development. The presence of local government

also provides Estacada greater connectivity to state and

federal funds and programs for development. Despite its

incorporation, however, Estacada does not provide a

diversity of goods and services, and many residents travel

to the metropolitan area for them. Residents in the Villages

of Mount Hood and Upper Hood River Valley must leave

their communities for most goods and services. A second

key difference is the location of the study communities with

respect to the Portland metropolitan area. The Greater

Estacada Area and the Villages of Mount Hood are close

enough to the metropolitan area to support bedroomcommunity development. This has proved vital for supporting strong construction industries in both communities over

the past 10 to 15 years.

Changes Taking Place 1990 to 2000

The Plan socioeconomic assessment interpretive report

(Charnley 2006), of which this report is a related publication, examined changes in community socioeconomic wellbeing that occurred between 1990 and 2000 in all of the

communities lying within 5 miles of Mount Hood National

Forest boundaries. In 2000, more communities fell into the

medium category and fewer in the low and high categories.

The Upper Hood River Valley remained in the medium

category, Villages of Mount Hood slipped slightly from

high to medium, although its average changed less than

one point, and the Greater Estacada Area fell most dramatically (3.38 points) from medium to low.

Overall, the communities’ populations increased; the

majority of the inmigrants were 45 to 64 years old. There

was an outmigration and loss of nearly all other age categories, particularly the 19-to-34-age group. The populations are increasingly diverse, particularly in terms of

ethnicity, as the percentage of the population reporting

Hispanic ethnicity has increased in all three communities.

The following summarizes some of specific changes in

demographic composition and social and economic wellbeing.

Population—

Population growth was most explosive in the Villages of

Mount Hood, which grew over 50 percent, from 2,445 in

1990, to 3,670 in 2000. The Greater Estacada Area population grew 11 percent, to 9,315 and the Upper Hood

River Valley’s population grew to 4,288, a 14-percent

increase from 1990.

Race and ethnicity—

Race is difficult to determine given changes in census

categories and reporting trends by residents. In general

however, racial diversity appears to have increased
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

76

slightly in all communities, where between 5 and 10 percent of the populations are non-Caucasian. The percentage

of the population reporting Hispanic ethnicity increased

in all three communities. The Hispanic population nearly

doubled in the Greater Estacada Area and the Villages of

Mount Hood, and increased 35 percent in the Upper Hood

River Valley. Whereas Hispanics now represent nearly 30

percent of the population in the Upper Hood River Valley,

they represent 5 and 7 percent of the populations in the

Villages of Mount Hood and Estacada, respectively.

Age—

Whereas the median age rose to 37.4 in the Greater

Estacada Area and to 38.7 in the Villages of Mount Hood,

it increased but remained young, at 34.9, in the Upper

Hood River Valley. The 45-to-64-year-old age cohort

increased the most in all three study communities; it increased over 200 percent in the Villages of Mount Hood.

All other age groups in the Villages of Mount Hood experienced growth except the 0-to-4 age cohort. Greater

Estacada Area’s population up to age 44 decreased,

whereas only the 30-to-44 cohort decreased in the Upper

Hood River Valley.

Median household income—

Although the median household income increased in

all three communities, residents in the Greater Estacada

Area and Upper Hood River Valley are falling further behind their county counterparts. The median household

income remains quite low at $35,898 in the Greater

Estacada Area and $33,073 in the Upper Hood River

Valley. The average household in the Villages of Mount

Hood, however, earns $45,143. Whereas the median household income is low in the Greater Estacada Area and Upper

Hood River Valley, the number of households earning

$75,000 or more annually doubled in the Greater Estacada

Area, increased fourfold in the Villages of Mount Hood,

and increased ten- to twentyfold in the Upper Hood River

Valley.

Poverty and unemployment—

In the Greater Estacada Area, the percentage of the population living in poverty increased from 11.5 percent in 1990,

to 12.4 percent in 2000, whereas the percentage of the

population living in poverty in the Villages of Mount

Hood and Upper Hood River Valley dropped. The rate of

poverty in the Villages of Mount Hood is nearly half the

rate in Upper Hood River Valley, which remained high at

13.2 percent, in 2000. Although unemployment rates

dropped in both the Upper Hood River Valley and Villages

of Mount Hood, it remains high in the Upper Hood River

Valley, at 7.5 percent. The unemployment rate increased to

9.6 percent in the Greater Estacada Area.

Employment by industry—

Employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and

mining industries increased 8 percent in the Upper Hood

River Valley, and fell 60 percent in the Villages of Mount

Hood, and roughly 33 percent in the Greater Estacada

Area. Masking the loss of employment in forestry was

the increase in employment in agriculture in the Greater

Estacada Area and the Upper Hood River Valley. Employment in the construction industry played an important role

in the local economies. It more than doubled in the Upper

Hood River Valley and increased 33 percent in the Greater

Estacada Area. Notable are increases in employment in

transportation and utilities, education, health and social

service industries, and decreases in employment in retail

trade in the Greater Estacada Area. In the Villages of Mount

Hood, employment in the finance and real estate industries

increased nearly 300 percent, from 27 in 1990, to 159, in

2000.

Change in Flow of Socioeconomic Benefits From

Forest to Community

The changes in demographic and economic composition

were portrayed by many interviewees as the result of dual

processes: (1) the loss of timber industry and related jobs

with the resulting outmigration of residents and the constriction of the local economy, including the loss of goods

and services businesses and (2) the inmigration of people

who commute or telecommute to work, or are partially or

fully retired, or are associated with the agriculture and

tourism industries. The first process is discussed here.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

77

Despite the downturn in the local timber economy and

the Forest Service’s diminished role in the community, it

continues—as noted in the previous chapter—to sustain a

reduced flow of socioeconomic benefits to the communities through contracting opportunities, direct employment,

grants, and other activities and programs. The change in

natural resource management on the Mount Hood National

Forest created hardship for many residents and businesses.

The reduction in timber harvesting led to the loss of

employment opportunities for logging contractors and the

Forest Service and curtailments at local mills or contributed

significantly to mill closures. Although a few logging

contractors remain, they employ fewer people and are

unable to bid competitively on federal timber sales. Those

who remain in the area reportedly log on private lands, that

is, residential, industrial properties, or county lands. A few

loggers sought out seasonal work in other states, and others

remained in the area but work in a wider geographic area. A

larger group of loggers retired, moved out of the area, or

found work in construction or with retail and service

businesses. Although service (i.e., restoration) contract

opportunities with the forest have declined, a small number

of contractors are still able to win Forest Service contracts.

Business dependent on logging activities, fueling stations,

logging supply stores and the like, derive little income from

sales of supplies to the Forest Service and logging contractors and many have shut down. Employment with the Forest

Service declined 60 percent on the Mount Hood National

Forest, and the communities lost a number of high-paying

jobs and part-time/seasonal job opportunities. The implication of these downturns has been a broad constriction of

local goods and service businesses reflected in the economic indicators above: loss of employment and reduced

income, but decreased levels of poverty in two of the three

communities.

However, the forest’s recreation program has continued to receive a lot of attention and investment. It has

expanded use of the Clackamas River for rafting and

kayaking by increasing the number of commercial use

permits, and opened Mount Hood for skiing and snowboarding year round. These changes have provided opportunities for tourism- and recreation-based businesses,

potentially an important avenue for economic development in the Upper Hood River Valley and the Greater

Estacada Area.

Other Causes of Change

Although forest management is not directly responsible for

all of the changes that have taken place, most people say it

was the impetus for the protracted decline of timber-related

businesses and the general constriction of the local economies, except in the Villages of Mount Hood. There have

been some positive trends to offset the broad constriction

of the local economies. Most significant, has been the

inmigration of people who commute or telecommute to

work, are partially or fully retired, or are associated with the

agriculture and tourism industries. The new residents have

stimulated the diversification of the goods and services

economy. New residents have populated each of the three

study areas, often attracted by employment opportunities or

the natural amenities, including clean air, clean water, and

scenic and recreational opportunities. Their presence is

evident in the shift in median age, income distribution, and

ethnicity data.

Addressing Change

Community service organizations, citizen’s groups, and

government all worked to address unmet needs of individuals and families and to address community and economic

development. These efforts were marginally supported by

the forest. Although the Upper Hood River Valley and

Villages of Mount Hood received almost no economic

assistance and derived no direct benefits from the NEAI,

Estacada received over $5 million in NEAI investments

grants and loans. These investments supported new industrial or commercial development and fostered the development of a positive community spirit and new identity in the

wake of the loss of the timber-based elements of the economy and heritage. Although the Forest Service and the
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

78

chambers of commerce have worked together under cooperative agreements to provide “guest services”—selling

permits, giving tourism information and directions to forest

recreation sites, the efforts have largely been unsuccessful

at spurring desired levels of economic development at the

time this research was conducted.

Interviewees attribute the lack of success of community-wide efforts to the lack of governmental structures to

facilitate the project planning and development process, the

low level of volunteerism to support efforts, fragmentation

within community, and polarized views about community

development. From what residents report, Forest Service

employees and resources historically played an important

role in the organizing capacity in the community; as

individuals they played an active role in holding the community together and enabling it to address issues as they

arose. The outmigration of Forest Service employees combined with the community’s changing composition has

affected its ability to work together and address changing

economic and social conditions. Furthermore, the inmigration of new population has resulted in a dynamic environment that has at times been destabilizing for addressing

development by creating fragmentation and polarization

within the community. This is evident across all three

communities.

Community-Forest Relations

Given the decline in active use of the forest and the reduced

importance of the forest and Forest Service by residents in

the communities, the once close relations to the forest

and Forest Service have greatly diminished. Local use and

relations with the forest have changed markedly as recreational and subsistence uses have declined. In the past,

community members used the forest heavily for their

livelihoods. As residents’ economic dependence on the

forest has lessened, so too have their relations with the forest weakened. A small number of residents continue to use

the forest for recreation, and a few maintain their livelihoods by working in the forest.

According to interviewees, many of the recent inmigrants to these communities moved to enjoy the amenities

offered by Mount Hood and the Mount Hood National Forest, including clean water, clear air, scenic vistas, and the

peace and quiet of living near the forest. As such, they are

concerned about access to and management of the forest

for recreation as well as for water quality and habitat for

wildlife populations. Many long-term residents want to

preserve the same amenities as well, but many would also

like to see the forest managed in ways that sustain forest

health, the agricultural sector and, to the extent possible,

timber industries.

Despite differences in how they view the forest, both

long-term residents and newcomers share a common

perception that local forest management employees

increasingly lack decisionmaking authority. Many have

lost trust in the Forest Service owing to a perceived poor

track record of forest management, and they desire more

meaningful Forest Service involvement in their community

activities.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

79

Chapter 4 addresses two of the socioeconomic goals of the

Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan): (1) to improve collaboration between agencies and communities and (2) to

protect forest values and environmental qualities associated

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

To determine the extent to which the Forest Service has

achieved these goals, we examine current forest management issues of concern to communities and the role of the

Plan in shaping those issues. We also look at the role of

communities in collaborating with the forest to address

management issues and at how the Plan has influenced

collaborative relationships. Chapter 4 is based on interviews with both forest employees and community members.

Collaboration in Forest Stewardship

The primary objective of the Plan was to enable the USDA

Forest Service to fulfill its statutory obligation to provide

adequate protection for the northern spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis caurina), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus

marmoratus), and other threatened or endangered species.

The framers of the Plan believed that the ability of the

federal agencies to fulfill this mandate hinged upon the

development of better and more diverse communication

networks between the federal land management agencies

and local communities. The following section provides an

overview of the general trends in collaboration on the

Mount Hood National Forest and the communities that are

part of this study.

General Trends in Collaboration

Over the past decade, the Mount Hood National Forest has

increased its emphasis on collaboration and developing

partnerships to administer Forest Service policy, goods, and

services. Agency personnel said this trend contrasts with the

approach and outlook of a decade or more ago, when forest

managers preferred to work independently of other entities

and when public engagement was a process for allowing the

public to comment and react to projects for which the forest

had already defined the key issues and objectives.

However, partnerships historically constituted an

integral component of forest management on the Mount

Hood National Forest, particularly with regard to recreation.

The Timberline Lodge concession is one example of a

partnership dating back several decades. Partnerships are

growing in number and expanding in scope; concessionaires at campgrounds and developed recreation sites (such

as Timberline Lodge), outfitters and guides, volunteers

(such as Mazamas wilderness stewards) are increasingly

interacting with the public and providing information and

education about forest and recreation management rules,

practices, and opportunities.

The Forest Service has relied on volunteers for several

decades, and the Mount Hood National Forest’s volunteer

numbers have historically been among the highest in the

Nation. The peak for numbers of volunteers was in the late

1980s through the early 1990s. The ways volunteers are

used and managed has changed as a result of staff cutbacks,

and the subsequent decreasing number of field employees

available to supervise projects. The volunteer program has

moved toward more coordinated and group volunteer

activities (hosted groups) that require less supervision.

As a result of budget declines, reorganization, and shifts

in management focus, program areas that serve collaborative types of functions, namely public relations, volunteer

coordination (including hosted, youth, and senior volunteer

programs), and partnerships, have recently become more

integrated to reduce duplication of services, and to enable

better communication, coordination, and service delivery.

Types of Collaboration

Interviewees reported on a variety of collaborative activities on the Mount Hood National Forest. Rather than the

collaborations in the past that focused on recreation,

activities range from on-the-ground forest stewardship

projects to environmental education and the direct provision of services to forest users. Some examples include the

volunteer and hosted volunteer programs, particularly with

application to recreation management (e.g., the Mazamas

Chapter 4: Communities and Forest Management
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

80

trail crews and wilderness stewards who also provide faceto-face time with recreationists), and collaboration with the

seven active watershed councils around the Mount Hood

National Forest.

A number of collaborative projects were identified

in the Villages of Mount Hood community, including a

riparian restoration project with the Resort on the Mountain, the Cascade Streamwatch project with the USDI

Bureau of Land Management, and stream enhancement

projects with the Sandy River Basin Watershed Council.

Other activities not directly related to on-the-ground resource management include the initiation of a new model

for collaboration discussions with recreation stakeholders,

fire prevention education, and collaborative efforts with

local communities and chambers of commerce in local

festivals and bird and fish counts.

Interviewees in the Greater Estacada Area and Upper

Hood River Valley communities reported very little in the

way of collaboration with the Forest Service. Although most

interviewees were unaware of Forest Service efforts

to engage the community, a small number of interviewees

reported that since the implementation of the Plan, the Forest Service was sharing its expertise with groups, such as

watershed groups and soil and irrigation districts. A couple

of interviewees noted an increasing trend of the Forest

Service bringing people together to discuss specific forest

management issues. Opinions were mixed as to whether this

was an effective strategy for initiating or implementing

collaborative efforts.

Factors Promoting Collaboration

Interviewees discussed a number of factors that have contributed to the change in philosophy affecting how the

Mount Hood National Forest engages partners and the

public. First, the Plan’s emphasis on ecosystem management and the recognition that ecosystems cross ownership

boundaries has broadened perspectives on the need for

interactions between the public and agencies, as well as

between agencies. This contrasts with the past when the

forest’s management focus was almost exclusively limited

to activities within its jurisdictional boundaries. Second,

budget and staff cutbacks have encouraged, and in some

cases forced, the Mount Hood National Forest to seek out

partnerships to achieve its management objectives. In

particular, the increasing demand for recreation uses and

opportunities on the Mount Hood National Forest has not

been met with increasing budgets for recreation. Although

the cost of managing volunteers is high (some estimate that

it costs more to implement a project with some types of

volunteers than without), some employees stated that the

benefits of building ownership and stewardship of the

Mount Hood National Forest and connecting with the

public are also high. There is a growing recognition of

actual and potential benefits of collaboration, namely

building civic ownership in the Mount Hood National

Forest and maintaining or increasing the relevancy of the

agency. This relates to the perception of increased public

interest in, and expectations about, public land management. Third, several regional and national initiatives and

policies have provided incentives for collaboration. These

include the Governor’s Watershed Initiative, Resource

Advisory Committees, the Wyden Amendment, and a

national emphasis on recreation management. And last,

current leadership on the forest emphasizes collaboration as

a new way of doing business.

Challenges to Collaboration

Agency and community interviewees identified several

barriers and challenges to collaborative resource management.

Collaboration is viewed as a major emphasis, coming

down explicitly from Mount Hood National Forest leadership. One concern, however, is that the emphasis on collaboration is occurring at a time when staff and program

budget cuts make it difficult to build and maintain many

partnerships. Consequently, staff lack the time to engage,

nurture, and follow through with partnerships. There is concern that the partial commitment to collaborative efforts

that results from limited time and staff may do more harm

than good. Some interviewees suggested that this is increasingly problematic in an era where many staff serve

multiple roles, and some programs are just barely able to
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

81

perform day-to-day activities with the existing staff, let

alone engage more partners to do new or expanded work.

Budgetary constraints have also made funding and supporting collaboration difficult. For instance, a local chamber of

commerce may have an idea that the Mount Hood National

Forest would like to support but neither entity may have the

funding to make it happen. In addition, the difficulties of

negotiating the maze of grants and agreements procedures

and authorities can hinder some prospective collaborative

activities. To complicate matters, as some interviewees

noted, the Mount Hood National Forest has not been able to

anticipate the effects that budget declines in one program

have on other programs. For instance, the decline in the

timber budget and staff has affected the ability to manage

and supervise volunteer projects in recreation and wildlife.

The number of general schedule (GS)5/7-level field employees available to plan, manage, and supervise work and meet

the demand for volunteer opportunities has also declined.

Aside from time and monetary constraints, some interviewees noted the existence of internal cultural barriers to

collaboration. The attitude that the Forest Service can do

the work best itself is still prevalent among some employees

and was observed by many community interviewees.

Some interviewees in the study communities were

aware of the Forest Service’s interest and support for collaborative and partnership processes. Several interviewees

noted the district rangers’ efforts to attend community

meetings and attempts to remain visible and accessible to

the community. They expressed appreciation for field employees who participated in on-the-ground efforts and supported collaborative processes.

Interviewees also identified a number of factors that

have eroded the Forest Service’s ability to work effectively

with the community. These obstacles include the agency’s

decisionmaking process and insufficient decisionmaking

authority at local levels, its decreased physical presence in

the community, and frequent staffing changes. Some recreation permittees felt the Mount Hood National Forest’s collaborative efforts suffered from a lack of vision. They also

commented that employees often lack the skills to make the

collaboration work. Other respondents felt that the lack of

collaboration resulted from a combination of the Forest

Service not being proactive in addressing collaboration and

the community not aggressively approaching the Forest

Service to work collaboratively on resource management

activities. A majority of the interviewees did not see a

strong relationship between their concerns and forest

management activities. This, combined with diminished

Forest Service presence and decline of management

activities, has created an environment where there is little

mutual interest in collaborative stewardship activities.

Overall progress toward achieving the collaboration

goal—

On the Mount Hood National Forest, the Plan is viewed as

setting a tone and precedence for interactions between

agencies. The emphasis on working across ownerships has

facilitated several collaborative endeavors, such as those

associated with the watershed restoration and the Wyden

amendment, that involve multiple agencies or community

groups—notably, projects that took place on private land

rather than USDA Forest Service-administered land. A small

handful of interviewees said that relationships between the

Forest Service and communities had improved as a result of

the Plan.

However, the predominant sentiment among agency

and community interviewees was that the Plan did not

lead to much in the way of collaboration in management

activities and did not improve relations between the forest

and communities. In fact, owing to budget reductions and

staffing cuts, an area of strength—public involvement in

recreation—has been in decline. Some interviewees stated

that tension and confusion at the agency-to-agency level

had increased since the Plan’s implementation. Other

interviewees expressed the view that the communities and

Forest Service had not collaborated much prior to the Plan

and noted that little had changed. Still others expressed the

belief that the Forest Service still views collaboration as a

public involvement process that must be fulfilled as a

requirement rather than seeing it as a way to communicate,

share ideas, understand how community decisionmaking

processes function, and collectively arrived at desired

socioeconomic and ecological outcomes.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

82

Additionally, some interviewees viewed the Plan as

contributing to the breakdown of relations with communities because it pledged a commitment on the part of the

Forest Service to provide a predictable supply of timber

harvest yet did not provide adequate mechanisms to ensure

that such harvest would occur. In short, some interviewees

felt that the partnerships and collaboration have not benefited interviewees who relied on the Mount Hood National

Forest for their livelihoods related to forest products. The

sentiment among agency employees is that through the

hard work of Mount Hood National Forest employees, and

independent of the Plan, some repairs to the damaged connections to former timber-based communities have been

made and continue to be made.

Several interviewees also raised the concern that the

Plan removed the authority of local Forest Service leaders

to make and follow through with decisions, thereby limiting potentially successful collaborative outcomes. Interviewees said that unless Forest Service decisionmakers can

be held accountable to their decisions, relations between

the Forest Service and local communities will not improve.

Protecting Forest Values and Environmental Qualities: Managing for Noncommodity

Forest Values

Many of the Plan’s standards and guidelines sought to

encourage the protection or creation of late-successional

forest stand structures and processes. The Plan also went a

step further by adopting a “do-no-harm” guiding management philosophy and setting into place a series of provisions, such as survey and manage and Aquatic Conservation

Strategy (ACS) requirements, to forestall harm to other

potentially threatened or endangered species.

Although few interviewees were satisfied with the way

the forest was managed, most believed that the Forest Service was doing the best job it could, given its resources and

the political, legal, and other constraints it faced. A minority of respondents—environmental group representatives,

people in the timber industry, and individuals with a vested

interest in forest management—believed the Forest Service

was not managing the forest in ways that met the needs or

expectations of the community. Correct or not, people

attributed this to the Forest Service’s inability or lack of

will to implement the Plan.

Opinions and perceptions held by interviewees within

the study communities divide roughly along the preservation versus conservation ideologies. Where some interviewees perceive management actions as consistent with

their values, others see the same actions as contrary to their

values. Resident opinions about forest management varied

widely, most divergent were the opinions of people who

moved into the area during the 1990s compared to the

opinions of interviewees who work or formerly worked in

the woods.

A minority of the respondents expressed concern about

noncommodity values, with water quality, aquatic habitat,

and watershed issues being the major concerns. Watershed

groups and soil and conservation districts have been fairly

active and progressive in the Upper Hood River Valley and

Villages of Mount Hood communities. Their efforts have

focused on stream habitat restoration, fencing projects,

culvert replacements, education, fish conservation and

recovery, and other issues related to watershed management.

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs is taking a

lead role in some fish recovery efforts in the Upper Hood

River Valley area. These groups work with private landowners and solicit input from agency personnel. Efforts to

enhance streams with habitat restoration projects were

viewed as having a positive impact on water quality and

fish populations.

A sizeable number of interviewees who were concerned

about forest health were supportive of timber harvest activity and developing infrastructure to support recreation.

They were concerned that the Forest Service did not know

how to operate at small scales that would allow local operators to participate in fulfilling forest management objectives. Several interviewees noted that recreation development was problematic given the difficulty the forest had

with managing the existing levels of recreational use. On

the other hand, several interviewees expressed the sentiment that the Forest Service emphasized wildlife and fish
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

83

management to the detriment of recreation and timber

management. They expressed concern that today’s “multiple use” focus does not include recreation and timber.

Their concerns often reflected their interest in using the

forest for recreation or harvesting products for sale. They

felt that the Mount Hood National Forest is no longer

meeting community needs or expectations in this regard.

Although many interviewees stated that they did not

want to see forest management go back to old practices,

they felt that harvesting timber was a tool for keeping forests healthy. They did not feel the Mount Hood National

Forest’s current practices are consistent with managing for

healthy forests. Some people feel that it would be possible

to break up the even-age structure of the forest—which they

described as neglected forest—and achieve habitat goals

that would be consistent with the Plan while at the same

time providing local employment and ownership in resource management. Several people talked about the

important cultural aspects of lifestyles that involve working

with timber resources and described how they still try to

make a living working in small-scale forestry, mostly with

private landowners. They suggested that the Forest Service

should look to small-scale operations and opportunities to

manage the forest. Such approaches to forest management

would be consistent with their values to make an income in

a forest-based industry and contribute to improving the

health of the forest.

An equal number of respondents expressed concerns

that were generally sympathetic with environmental groups.

Environmental group representatives have been disappointed with the implementation of the Plan. In 1995, the

salvage logging rider was attached to a budget bill signed

by President Clinton. The rider effectively suspended environmental laws and expedited logging and preparation of

timber sales on the national forests, including areas that fall

under the Plan. Many environmentalists viewed the salvage

rider as the Forest Service’s attempt to subvert the Plan.

Lingering resentment toward the Forest Service and mistrust

remain. As a result, many environmental groups continue to

pursue stronger forest protection measures. They were glad

to see the reduction in timber harvests but remain uncertain

about the impacts of the Plan on old-growth habitat and the

species therein.

Finally, some business interests and some of the newer

residents interviewed place a high value on the aesthetic

values the “untouched” forest provides and their ability

to recreate in it. These interviewees and the business community that derives income from recreational forest users

would like the Mount Hood National Forest to continue

managing the forest in a way that maintains its wilderness

aesthetic. Furthermore, they see the emergence of recreational development as integral to managing the forest

for this value. Several interviewees said the Mount Hood

National Forest had done little “in reality” to address recreational uses of the forest, and some believe access to trails

and campgrounds has decreased.

Issues and Concerns Relating to Forest

Management

As a result of the area’s change in population since 1990

and loss of jobs in the timber industry, fewer people living

in the study communities rely on the forest for economic or

other purposes. Community members, particularly longtime interviewees and business owners expressed disappointment and concern over what they perceived as the

decline in forest health and change in access to the plethora

of forest resources. Concerns expressed by interviewees

differed greatly by community. The differences are particularly evident in comments about recreation and forest

health. Forest Service employees and area interviewees

identified the following issues and concerns about forest

management on the Mount Hood National Forest.

Income Opportunities

A small number of interviewees in the Upper Hood River

Valley and the Greater Estacada Area were concerned about

their ability to derive income from forest management and

from the extraction and use of natural resources. For many,

this ability to derive income from the Mount Hood National

Forest means opening the forest to logging. Their interest
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

84

in logging activity ranged from salvage operations, removing utility wood, sales to support small wood product

businesses, or timber sales to meet probable sale quantity

levels set in the Plan and designed with local contractors in

mind.

Not surprisingly, given the shift in demographics within

the communities, a number of interviewees downplayed the

importance of forest-based employment. However, interviewees were generally supportive of forest management

and the ways it could economically benefit the community.

Interviewees in all of the study communities believed that

some forest management was necessary and that there

should be ways to connect these management activities

with community socioeconomic well-being.

Recreation

Concerns about recreation, including management of existing recreation sites and the development of new recreation

opportunities were ubiquitous across Mount Hood National

Forest communities. Each of the study communities has

distinctly different relations with the Mount Hood National

Forest, distinctly different histories and economies, and

therefore expressed different views and concerns with regard to recreational development and management on the

Mount Hood National Forest. In the Greater Estacada Area,

recreation and tourism play a very small role in the local

economy, and there is little expectation that it will play an

important role. However, the Forest Service has increased

permits for outfitters to use the Clackamas River for rafting

and kayaking that has spurred some small-scale tourism

development. For the Villages of Mount Hood, recreation

and tourism are an integral and accepted component of the

area’s culture and economy. To the east, in the Upper Hood

River Valley, recreation and tourism has been limited to

pass-through traffic that has little impact on the community

although some bed-and-breakfasts and shops cater to

tourists. However, increasing levels of recreation development on the Mount Hood National Forest and a realignment

of recreation business interests have brought more traffic to

the community and created the potential for a recreation

and tourism component of the small local economy. The

proposed expansion of the Cooper Spur ski resort was

controversial. Interviewees in all three communities

expressed concern about the negative impacts recreation

and tourism development will have on forest health.

Specific concerns of interviewees in the three communities

are outlined below.

Interviewees of the Greater Estacada Area expressed

little concern or were ambivalent about recreation management. Local government and a few businesses see recreational uses of the Mount Hood National Forest as an

undeveloped and potentially important component of the

local economy. Concern was expressed that forest management, harvest activities in particular, must be consistent

with recreation development.

Given the increasing prevalence of forest-based

recreation in proximity to the Villages of Mount Hood,

many business interests see visitors as an important benefit

to the local economy and were supportive of the Mount

Hood National Forest developing its infrastructure to

support recreation and tourism. Business owners and area

boosters report there are insufficient trails and campgrounds

for drawing people to the Mount Hood National Forest. The

business community and interviewees alike were particularly concerned about the use of signage to disperse visitors

more effectively over the road network to various destinations, including underused campgrounds. Interviewees who

frequently used the forest for recreation observed that day

uses of the forest were more common than in the past.

Several interviewees said that readily accessible areas were

overused and that they would like to see efforts made to

disperse people into less commonly used areas to protect

the forest.

Upper Hood River Valley interviewees were sharply

divided over recreation development. Recreation uses in

the area began to grow and diversify in the 1980s as

Portland area residents grew increasingly willing to access

Mount Hood recreation sites by way of the Columbia

Gorge. Mount Hood Meadows ski area now markets itself
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

85

by aligning with Hood River business interests. This, in

combination with the proposed expansion of the Cooper

Spur recreation resort area, continues the trend of increasing

traffic through the Upper Hood River Valley. Interviewees

are concerned about the economic and environmental

effects of tourism. Some people are opposed to the Cooper

Spur expansion and expressed concern about the potential

impacts on water quality and quantity of Crystal Springs

watershed that provides domestic and agricultural water for

the valley. Additionally, many interviewees are opposed to

a recreation-service-based economy and believe increased

visitors and tourism will negatively impact their quality of

life as a result of increased congestion and the presence of

strangers in the area. Others are supportive of recreation

expansion and the potential economic benefits it will bring.

The demands on local emergency services have increased

owing to increased traffic and recreation-based accidents

around the mountain.

Forest Health and Catastrophic Fire

Many interviewees expressed concern about forest health

and the risk of catastrophic fire. Some commented specifically about the changes they have seen in stands they were

familiar with, whereas others made general observations

about the density of growth along common transportation

corridors. In all three communities, interviewees expressed

fear that it was only a matter of time before a fire occurs, and

they are concerned about their property, personal safety, and

the effect that a fire would have on their quality of life.

Some interviewees believe that the risk of catastrophic

fire is indicative of an unhealthy forest resulting from poor

forest management. Moreover, they believe there are opportunities for land management activities that would

reduce fire risk and provide jobs and income for local interviewees and benefit the area.

Firewood

Many interviewees commented on the decrease in access to

firewood over the past decade. Although fewer people

depend on firewood for home heating, many still prefer to

use wood heat when possible, and a number of people

continue to use wood as a secondary source of heat. There

is a lack of understanding among interviewees as to why

fallen trees and snags are left in the woods. Interviewees

typically believe this is wasteful and contributes to fire

hazard.

Access to the Forest

Interviewees had mixed opinions about whether road

closures were positive or negative. Some thought road

closures were a good thing because they kept people with

off-highway vehicles from degrading the forest. Others felt

that the forest was big enough to serve multiple motorized

and nonmotorized uses, and that access was important for

spreading out the use. Long-time residents accustomed to

using the Mount Hood National Forest were unhappy about

the loss of access to places they previously had frequented

on a seasonal or year-round basis.

Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat

Interviewees in the Upper Hood River Valley and Villages

of Mount Hood expressed concern about water resources.

Many interviewees in both communities rely on water from

the Mount Hood National Forest and many, as former

Portland area residents, recognize the immense value of

water resource for downstream water users.

For the past 20 years, there has been a growing concern

about a number of aquatic species listed as threatened and

endangered. A number of interviewees, particularly in the

Upper Hood River Valley and Villages of Mount Hood,

expressed concern about aquatic habitat. There has been a

high level of engagement with the Forest Service addressing these issues.

Wildlife

The change in forest management has affected wildlife

populations on the Mount Hood National Forest. Some

interviewees believe that fewer open stands on the forest,

resulting from decreased timber harvests, has led to an

increase in game and their predators in the lower elevations

of Mount Hood. Interviewees report increased incidents of

elk and deer browsing in orchards.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

86

Timber Harvest

A few Upper Hood River Valley interviewees and environmental organization representatives voiced concern about

the commercial timber program and any plans to log in

areas that qualify as wilderness or that include old-growth

stands. Some of these interviewees would like wilderness

designation extended to cover all eligible acreage in the

Mount Hood National Forest.

Lack of Clarity

A majority of interviewees are unaware of Mount Hood

National Forest management objectives. They see the Forest

Service as an agency without a clear mandate or direction.

They expressed frustration that the Forest Service has not

defined what it is and what it does. Furthermore, nearly all

interviewees noted the Forest Service’s lack of communication, clear or otherwise, with area residents. A few interviewees said that the Mount Hood National Forest has not

fully acknowledged that they are managing an urban forest

with issues that differ from those encountered when they

were managing wilderness areas and timber, and that the

agency culture has not shifted to reflect this change. Former

timber industry workers, in particular, stated that although

the practices of the past may not have been good, doing

nothing has more negative impacts than good timber

management practices.

Comments from interviewees revealed a common concern about the lack of clarity about the Mount Hood National Forest’s recreation policy, and general forest management. Some interviewees expressed concern that the Forest

Service was looking to recreation as a substitute for the

unmet expectations of the timber program under the Plan.

Interviewees were concerned that recreation was being

thought of as a convenient alternative in part because it is

perceived to be politically feasible. These interviewees

were concerned that policy and programmatic emphasis on

recreation have emerged without an evaluation of the implication of expanded recreation on communities and the

forest resources.

Local Views of the Plan

Interviewees were asked for their views of what was working

well and not working well with the Plan. Local views about

the Plan fell into two categories, those provided by interviewees with only a vague understanding of the Plan and

those provided by interviewees with a direct or longstanding interest in forest resources who held specific views.

Interviewees who were vaguely familiar with the Plan

were not clear about the Plan’s goals or implications of its

implementation. Their responses included believing that

the Plan was intended to shut down the woods, to balance

harvest activities with forest and species protection, or to

protect old-growth forest habitat. Several interviewees were

supportive of the Plan, believing that it was designed to

allow some cutting and preserve the old-growth timber

stands and that it allowed use of the forest while putting

more responsibility on the Forest Service for its care.

Individuals in logging-related businesses, environmental organization representatives, or individuals involved in

collaborative stewardship activities were familiar with

several aspects of the Plan in some detail. Generally, they

were supportive of some elements of the Plan and critical of

others. For individuals in the timber industries, the common

concern was that the Plan was implemented too strictly and

resulted in a lack of sales or profitable sales. Rather than

abiding by provisions of the Plan, they believed that the

Mount Hood National Forest should abide by “common

sense” to achieve Plan goals. Several contractors believed

that most high-quality contractors can log, even in sensitive

areas, without negative impacts to the environment.

A few newer residents questioned whether the goals of

the Plan were being met and the way it was implemented.

Their concerns centered on how sale quantity goals were

met—number of acres treated and board feet logged. These

concerns resonated with environment groups’ comments

about what aspects of the Plan were working.

One community resident and a number of Portland area

environmental group representatives were supportive of

elements of the Plan. They commonly said that the reserve
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

87

system, ACS, the focus on key watersheds, and survey and

inventory work were all steps “in a good direction.”

Specifically, they were encouraged by the “ground level”

survey work that increased the understanding of the forest

ecosystems. However, many felt the efforts did not go far

enough to achieve preservation or forest restoration goals,

including comprehensive protection of all eligible wilderness areas and all old-growth habitats. Furthermore, environmental organization representatives were dubious that

survey and manage or other procedural requirements of the

Plan were adequately adhered to. The result has been the

continued use of lawsuits, direct action, and efforts to

increase acreage under Wilderness Act protections.

A few interviewees viewed the Plan as a disincentive

for any developments on the Mount Hood National Forest,

from potentially insignificant ground-disturbing nontimber

forest products harvesting activities to more major recreation developments. They see the Plan, as it has been implemented, as a policy promoting no timber cutting on

national forests. They point to the lack of sales and their

general lack of affiliation with the Mount Hood National

Forest as proof. Pro-recreation expansion stakeholders,

specifically the corporate proprietors of the ski resorts, have

a series of complaints about how the Plan has affected their

ability to offer and expand recreation services to the public.

Other interviewees point to road closures, recreation site

deterioration, and questionable forest management practices, saying the Plan is responsible for these conditions.

Administration

Owing to administrative and legal obstacles, the timber

supply from the Mount Hood National Forest was erratic

following the implementation of the Plan, and eventually

was insufficient to support the timber industry in the area. In

addition, people who wanted to stay in the timber industries, either as small mill operators, or logging or restoration

contractors, have had a hard time of that because of the

administrative obstacles to small timber sales and restoration contracts. The small mill operators rely on private and

county lands for their logs, but the future of these supplies

are uncertain. Corporate and recreation permit holders

interested in expansion of permitted uses of the forest also

say that the Plan has been extremely costly, inefficient, and

inflexible, and has not allowed them to meet growing

societal demands for recreational opportunities that they

view as their corporate objectives. They believe that the

Plan regulations constitute an economic constraint and at

times an insurmountable obstacle to development. Additionally, procedural requirements, such as survey and

manage, are viewed as extremely costly, inefficient, and

unproductive.

Cost

Several interviewees noted the cost-prohibitive aspects of

the Plan. One of the only logging contractors remaining in

the study communities said that regulations affected the

duration of the operating season, the type of equipment

used, how the sites were accessed, etc., and noted that these

restrictions made it very difficult to execute timber sales.

Another interviewee, representing the ski resort industry,

reported that the cost involved in master planning with the

Plan is almost prohibitive.

Lawsuit-Ability/Applying Pressure on the Agency

Community members who are opposed to recreation

expansion would like to see the Plan strictly enforced on

ski permit areas, particularly in wetland and other riparian

areas. These interviewees are concerned about resource

protection and quality-of-life issues. Several environmental

organizations have used Plan regulations, namely survey

and manage, to challenge the Mount Hood National Forest

on a number of developments. Many interviewees believe

that several high-profile protests and lawsuits have diminished the Mount Hood National Forest’s ability and interest

to manage the forest for any but the most broadly acceptable purposes.

Land Use Allocations

One ski industry representative felt that land use allocations

and procedural requirements were inconsistent. He stated

that with the Plan land allocations and procedures it is

difficult for the ski resort to implement desired future
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

88

condition on preexisting A-11 recreation areas. He noted

also that the late-successional reserve boundaries may not

be appropriate and is disappointed that the Mount Hood

National Forest is reluctant to consider amending those

boundaries. Several contractors questioned the application

of riparian reserve regulations, saying that careful and

“common-sense” logging practices don’t conflict with the

land use allocation goals. A Forest Service employee

echoed this comment, saying that the Plan reduces access to

the Mount Hood National Forest for a range of uses and, in

many cases, regulations were no better than “common

sense” logging practices in terms of species and habitat

protection.

Taken as a whole, interviewees view contemporary

forest management procedures as a key cause of the lack of

predictability of supply of timber and nontimber resources

from the Mount Hood National Forest and for the deterioration of the forest’s health. Interviewees question the

sustainability of forest management practices and are

uncertain of the extent to which the Plan is responsible.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

89

Monitoring Questions and Socioeconomic

Goals: An Evaluation

In this final section of the report, we summarize the perspectives of community interviewees and Mount Hood National

Forest employees regarding whether or not the Plan’s six

socioeconomic goals have been met. This section incorporates corporate and census data, including resource outputs

presented in chapter 2 and community socioeconomic data

in chapter 3 of this report.

Goal 1: Predictable and Sustainable Levels of

Timber and Nontimber Resources Are Available

and Are Being Produced

The Mount Hood National Forest seldom met the Northwest

Forest Plan’s (the Plan) goal of providing predictable and

sustainable supplies of products and opportunities. For

example, the Mount Hood National Forest fell far short of

offering the estimated timber probable sale quantity (PSQ)

of 64 million board feet (MMBF). Moreover, the amounts of

timber offered for sale varied from year to year, ranging from

a high of 75 MMBF in 1997 to a low of 1.4 MMBF in 2000.

Agency interviewees cited a number of reasons for the lack

of sales, including survey and manage and Aquatic Conservation Strategy requirements, legal challenges, and

reduced budgets. Opinions differed as to whether the current amounts of timber being offered for sale on the Mount

Hood National Forest are sustainable over the long term.

Many interviewees believed that a PSQ of 64 MMBF is

sustainable. However, the self-described environmentalists

interviewed expressed concern that the 64 MMBF estimate

was too high to be sustainable.

The degree to which the Mount Hood National Forest

produced predictable and sustainable supplies of nontimber

forest products also varied. The amount of firewood available, for example, decreased substantially as the area open

to timber harvesting declined. The supply of products, such

as mushrooms, boughs, poles and posts, and cones, whose

harvest was less closely linked to timber sales activities,

however, does not appear to have been greatly affected by

the Plan. Grazing and mineral activities were also not

significantly affected by the Plan.

Opinions about the sustainability and predictability of

the supply of recreation opportunities differed greatly. The

overall impression is that the Mount Hood National Forest

has been providing a predictable supply of recreation opportunities. There have been increases in all recreation

indicators except miles of system roads. It is expected that

this indicator will continue to decline. However, many

interviewees stated that the quality of recreational opportunities had diminished, with more emphasis placed on dayto-day operations and day-use facilities and less on overnight facilities and long-term infrastructural developments.

Additionally, a small number of interviewees, generally

people who formerly worked in the timber industry and who

used the woods for recreation, reported that the places they

were accustomed to visiting were no longer accessible or

access was restricted to specific times of the year.

A few interviewees commented that the Plan did not

offer specific policy guidelines on recreation and noted that

the Plan’s lack of explicit consideration of recreation has

made it difficult to pursue development of recreational

resources. At the same time, adherence to land use allocations and the administrative requirements in the Plan have

made it difficult to meet the increased demand for recreational facilities.

Goal 2: Help Maintain the Stability of Local and

Regional Economies and Contribute to Socioeconomic Well-Being in Local Communities on

a Predictable and Long-Term Basis

The evidence indicates that the Plan’s second goal also was

not met on the Mount Hood National Forest. As noted in the

discussion under goal 1, efforts to support a viable timber

sector in local economies by providing a predictable supply

of timber from the Mount Hood National Forest have not

been successful. According to local logging contactors, mill

Chapter 5: Conclusions–Meeting Northwest Forest Plan Goals and Expectations
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

90

owners, and timberland managers, the lack of predictable

supply of timber sales forced many of the small logging

companies out of business. The uncertainty that resulted

from the lack of predictability of sales combined with increased competition for fewer sales pushed several contractors out of the business. For mills that relied on timber from

the forest, the lack of predictable supply was cited as the

last straw, albeit one factor among many, pushing them out

of business.

Perhaps more significant, however, has been the decline

in contracting and direct employment opportunities on the

Mount Hood National Forest. As a result of budget cuts and

changes in forest management, Mount Hood National Forest procurements declined 15 percent, from a total of $19.7

million in 1990–92, to $16.8 million in 2000–2002. Contract opportunities changed as the Mount Hood National

Forest shifted from issuing contracts associated with intensive forest management activities to contracts associated

with ecosystem management. Of the 178 contractors working for the Mount Hood National Forest in 1990–92, only

10 remain a decade later. Ninety-eight new contractors are

doing intensive forest management associated with ecosystem management, and these contractors tend to be based on

the Interstate-5 corridor rather than in communities adjacent

to the forest.

Mount Hood National Forest’s budget cuts coincided

with large staff cutbacks and contributed to the economic

instability in the study communities. The number of employees on the Mount Hood National Forest dropped

roughly 60 percent, from over 700 in 1991, to about 240,

in 2000. Staff cutbacks reduced employment opportunities

and further reduced the flow of federal dollars to the study

communities.

All three communities experienced loss of employment in timber, manufacturing, and transportation industries between 1990 and 2000. In addition, changes in levels

of education attainment, income levels, and employment

in the Villages of Mount Hood and the Greater Estacada

Area reportedly indicate the loss of Forest Service personnel. Aside from the loss of jobs in timber, interviewees did

not make specific mention of the effect of the decline of

Forest Service jobs in the community. According to

interviewees, loss of local employment opportunities forced

many residents to seek work elsewhere. A number of

residents now commute to work. On the other hand, many

people left the communities, providing affordable housing

for inmigrants who continue to work elsewhere. Although

none of the study communities is strictly a bedroom

community, the loss of timber-based employment has

accelerated the transition of all three study communities

toward bedroom communities. As a result, interviewees

believe retail businesses that serve area residents have

declined while financial and real estate businesses have

expanded.

To a great extent, the Forest Service’s role in these communities has stabilized, but community expectations do not

seem in alignment with this role—owing in part to the

Forest Service not clearly defining and communicating its

agenda. To oversimplify, residents seem to desire far more

from the forest than they receive in terms of economic

benefits.

Goal 3: Minimize Adverse Impacts on Jobs and

Assist With Long-Term Economic Development

and Diversification in the Area

Views were mixed as to whether the Plan’s third goal was

met on the Mount Hood National Forest. Although the

communities and counties around the Mount Hood National Forest received approximately $47.7 million in

grants and loans associated with the Northwest Economic

Adjustment Initiative (NEAI), including funding for the

Jobs-in-the-Woods program, relatively little of that money

appears to have reached the three study communities.

Resource Advisory Committees (RACs), formed as a result

of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, now convene to decide how to allocate federal

funds for forest-related projects, such as stream restoration

projects.

Few interviewees believe the Forest Service was able to

minimize the adverse impact on jobs that resulted from the

reduction in logging activity on the Mount Hood National

Forest. Some interviewees said the Forest Service was
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

91

“disassociated” from the social and economic goals and

offered little support to former timber-based communities as

the communities faced transitions associated with declining

timber harvests. A few interviewees had positive things to

say about the infrastructure projects funded under the

Secure Rural Schools Act.

Besides providing funds to communities, Forest Service employees also participated in a number of community

development efforts. Several people who were active in

community development groups said these Forest Service

efforts did little to offset the effects of the Plan.

Several interviewees noted that economic diversification had occurred in some communities around the Mount

Hood National Forest, but they said it was unlikely that the

Plan or the Forest’s activities were the reason. Frequently,

they said that the Forest had not assisted with the long-term

economic development and diversification of the area. A

number of community and agency interviewees questioned

the Forest Service’s power to address job creation, economic

development, or diversification of the area’s economy. A few

interviewees questioned the appropriateness of the goal,

saying that it may not be the role of the Forest Service and

forest management to assist with economic development.

A number of agency staff saw the Rural Community

Assistance Program as a means for maintaining, reestablishing, or improving the forest’s relationship with local communities. They criticized the NEAI for not giving the

Mount Hood National Forest a lead role in developing and

implementing the initiative’s economic assistance measures. As a result, they feel that the Forest Service lost out

on opportunities to build bridges and connection to local

communities that were impacted by the changes in management practices on the Mount Hood National Forest.

Goal 4: Protect Nontimber Values and Environmental Qualities Associated With the Forest

Several community interviewees, particularly self-described

environmentalists and recent inmigrants, said the forest has

been successful at protecting nontimber values and environmental qualities of the Mount Hood National Forest. A

number of Forest Service employees believe that, in spite of

administrative difficulties, they have met short-term goals

for noncommodity protection. However, a number of

interviewees thought the Forest Service had gone too far in

protecting these values because it had virtually shut down

the forest to timber harvest activities and they did not

believe the reduction in harvest activities was successful in

protecting noncommodity values.

A number of community and agency interviewees were

concerned that, long term, the health of the forest was at risk

as a result of the Plan’s short-term procedural requirements

and lack of funds for implementing management activities.

Community interviewees were particularly concerned about

the number of stands that are in need of thinning for reasons

of forest health or to reduce fire hazard. Thus, although the

forest is meeting this goal better than other goals of the

Plan, this may be a short-term achievement.

Although many interviewees believe the success in

protecting noncommodity values was due to the sheer

stagnation of the process, others saw it as the result of a

shift in management approach. A small number of interviewees believe the Forest Service has moved from a

fragmented, action-oriented management approach to a

watershed management approach that considers the broader

needs of the ecosystem. A number of interviewees pointed

to fish habitat restoration efforts as examples of successful

ecosystem management.

A small number of interviewees, particularly representatives of environmental organizations, were concerned that

the Mount Hood National Forest continues to offer oldgrowth timber for sale and prepares sales in areas potentially eligible for wilderness designation. They would like

to see all old growth and roadless areas protected from

harvest activities.

Goal 5: Improve Relations Between Federal Land

Management Agencies and Local Communities

and Promote Collaborative Forest Management

and Joint Stewardship Activities

Interviewees had varied opinions about the Forest Service

improving its relations with the local communities. Forest
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

92

officials note that at the onset of the Plan, the multipleagency leadership of the Forest Provincial Advisory Committee immediately committed to developing seamless service delivery related to NEAI and other activities. Multipleagency leadership led to unprecedented levels of coordination across agencies. In general, community interviewees

who were engaged in soil conservation and watershed restoration noted increased interaction and interagency coordination. However, former timber industry workers noted

less collaboration and a continued deterioration of relations

with the Forest Service over the past decade, beginning

with the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) injunction. This laid important groundwork for recent collaborations that have taken place across ownerships under the

Wyden amendment. These efforts often involve multiple

agencies or community groups.

On the other hand, most interviewees perceived that the

Forest Service made little or no progress toward promoting

collaborative stewardship activities. A few Forest Service

and community interviewees believe the Forest Service has

little interest in collaborative forest management and, as a

result, it did not happen. This may contribute to the preponderance of lawsuits filed to change management activities on the forest.

A few interviewees, primarily those involved with water

quality and fish habitat projects, stated that the Plan’s

emphasis on collaboration had improved the Mount Hood

National Forest’s links to local communities. They noted

that the Mount Hood National Forest had made a positive

contribution to watershed and fish habitat improvement in

the area through the sharing of knowledge and expertise

with groups and neighboring landowners.

A few Forest Service interviewees believe the Plan

contributed to the breakdown of relations with forest communities. The failure to achieve PSQ estimates accelerated

this breakdown. What good relations there are, interviewees attribute to the hard work of individuals within

the agency to overcome the damage created by the Plan.

A few people noted that collaboration no longer took

place between traditional stakeholders, such as logging

contractors and the Forest Service, but now occurred

primarily between “public interest” stakeholders and the

Forest Service. For example, one innovative Mount Hood

National Forest effort entails reaching out and involving

recreation stakeholders in the planning process. Several

interviewees felt the community residents have been largely

left out of the process, with the exception of a few business

interests. Most community interviewees noted the increased

presence of Mount Hood National Forest leaders at local

community development meetings but remarked on the

lack of results.

Overall Goal: Balance the Need for Forest

Protection With the Need to Provide a Steady

and Sustainable Supply of Timber and Nontimber

Resources to Benefit Rural Communities and

Economies

The case studies indicate that the Mount Hood National

Forest has not yet met the Plan’s overall socioeconomic

goal of balancing forest protection and forest production

objectives. Although many interviewees believe that the

Mount Hood National Forest has done a good job of

protecting resources in the near term, few believe the Mount

Hood National Forest has overcome the obstacles to

producing predictable and sustainable supplies of timber.

Local logging contractors have not logged on the Mount

Hood National Forest for nearly a decade, and local mills

have not been able to plan for a supply of timber from the

Mount Hood National Forest. Business owners who derive

income from tourism do not believe the Forest Service has

developed the infrastructure to support recreational use to

support a sustainable supply of recreational opportunities

for visitors. Some of the challenges that have hindered the

Mount Hood National Forest’s ability to balance forest

protection and production goals include:

• Costs in terms of staff time and funding to comply

with Plan procedural requirements.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

93

• Declining budgets and staffing levels.

• Continuous litigation and protests of timber sales.

• Inability to work with and assist communities

more directly and in a timely manner.

• Learning curve in acquiring the skills to develop

partnerships and work collaboratively.

• Lack of innovative leadership in areas such as

recreational infrastructure development.

Importantly, many interviewees attribute the inability

of Mount Hood National Forest to balance protection and

production to the forest’s lack of authority over key

management decisions. This includes decisionmaking on

the district level and forestwide, as affected by budgets set

in Washington, DC. They often cite ongoing litigation over

many timber sales rather than shortcomings on the part of

forest employees or local leadership.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of data compilation

and consultation by Lynnae Sutton, Candace Dillingham,

Claudia Stuart, and Dick Phillips. Many thanks also to the

Institute for Culture and Ecology, Dr. Rebecca McLain in

particular, for her thorough review of this report in its

preliminary draft and for her support and insights through

the course of this project. We would also like to thank our

three peer reviewers Dr. Robert Ribe, Dr. Victoria Sturtevant,

and Christine Arredondo for their critical review and suggestions for improving this report. Any findings and interpretations expressed in this report are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the reviewers.

We owe a debt of gratitude to all of our interviewees at

the Forest Service, as well as the residents of Estacada, the

Upper Hood River Valley, and the Villages of Mount Hood

from Brightwood to Rhododendron, who were generous in

sharing their experiences, struggles, and insights with us.

Finally, this document could not have gone to press without

Judy Mikowski’s tireless editorial support; thank you.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get:

Feet 0.305 Meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Acres .405 Hectares

Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers

Board feet, log scale .0045 Million cubic meters

References

Bernard, H.R. 2002. Research methods in anthropology:

qualitative and quantitative approaches. Walnut Creek,

CA: Altamira Press. 752 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

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Seattle, WA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1996. The Forest Plan for a

sustainable economy and a sustainable environment. In:

Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.;

Moriwaki, C.B. The Northwest Forest Plan: a report to

the President and Congress. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and

Economic Assistance: 231–238. App. A.

Danks, C.; Haynes, R.W. 2001. Socioeconomic research.

In: Haynes, R.W.; Perez, G.E., tech. eds. Northwest

Forest Plan research synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-498. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:

52–62.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

94

Donoghue, E.M. 2003. Delimiting communities in the

Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 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. 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. Socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume III: rural communities

and economies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7–35.

Chap. 2.

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.

Erkert, T. 2004. Personal communication and data. Travel

management analyst, engineering staff, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW First Avenue,

Portland, OR 97204-3440.

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 [et al.]. [Irregular pagination].

Kocis, S.M.; English, D.B.K.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Arnold, R.;

Warren, L.; Ruka, C. 2004. National visitor use

monitoring results, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Region 6 [Pacific Northwest Region],

Mount Hood National Forest. Athens, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research

Station, National Visitor Use Monitoring Project. 25 p.

Kohnen, P. 2002. The first people of Clackamas County.

www.usgennet.org/alhnorus/ahorclak/indians.html.

(February 2002).

Moseley, C. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan (1994–2003):

procurement contracting in the affected counties of the

Northwest Forest Plan: 12 years of change. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-661. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 36 p.

Mulder, B.; Noon, B.; Spies, T.; Raphael, M.; Palmer, C.;

Olsen, A.; Reeves, G.; Welsh, 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.

Phillips, R. 2006. Payments to county governments. 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. 2006. Socioeconomic monitoring results. Vol III: rural communities and economics.

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

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station: 101–104. Chapter 7.

Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination

Act 2000; Act of October 30, 2000; P.L. 106-393, H.R.

2389, 114 Stat. 1607. Title II: Special Projects on

Federal Lands.

Stuart, C. 2006. Agency jobs, unit reorgizations, and

budgets. 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. 2006. Socioeconomic monitoring results. Vol III: rural communities and

economics. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 54–75. Chapter 4.

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.
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

95

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census summaries. American

Factfinder factfinder.census.gov/. (January 31, 2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1996a. East Fork Hood River and Middle Fork

Hood River watershed analyses. Sandy, OR: Mount

Hood National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1996b. West Fork of Hood River watershed

analysis. Sandy, OR: Mount Hood National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 1998. Columbia Tributaries East Watershed

Analysis. Sandy, OR: Mount Hood National Forest and

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2002. Monitoring and evaluation report fiscal year

2001: Mount Hood National Forest land and resource

management plan. Sandy, OR: Mount Hood National

Forest. 129 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2003. Monitoring and evaluation report fiscal year

2002: Mount Hood National Forest land and resource

management plan. Sandy, OR: Mount Hood National

Forest. 123 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2004. INFRA database. http://infra.wo.fs.fed.us/

infa/. (July 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Final supplemental

environmental impact statement on management of

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest

related species within the range of the northern spotted

owl. Portland, OR: 526 p. Vol. 1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown].

74 p.

Wollner, C. 1990. Electrifying Eden Portland General

Electric 1889–1965. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical

Society Press. 325 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-701

96

Mount Hood National Forest

Respondent’s position

Forest recreation, planning, public affairs staff officer

Forest planner, forest hydrologist

Forest geologist

Range program manager

Forest Youth Conservation Corps and hosted and senior volunteer coordinator

Forest volunteer program coordinator

Fire and aviation management program manager

Forest silviculturist

Forest supervisor

Zigzag District Ranger

Forest natural resources staff officer

Forest special forest products coordinator

Public affairs officer, rural community assistance coordinator

Forest engineer

Vegetation management specialist

Five district and forest recreation program managers (group interview)

Clackamas River District Ranger

Appendix: Mount Hood National Forest and Community Case Studies

Upper Hood River Valley

Upper Hood River

Respondent’s position Additional stakeholder roles Valley resident

Former logging contractor/wood products X

industry employee (3)

Long-time orchardist (2) X

Volunteer fire department chief X

Environmental activist X

Retired Forest Service Hobby orchardist X

Retired Forest Service X

Orchardist Owner private timber land X

County commissioner Family long-time residents X

Local store owner Family long time residents X

Small mill operator Family long-time residents X

Recreation industry representative X

Program manager migrant worker social Family long-term migrant workers X

services

Regional Soil and Watershed Association Watershed association representative

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, aquatic

restoration program, office in case-study site

Regional recreation industry representative
Northwest Forest Plan–The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Mount Hood National Forest...

97

Villages of Mount Hood

Villages of Mount

Respondent’s position Additional stakeholder roles Hood resident

Tourism and Recreation industry rep X

Tourism and Recreation industry rep

Developer Community development activist X

Real estate services X

Business person Chamber of commerce X

Watershed activists (2) X

Long-time resident Community development activist X

Retiree Service organization rep X

News media rep X

Local business owner X

Logging contractor X

Pastor X

Firefighter X

Logging contractor

County Economic Development official

Environmental interest group member (2)

Industrial timberland manager

Public school teachers (3) X

Community development activist Seasonal resident X

Community development activist X

Greater Estacada Area

Estacada area

Respondent’s position Additional stakeholder roles resident

Former logging contractors (3) X

Forest service employees (2) Community development activists X

Forest service employees (2) X

Logging supply store owner X

Local businessman Town councilman X

Logging contractor

Firefighter X

Local employer/business owner X

Community activist Recent inmigrant X

City manager X

Local employer/business X

Wilderness outfitter X

County economic development official

Environmental interest group member (2)

Wood products company employees (3)

Former business owner Chamber of Commerce

Pastor X

Social service provider X

School official X

Industrial timberland manager
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
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