United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-580

April 2003

Human Migration and Natural 

Resources: Implications for 

Land Managers and Challenges 

for Researchers

Stephen F. McCool and Linda E. Kruger
Stephen F. McCool is a professor, School of Forestry, University of Montana, 

Missoula, MT 59812; and Linda E. Kruger is a research social scientist, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103.

Authors
Abstract McCool, Stephen F.; Kruger, Linda E. 2003. Human migration and natural 

resources: implications for land managers and challenges for researchers. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-580. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19 p.

Rural areas of the Pacific Northwest experienced a dramatic growth in population 

during the late 1980s to early 1990s. This growth was fueled by both push and 

pull factors, including environmental and natural resource-based amenities. Such 

growth has not only stressed the capacity of rural counties and communities to 

cope with change but also has raised important questions about interactions 

between people and natural resources. This paper, explores four fundamental 

components of this interaction: (1) the drivers of population growth; (2) the 

consequences of population growth, primarily for management of natural 

resources; (3) the potential changes in the social and psychological links between 

people and natural resources that may accompany rapid inmigration; and (4) the 

best way to measure and assess the consequences of population growth in rural 

areas. Some fundamental propositions within each of these components are 

presented. We use examples from Kittitas County, Washington, to illustrate our 

discussion.

Keywords: Human migration, population growth, natural resource management, 

environmental amenities, social and environmental change, population dynamics.

1

Introduction During summer 2000, wildfires raged through the Bitterroot National Forest, adjacent 

state-managed and private lands in Montana and nearby Idaho. The combination of a 

long and geographically extensive drought, decades of fuel accumulation, and dramatically low fuel moisture content had seasoned the forests of the northern Rocky 

Mountains for major conflagrations. The fact that fires occurred was not surprising, 

nor was the difficulty of immediate suppression particularly unexpected—fire managers in the Bitterroot Valley had already observed the rapid rate of spread and combustion of fuels during the spring prescribed burning season. Although the fire behavior 

in July and August was extreme, it was the presence of homes and communities that 

changed how the fires were fought. After ensuring human safety, firefighters were 

forced to first protect homes and communities rather than develop a direct attack on 

the fires themselves.

Although the fires—both those that occurred in the Bitterroot National Forest and other places, in 2000 and at other times—provide important lessons for both living in and 

managing rural-wildland interfaces, their effects, the management issues they entail, 

and resulting policy revision are symbolic of larger social changes occurring in the forest lands of the West. These changes are occurring at the same time that the accumulated effects of resource policy decisions (e.g., fire suppression and exclusion, timber 

harvesting, road construction) are becoming apparent. Although our ability to display 

those consequences (through spatial modeling, for example) has improved dramatically, our understanding of the social forces and processes leading to increased human 

populations and the implications of population growth in the rural-wildland interface is 

poorly developed, yet fundamental to its stewardship. 

The growth of human populations in formerly wildland settings has brought dramatic 

changes in how people interact with natural and largely publicly administered forested environments. These changes are induced primarily by significant spatial shifts 

in the human population at both large and small scales. These shifts represent not 

only changes in the amounts of goods and services demanded from public forests, 

but also because of significant transformations in what people value, changes in the 

character of those goods and services, changes that are often at odds with both longestablished notions of what “things” public lands deliver and with the management processes designed to deliver them. At the same time, the local presence of the USDA 

Forest Service and other land managing agencies has been changing. Rangers, once 

highly integrated into, and more in tune with, rural resource-based communities are 

now more frequently located in larger communities often removed from the forest. 

Ranger districts have been consolidated, and those that remain have fewer employees, less stability in leadership, and more competition for their time and attention. 

These changes have converged with other growing challenges confronting public land 

managers (such as the hows and whys of public involvement, the appropriateness of 

various planning processes to the new realities of politicized and contentious settings, 

shifts in political power, continuing legislative scrutiny, etc.) and are producing a policy 

environment that is at once dynamic, difficult to understand and predict, yet increasingly salient to managers and citizens.

An important component of these social processes is the human population growth 

and change that has occurred in rural areas of the Pacific Northwest over the last 

25 years, but particularly in the 1990s. Such population change has been dramatic, 

and the presence of homes in forested environments has somewhat surprised agencies managing nearby public lands. In this paper, we consider the natural resource 

management issues and questions prompted by this extraordinary growth in human 
2 

population at the interface of wildland and urban environments. Our overall goal is 

not only to describe the complexity of these challenges but to stimulate research and 

deliberation about the interface. The paper begins with an overview of population 

change, focusing on the Pacific Northwest and the interior Columbia basin. We consider a series of questions concerning explanations for such change, how these relate 

to natural resources, and the potential consequences of change to management. We 

then discuss how the links between people and natural resources may be changing. 

We conclude with some considerations of important measurement questions concerning population growth. Research in this area is limited, so our discussion is focused 

on presenting a series of propositions. We present examples from Kittitas County, 

Washington, to examine the drivers of population growth and its implications for natural resource management.

The 1990s brought patterns of human migration to the Pacific Northwest not experienced in the recent past. Although the 1970s had undergone a “rural renaissance” in 

urban-proximate counties in terms of population growth, the 1990s brought a more 

widespread change in population, at least in the Pacific Northwest, that was not limited to urban-proximate counties, and that extended into forested areas unlike earlier growth patterns. For example, 94 of the 100 counties (only 6 of which have been 

classified as “metropolitan”) in the interior Columbia basin (encompassing Oregon and 

Washington east of the Cascade crest, all of Idaho, western Montana, and minor parts 

of Nevada and Utah) experienced increases in population from 1990 to 1994 (McCool 

et al. 1997). In particular, counties high in natural resource-based amenity values (e.g., 

forested mountains, rivers, and lakes; access to recreational settings for fishing, hiking, camping, river floating, etc., and the presence of clean air and water) and havens 

for retirement (such as Deschutes County, Oregon, and Ravalli County, Montana) 

demonstrated dramatic increases in population throughout the 1990s with the majority 

of this owing to net inmigration. These trends may become more remarkable in the future as the baby boom generation approaches and enters retirement, which will begin 

to occur in about 5 years. About 31.1 million Americans were age 65 years and older 

(the most popular retirement age) in 1990. This number is projected to increase by 

more than 25 percent to 39.7 million by 2010 (USDC Bureau of the Census 1999). 

Prior to the 1970s, migration was driven mainly by either economic factors or interest 

in being near family. In the 1970s, however, the back-to-the-land movement resulted 

in migrants who were younger, made fewer demands for services, and often had little 

money. The presence of natural resource-based amenities as pull factors and deteriorating urban conditions as push factors helped change the fundamental forces influencing migration—as predicted by Ullman (1954). Although economic opportunity may 

be important, amenities have also significantly increased. Preferences for small, rural 

community settings as a residence may predominate in American society (Fuguitt and 

Brown 1990, Fuguitt and Zuiches 1975, Zuiches 1980). Migrants may be drawn by 

cheaper housing, lower crime rates, and a slower pace of life often found in rural communities. They also may be attracted to natural resource-based amenities. Several 

studies of migrants and migration patterns suggest an increasing significance for such 

amenities in migration decisions (e.g., Haas and Serow 1997). McGranahan (1999) 

reports that environmental amenities—such as climate, topography, and water—were 

highly correlated with rural county population growth from 1970 to 1996. Research 

also has shown that the presence of national parks and designated wilderness often is 

Human Migration 

and Population 

Change: New 

Challenges for 

Natural Resource 

Managers 
3

associated with higher than average population growth (Rudzitis and Johansen 1989). 

Johnson and Beale (1998: 24) summarize this trend by stating: 

It was this desire for a retreat from big-city strains and hazards, the desire to 

enjoy nature and live in a community where one can be known and make a 

difference, that made the suburbs grow, and now that technological and economic change allow, it may continue to benefit rural areas.

These preferences also can be seen in net migration figures for counties classified 

as recreational by the Economic Research Service (Beale and Johnson 1998). Such 

counties have higher than average expenditures on amusement, recreation, and lodging. In the 24 counties classified as recreation counties in the interior Columbia basin, 

for example, net inmigration accounted for an average of 80 percent of the total population growth from 1990 through 1994 (McCool et al. 1997). Such patterns are not 

limited to the basin: Johnson and Beale (1998) report that 94 percent of the counties 

in the United States with 30 percent or more of their land in federal management saw 

population growth, and for most, net inmigration was an important factor.

This rapid rate of population growth, owing primarily to migration, has perhaps 

strengthened the economic viability of some communities through increased spending, enhanced employment opportunities, and a growing tax base, but it also has 

dramatically stressed the capacity of rural counties (and rural regions of more urban 

counties) to provide needed services. Because newcomers may bring political savvy, 

new expectations, and diverse values with them (Brown 1995, Schwartzweller 1979), 

conflict and controversy frequently occur over provision of local government services. 

An important characteristic of this growth is the changing ethnic and racial character of 

the population. Minority populations (Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Islanders, and 

Hispanics) in the Pacific Northwest are growing rapidly and bringing with them different perceptions of what goods and services public lands should produce. 

Growing populations also can create new economic opportunities for the resident 

population, thus potentially reducing outmigration. In a sense, a growing population 

that is more diverse suggests new and unanticipated ways of interacting with natural 

resources. Conflicts in value systems between traditional commodity interests and 

those seeking venues for special forest products, for example, may exacerbate the 

potential for friction over natural resource management. 

As well, the volatility of rural populations suggests potential instability in agency relations with adjacent landowners and communities. This volatility comes from both inmigration and outmigration, which on average in the Pacific Northwest involves about 

20 percent of a county’s population, each year. Eventually, long-term residents do not 

represent the community anymore as a majority of the residents in any county will be 

relative newcomers, a group Amato and Radzilowski (1999) refer to as “a community 

of strangers.” There are important implications for not only new expectations by ones 

who may or may not be informed about natural resources and how they are managed 

but also challenges for developing good relations between management agencies and 

their local publics. For example, with such volatility in a population (often accompanied 

by turnover within agencies), it is difficult to maintain the long-term interactions often 

necessary to the mutual learning and understanding that serves as a foundation for informed public judgment. Rural communities are becoming increasingly integrated into 

regional, national, and international economies and increasingly less internally interconnected (Berry 2000).
4 

The links between population growth and natural resources may be visualized as 

shown in figure 1. Questions derived from these links may be roughly divided into four 

components: population growth drivers, growth consequences, social and psychological links with natural resources, and measurement. For each of these components, 

we identify a major proposition (shown in bold) and a set of questions. Following our 

discussion of the propositions, we will use the Kittitas County example to illustrate the 

nature of each issue.

Fundamental to understanding the implications for natural resources is a better comprehension of the drivers of population growth, particularly growth occurring as a 

result of net inmigration. Frey (1993) and Frey and Speare (1992) identify three major 

conceptual frameworks for explaining migration patterns: period, regional restructuring, and deconcentration. Of the three, Troy (1998) argues that deconcentration combined with period explanations are effective in understanding the migration patterns 

of the 1990s. Migration has both push and pull factors—those attributes that serve, 

respectively, to encourage people to move out of an area and those attracting people 

to an area. Many demographic studies have emphasized the role of economic pull factors, such as growth, job availability, and high wages, while ignoring important amenity-based pull factors—such as the presence of wilderness, forests, mountains, lakes, 

clean air, pure water, and recreational opportunities. Economists often refer to these 

amenity-based factors as “public resources.” These pull factors operate in concert with 

certain push factors, such as urban decay, pollution, crime, and the cost of housing, to 

make rural environments appear attractive. 

Human Population 

Growth and 

Natural Resources 

Management: 

Policy Questions 

and Research 

Challenges

Population Growth 

Driver Questions

Figure 1—Conceptualization of the links between population growth and natural 

resources management. Feedback from the policy response may affect inmigration and outmigration as well as the magnitude of the social and environmental 

consequences through actions that dampen or enhance effects.
5

Proposition 1a. Amenities are increasing in importance as a fundamental 

reason for inmigration to rural areas. Several studies have documented a strong 

American preference for living in rural settings as discussed earlier. Small rural towns 

are often viewed as crime free and as being reservoirs of fundamentally American values. A nostalgic notion of quality of life in rural towns may underlie these preferences. 

Although many people prefer to live in rural towns, in the past, these preferences have 

been tempered by needs for access to larger communities and the jobs, services, and 

opportunities they afford (De Jong 1977, Fuguitt and Zuiches 1975). These limitations 

may have less impact today as telecommunications technology permits access to 

many business services regardless of where one lives. Transfer payments to individuals (in the form of retirement, interest, and social security) allow increasing flexibility in 

choice of residential location.

With the U.S. economy in excellent condition for nearly a decade and the rise of 

knowledge-based industries, more people may be able to express their preferences 

for living environments through migration. Much of the migration in the 1970s was into 

rural counties adjacent to cities, but the 1990s migration has involved more geographically isolated locations as well (Troy 1998). This change suggests that the relative advantage of suburbs may be declining in comparison to the quality of life and availability 

of services in rural America. 

Proposition 1b. Public lands offer the environmental-based amenities that 

rural inmigrants seek. We need to better understand the role of wildland settings 

and national forests, and national parks as pull forces. Despite the controversy over 

commodity extraction from public lands, these lands offer recreational opportunities, 

scenic vistas, solitude, and relatively unmodified environments that many people seek 

to live in or near. Yet, these factors, although increasingly important, may be viable 

only when acting in concert with other pull forces. We need to better understand how 

these environmental pull forces interact with other factors, such as highways, airports, 

cellular phones, and T1 lines for high speed Internet access that are not as well developed in rural areas. What types of people are attracted to these environments? What 

values toward planning and natural resource management do they hold? How involved 

will they become in local politics? How do they perceive the role of the environment in 

their lives? How do their current perceptions compare to perceptions they held where 

they formerly resided?

What is the spatial distribution of population growth over time? We can map this 

growth by county, but it is perhaps more useful to know where—in terms of landform, 

vegetative cover, slope, or distance to a highway, park, or other recreation site—this 

growth is occurring than to know the particular administrative unit it is occurring in. 

Such information would help land managers better understand and predict the location 

of residential developments, particularly large-scale developments that might eventually affect publicly administered resources through a number of offsite effects.

Proposition 1c. “Hidden” people (primarily Hispanics in agricultural regions 

and Southeast Asians who migrate seasonally for mushrooms and other nontimber forest products of the Pacific Northwest) may have different demands 

for public services and may interact with natural resources in fundamentally 

different ways than the resident population. Migration figures may miss important 

segments of the population, such as migrant workers who may be in the country 

illegally, undocumented workers, or others who are always on the move with no 
6 

permanent address. How are these components of the population accommodated in 

planning processes and accounted for in management decisions? How are their needs 

for goods and services from public lands accommodated? How are they differentially 

affected by resource management decisions? How do they interact with other residents? How are they perceived by other residents?

The dilemma that rural population growth presents, particularly in rural, high-amenity 

settings, is challenging to planners. Graber (1974: 506) long ago noted that as rural 

areas grow in population and associated development, they begin to lose some of their 

desirable characteristics: “[The] more people there are that discover these charms 

and the greater the influx, the more the area begins to acquire urban characteristics.” 

Inmigrants discover that the pace and change of the urban settings they attempted to 

escape seem to have arrived with them, and often, ironically, it is the expectations they 

bring that result in rural communities taking on characteristics of more urban settings.

Proposition 2a. Inmigrants will increasingly locate in forest-dominated settings 

at the wildland-urban interface. When rapid growth occurs, the market responds 

through increased supply of housing and residential lots. Where does this growth 

occur? How do we describe growth at smaller scales? Does it occur on the fringe of 

existing urban areas and rural villages, or do new developments occur at the fringe 

of wildlands? What about in-fill incentives? What services are existing governments 

willing to provide and at what cost? How do new houses and lots differ from existing 

houses and lots?

What impacts do new developments have on such important issues as forest health, 

access to federally administered lands, riparian management and water quality, forest 

and wildlife habitat fragmentation, fire suppression, and use of fire as a management 

tool? In the Kalispell, Montana, area, game wardens killed nine mountain lions that 

wandered into new suburban-style developments in a 5-month period in 1998. The 

image of mountain lions “patrolling” streets in search of food is not generally consistent 

with a migrant’s notion of a safe rural lifestyle nor a wildlife manager’s view of ideal 

game management.

The transition from large ranch and farm ownerships to small subdivisions, ranchettes 

and hobby farms, means increased difficulty in administration for counties that must 

maintain roads; for school districts that must bus students or build new schools; for rural fire districts that must carefully review subdivision plans and provide fire protection 

services with fewer volunteers to staff the fire trucks and ambulances; and for public 

land management agencies that must deal with the consequences of land fragmentation and increasing demands for various types of recreation. 

Proposition 2b. Inmigration at the wildland-urban interface has important implications for management of forest lands, including not only the social and political acceptability of proposed management actions but also the processes used 

to develop management plans. What responsibility do public land managers have 

in sustaining the natural resource qualities that have brought people to an area? What 

role do agencies play in sustaining quality of life in communities in light of increasingly 

rapid growth and change? Do inmigrants enhance or retard economic development 

and tax revenues? Do they oppose or support property tax reform, bonds for schools, 

libraries, etc.?

Growth Consequence 

Questions
7

The land management objectives held by new property owners may lead to different 

ways of managing a particular piece of land and changes in how adjacent federally 

administered land itself is managed. Understanding what these changes are and how 

they might affect management is critical to development of land management plans. 

Migrants, especially retirees and those maintaining home offices, have time during the 

day to meet with agencies. They also feel more comfortable with planning regulations, 

environmental impact statement documents, and public meetings, and may have a 

better understanding of how to influence planning processes. This raises issues for 

land managers because they may find collaboration and public involvement easier with 

newer migrants than long-term residents. At the same time, these newer residents 

may bring with them political skills and savvy developed and practiced in more urbanized settings, potentially overwhelming long-established interaction processes.

A potentially more significant question, however, concerns how management plans are 

implemented in a dynamic social context; for example, increases in the number of lots 

adjacent to a national forest may eliminate the possibility of using fire as a management tool simply because the perceived risk (when a fire escapes) becomes too high. 

Do newcomers realize that to keep land from being subdivided or small towns from 

turning into bedroom communities, they need to keep traditional resource economies 

viable? The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust based in Seattle attempts to promote 

and maintain the Interstate 90 corridor running east from Seattle as a “working landscape” retaining active management of the land in a way that is sensitive to aesthetic 

values and historical land uses.

Proposition 2c. Lifestyles of new residents may differ from those of existing residents, creating new and broader demands for recreational access and 

opportunity on adjacent public lands. Understanding such differences can help 

managers predict how demand might change in the future and assist them in developing appropriate responses. Are the demands of recent migrants similar to those of 

the long-time residents? For what opportunities are demands increasing or decreasing? What types of experiences do both residents and inmigrants seek? How do new 

residents influence long-term residents and vice versa? To what extent are the experiences sought by both similar and different? Can management satisfy both with similar 

management approaches? Can a variety of opportunities be provided concurrently, or 

are some activities mutually exclusive? 

Local governments are confronted with a somewhat different set of questions. Can 

government provide services to newcomers coming in at levels seen over the last decade without concurrent industrial development that has previously provided funding 

for schools? Using education as an example, if 2,000 households with 3,000 schoolage children move into a rural town, where does the $9 to $10 million needed annually 

for elementary and secondary education come from? The amount of property taxes 

paid by residential homeowners generally does not cover the cost of government 

services provided, including education. Bond issues for schools and other improvements may have difficulty passing as newcomers try to escape increasing taxes while 

long-time residents resent shouldering a burden they see brought on by newcomers. 

Developers may be asked to pay higher upfront costs. This would, in turn, raise the 

cost of a new house to the buyer. Year-round classes are being suggested as a partial 

solution by some school districts. (What effect might this have on demands for recreational opportunities?) In many situations, there is interest in developing new commercial and industrial complexes to generate tax revenue needed to provide government 

services and provide additional local jobs. 
8 

There also are questions concerning management of population growth, a contentious topic that many hesitate to even mention. Growth management acts and related 

zoning are based on the assumption that this growth should be controlled, limited, or 

influenced. What tools are available, and how is the choice of tools influenced by the 

institutional context? With rising land values, increased profits, and higher stakes, 

what is the capacity of rural villages to manage growth, especially when county commissioners see growth as not only a goal but the sole means of addressing funding issues? What zoning, or lack thereof, encourages growth in one place and not in 

another or encourages one type of growth and not another? Some local governments 

have addressed this issue through moratoriums, particularly when water is a limiting 

factor. What role do public land managing agencies have in the growth management 

debate? Should management occur at larger scales—such as the Oregon example 

(state land use zoning) or Washington’s 1990 Growth Management Act—or at smaller 

scales? What are the costs (including hidden costs) of subdivision?

Fortmann and Kusel (1990) argue that newcomers may hold a repertoire of useful 

political activism and organizational skills that provide a voice for concerns about environmental and natural resource issues held by oldtimers. These skills can provide the 

community as a whole with the option to express concerns that once were unspoken 

owing to a lack of venue or skill. On the other hand, some newcomers may be escaping from the political pressures, pace, and congestion of urban life and thus choose to 

live in communities that are gated and walled in more ways than one. Do these loners 

eventually become active in the community? Research is needed to better understand 

how newcomers are integrated into the community and what effects migration has on 

community capacity and resiliency.

Proposition 3a. Those who move into rural areas are different in some ways 

than both those who remain in urban regions and long-term residents of rural 

areas. Because migrants are more likely to reside initially in metropolitan areas (where 

most of the population lives), there is an urban oriented or based culture in this group. 

For example, Graber (1974) established that migrants have higher levels of educational attainment than those living in the destination, a finding reinforced more recently 

by Smith and Krannich (1998). Troy (1998) found that migrants to a 100-county area in 

the Pacific Northwest had smaller household incomes than nonmigrants in the destination area. The fundamental question, however, is not so much about identifying differences in income and education between newcomers and oldtimers: it is more about 

understanding what these differences mean for managing the public estate. 

Proposition 3b. There are important and meaningful differences between recent 

inmigrants and long-time residents of rural areas in relation to how they interact with the environment and how they value different components of it. Many 

questions confront researchers and managers in this area. For example, how do newcomers versus oldtimers perceive the environment? Is the last settler syndrome operative in the type of growth situation seen in the West? Do attitudes toward management 

policy shift according to tenure within a county? Could a typology of lifestyles be depicted that would better describe human interactions with the natural environment?

Much has been written about the potential for conflict among those traditionally living 

in rural counties of the West—farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners—and the exurbanite 

who brings a substantially different orientation toward the environment. Alm and Witt 

(1996: 26) summarize this potential: “. . . there exists a deep historical conflict among 

competing values that has resulted in an ‘us against them,’ orientation where farmers, 

Social and Psychological 

Questions Concerning 

Natural Resources
9

ranchers, loggers and miners view themselves as under siege from the new urbandriven environmentalists.” Much of this potential for conflict, they argue, focuses on 

quality-of-life issues. In high-amenity areas, quality of life deals directly with amenities 

such as public lands, clean air, pure water, forests, scenic vistas, and wildlife. Many 

newer migrants and visitors place higher importance on aesthetic values and recreation while potentially lacking the historical and cultural connection to a working landscape characteristic of farmers, ranchers, and loggers. 

A study of small-woodlot owners in southern Oregon, found that 60 percent of the 

long-term residents had utilitarian views of landscapes, whereas 75 percent of the 

newer migrants had environmental views. In contrast, Smith and Krannich (1998) in 

a study of six rapid-growth communities in Utah and Wyoming found few differences 

between newcomers and oldtimers in attitudes toward public land management. This 

finding reinforces that of Fortmann and Kusel (1990) who also found few differences. 

Are, as the latter authors suggest, newcomers simply expressing attitudes and preferences that have laid dormant in rural communities until their arrival, or have these 

studies missed some important and relevant measures? This potential value pluralism 

lays the foundation for not only conflict over natural resources but the acceptability of 

the processes used to resolve such conflicts.

Perceptions of differences in attitudes remain important, however, and influence the 

social discourse over public land management, even where such differences may be 

small and inconsequential (Smith and Krannich 1998). If differences are perceived 

where none exist, then unnecessary conflict and controversy can arise and impede 

resolution of socially significant questions. In light of such situations, public land managers need to be alert to the presence of conflict based on invalid assumptions about 

differences between newcomers and oldtimers.

Proposition 3c. Newcomers and oldtimers differ in how they are attached to 

their residence. Another set of questions deals with the concept of place attachment. 

How strongly are migrants attached to places, and how do they define those places? 

Some data suggest that place attachment does not differ with tenure, but other data 

allow us to speculate that the nature of place attachment differs between the newcomer and oldtimer (Martin and McCool 1994). For the oldtimer, place attachment may be 

defined in terms of the network of friendship and family links for which small rural communities are known. Oldtimers also may be more attached to specific locations, places 

with fond memories of life events and meaningful experiences. Newcomers may be 

more attached to amenities in general and not so deeply embedded in the local social 

and political system or tied to specific places on the landscape. Their attachment to 

physical amenities may place them at odds with the local population or, given the findings of Smith and Krannich (1998), may serve to raise awareness and political activism levels. 

Proposition 3d. When attachments to physical attributes of place are identified, oldtimers may define such attachments in purely functional terms (a 

good place to hunt and fish), whereas newcomers may reveal more aesthetic 

and symbolic definitions (a pretty landscape; a place of personal restoration).

Differences in place definitions are often the cause of conflict over public land management (Grieder and Garkovich 1994), but research has yet to map the differences in 

place definitions between newcomers and oldtimers. Do we see one group exhibiting a 

utilitarian definition or another a more symbolic or cultural one? Tremblay and Dunlap 

(1978) found that urban residents (and presumably people migrating from 
10 

urban areas) were more symbolic in their views of the environment, whereas rural 

residents had more utilitarian perspectives. Although oldtimers often define a place in 

terms of a working landscape and an integral part of the local economy, newcomers 

may define the same landscape as natural refugia, a pristine natural area, or prime 

recreation site. They also found that years of residence to be a more powerful predictor of environmentalism than any other factor. How are these definitions distributed 

among the population? 

What is important about potential differences in place definitions and attachments is 

that their sources are significantly different environmental symbols, and such differences may serve different functions for the individual. For example, the exurbanite 

moving to a rural area may, as we have suggested above, hold attachments based 

on aesthetics rather than instrumental or utilitarian perceptions. But these differences 

may reflect different functions: the aesthetic attachment may potentially reflect a quality of life function that the newcomer seeks, whereas the utilitarian attachment may 

signal more of a working or income-supporting function. Such differences may be difficult to sort out during a conflict, yet are fundamental to it.

Is the newcomer population only superficially attached to place and willing to move 

when conditions turn adverse? (Jobes 2000) For example, Jobes reports some evidence of rapid turnover in the newcomer population in Gallatin County, Montana, when 

the full force of Montana winters was realized.

What about the nature of definitions of place? Who defines a place? The Chamber 

of Commerce? Residents? The Forest Service? Tourists? In all likelihood, each has 

a distinctive definition, and thus the important question is the extent to which such 

definitions are shared and which definitions may be marginalized and by whom. Place 

imagery and the meanings people attribute to a place shape their understanding of the 

community and become part of their own personal identity (Fitchen 1991). No wonder 

oldtimers become irate when some upstart newcomers try to redefine the image of a 

place. 

Proposition 3e. Attachments to place occur at various scales and intensities 

and are of different types. How does place attachment differ with scale? Migration 

into a community may change attachments at one scale but not at another. For 

example, new migrants may become attached to their new neighborhood but retain 

their attachment to their old community where their job and long-time friends are 

located. On the other hand, they may maintain their attachment to their old neighborhood while becoming more attached to their new community through memberships 

in organizations and involvement in activities. How does this affect who will take an 

interest and become involved in local resource decisions? How will agencies identify, 

locate, and communicate with interested parties?

Uncertainty pervades our understanding of the effects of high migration into interface 

communities. The effects on social capital and community capacity and resilience 

may differ from community to community because of many influences, such as the 

presence and distribution of organizational skills, leadership, and political power. We 

should not expect all communities to respond similarly (Krannich and Greider 1984) to 

migration. One important consideration will be how well newcomers are integrated into 

community life and whether their involvement creates new political power and structures so rapidly that they cannot be absorbed into the community, resulting in instability and new conflict.
11

The above issues need to be conceptually mapped, and eventually variables also will 

need to be identified and measured. Issues surrounding the measurement of migration 

continue to challenge researchers. Most migration is reported as movement from one 

political unit to another, say county to county or state to state. Migration also is measured over a period of 5 to 10 years, missing seasonal migration and those who move 

but return again within a few years.

Despite the findings of Smith and Krannich (1998) and Fortmann and Kusel (1990), 

important questions about potential differences between newcomers and oldtimers 

remain. The nonsignificant findings are in distinct contrast to anecdotal evidence. 

Perhaps other variables, such as lifestyle orientation, need to be measured. Perhaps 

the variables previously measured were too broad or vague (i.e., we assume that 

everyone likes apple pie, but then find that some people strongly dislike it). Perhaps 

variables that might demonstrate differences have not yet been measured. 

Proposition 4a. Significant issues exist concerning the appropriate temporal 

and spatial scales for dealing with inmigration questions. Many questions concern the scale at which variables are measured (King 1997, McCool and Troy 1998). 

What is the appropriate temporal, spatial, or social organizational scale for measuring 

population growth and migration patterns? What should be measured? How? What 

questions are best addressed at what scales? How is this information displayed in a 

manner useful to natural resource managers?

How are the costs (economic, environmental, and social) of population growth measured? How can we accurately measure growth? What about people with two residences: How are they accounted for? What about part-time residents, those who live in 

quasi-residential campgrounds in campers and trailers during summer, and transient 

but frequent visitors such as pickers and gatherers who repeatedly frequent an area to 

gather mushrooms, ferns, bear grass, and other nontimber forest products, and visitors and owners of time-share properties? How are they and their views, values, and 

impacts accounted for? How are these groups of people included in decisionmaking 

processes?

Proposition 4b. New geographic analysis and imagery technologies can help in 

locating, identifying, and assessing consequences of development at the wildland-urban interface. These technologies include geographic information systems 

and the widespread, and increasingly inexpensive, availability of satellite imagery in 

digital form. These technologies can help identify where development is occurring, 

provide the basis for predictive modeling, and assist in inventing new ways of measuring impacts. Impacts to habitats and vegetation are important consequences of development. What is a good measure of forest fragmentation? How much fragmentation 

is acceptable, given certain forest and ecosystem management objectives? How do 

managers perceive fragmentation? How do various segments of the public perceive 

fragmentation?

One objective of measurement is to aid in predicting consequences and relations. Can 

we predict which counties will rapidly grow from inmigration? How could counties be 

classified to aid in understanding and prediction? The Economic Research Service 

(Johnson and Beale 1992) has developed typologies of counties based on “policies” 

and economic base. For example, any county with more than 30 percent of its land 

in federal ownership is defined as a federal land policy type. Troy (1998) developed 

Measurement Issues
12 

a typology empirically based on migration patterns identified in Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) county-to-county migration files. Which typology seems to work best 

for what purpose? How can we best use these typologies to help land managers?

The population growth and migration patterns exhibited in Kittitas County are, to 

a great extent, representative of trends and processes occurring across the West. 

Kittitas County thus presents a microcosm of larger social and demographic processes. The county is confronted with several intricate, linked, and complex issues 

and questions that also face other high-amenity, rural counties. Kittitas County is a 

lightly populated rural county located immediately east of King County and the Seattle, 

Washington, metropolitan area (fig. 2). It includes the forested east slope of the 

Cascade Range, irrigated and dryland agricultural areas in the midcounty and typical arid basaltic landscapes of the interior Columbia basin in the eastern part of the 

county. Federal land management agencies manage about one-third of the land 

base, primarily located in the western region of the county. 

For most of its recent history, it has been heavily dependent on natural resource commodity production for its economic base. Such commodities have included agriculture, 

coal, and timber. The county lies astride Interstate 90, a major cross-country arterial, 

which connects to Interstate 82 from the east. The Burlington Northern railroad also 

bisects the county. The population in 2000 was 33,362, representing a nearly 25-percent increase from 1990. 

Migration patterns characterizing Kittitas County have mirrored those presented earlier. In 2000, about 35 percent of the county residents had lived there 5 years or less 

(USDC Bureau of the Census 2002). A similar percentage of the population residing 

in the county during that timeframe has since moved elsewhere. Net inmigration accounted for 86 percent of the population growth between 1990 and 1999. Troy (1998), 

in her study of human migration patterns in the interior Columbia basin, indicated that 

the county was one of five “recent growth” counties that demonstrated significant 

changes in migration patterns in the last 18 years. These counties had experienced 

net outmigration through the late 1980s, but subsequently have experienced net inmigration. 

We note that our discussion has dealt with net rates of inmigration. Regardless of 

whether the net rate is positive or negative, IRS migration data show that the movement into and out of the county has been significant over the years. The IRS migration 

data also show changes in the residence of taxpayers from year to year and include 

dependents. Such data may not show the actual location of those dependents, however—some of which may be attending college, for example, in another county. Kittitas 

County contains a university campus, so the IRS data may not accurately reflect the 

contribution of students who are legal dependents of parents living elsewhere. The 

migration trends (see fig. 3) show volatility in the population, in terms of people moving in and out of the county, but an increase in inmigration. The IRS data on migration 

show that there was net outmigration from 1980 through 1987, but this turned around 

in 1988, with net inmigration occurring every year since (except for 1998). 

In 1980–81, although net migration was only a minus 25 or so households, inmigration totaled about 1,100 households, and outmigration only a little more. Thus, in one 

year the county had a turnover of about 2,500 households out of about 10,000 located 

in the county at the time. In 1998–99, over 2,300 households moved into or out of the 

county. Such figures emphasize the importance of examining both inmigration and 

outmigration streams, rather than relying on net migration figures. This expanded 

Kittitas County, 

Washington: An 

Example of New 

Interactions with 

Natural Resources
13

Figure 2—Kittitas County is located immediately east of the greater Seattle–King County area astride 

Interstate 90.

Figure 3—Inmigration to Kittitas County has outpaced outmigration for the last several years as shown by 

the difference in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) returns of filers moving in and out. (Source information is 

from county-to-county migration files and the IRS.)
14 

examination is particularly important in understanding the dynamics of population 

change in smaller communities and the implications mentioned earlier for land management.

Inmigrants to Kittitas County are primarily from other places within Washington. In 

1994–95, about three-quarters of the inmigrants relocated from within Washington, 

with the five highest county sources accounting for about 50 percent of the total inmigrants. King County (Seattle) dominates this pattern, as it has for all years for which 

data are available. The proportion of inmigrants coming to Kittitas County from King 

County has ranged from 20 to over 34 percent each year. This proportion has gradually increased over time, although there has been year-to-year variability. If the current pace of growth in King County continues, much of rural King County will reach its 

20-year growth target in less than 10 years (some areas in as few as 4 years), thereby 

suggesting even higher future rates of migration to surrounding counties. 

Both push and pull factors account for this migration pattern. Push factors include 

crime, urban decay and congestion, and housing costs. About 25 percent of total moves in the United States are related to jobs and school (USDC Bureau of the 

Census 1997), with the remainder motivated by family, better homes, housing costs, 

and so on. Housing costs likely are a major factor in migration decisions in Kittitas 

County, because such costs are significantly lower there than in King County. 

In contrast to Kittitas County, few new homes in King County are affordable for a 

middle-income family. Both the 1990 and 2000 censuses showed sharp and growing 

differences in housing costs between King and Kittitas Counties. In 1990, the average monthly cost for the former was $876 and the latter at $539. By 2000, the average 

monthly cost in Kittitas County had increased to $978, while in King County it rose to 

$1,514. According to the Washington Association of Realtors, the median home price 

in King County in early 1998 was $192,300 (Clutter 1998). In comparison, the median 

price for a house in Kittitas County was $78,800 (Clutter 1998). This difference may 

lessen as demand for housing in Kittitas County increases, resulting in higher housing prices. The forested, mountainous low-population-density environment of western 

Kittitas County also may be attractive to those wishing to escape from metropolitan 

King County.

The growing population of King County, accompanied by increasing housing costs, 

congestion, and pollution, suggests that some King County residents may choose to 

find new places to live while retaining jobs in the Seattle area. Other migrants will find 

local jobs hard to come by and will opt to commute as well. Thus, many of the new 

inmigrants in Kittitas County are likely to be commuters going to the Seattle area, even 

though 3,022-foot Snoqualmie Pass separates the two areas and often makes the winter commute hazardous. The commute from Kittitas County into the immediate Seattle 

area takes between 60 and 90 minutes, similar to the commute found in other large 

metropolitan areas. The 2000 census reported an average commuting time for people 

living in King County of 26.5 minutes, a figure that likely has increased as surrounding 

suburbs have developed. About 16 percent of the workers in Kittitas County in 1990 

commuted to work outside the county (USDC Bureau of the Census 2002). Although 

this figure is far below the national average for rural counties (Aldrich et al. 1998), the 

2000 census likely will indicate a far larger figure, given the recent influx of migrants 

from King County. 
15

More and more people are willing to commute longer distances to work so that they 

can live in a pleasing environment, afford housing, avoid crime, or have access to 

recreational opportunities. Kittitas County has large, private forested tracts of relatively level land, ideal for residential development. New large-scale residential developments in Kittitas County, such as Trendwest’s MountainStar Resort Community 

(an urbanlike planned development that would add between 3,000 and 4,000 permanent and vacation housing units) planned for the western part of the county, count on 

natural resource-based amenities as a major factor in marketing. This project, covering over 6,000 acres, will significantly increase the county’s population and increase 

the demand for public services including water. Given the outdoors orientation of the 

development, demand for recreational opportunities in the adjacent Mount BakerSnoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forests inevitably will increase. The stimulus 

effects of the development on the local social and natural resource environment 

resulting from spending by new residents and the estimated 1,600 new employees 

are not known.

In Kittitas County, what impacts will the Trendwest developments have on place definition? How do current residents see this project as affecting their sense of place? 

How do the potential residents of the project see it and the nearby communities of 

Roslyn and Ronald in terms of place? Will Roslyn’s main street (familiar to many as 

Cicely, Alaska, in the television show “Northern Exposure”) become the boutique for 

Trendwest residents and time-share owners? If so, does it matter, and to whom? Are 

large-scale projects, such as the MountainStar Resort, the most efficient methods 

of managing growth, or will invisible consequences appear decades later? Largescale projects may be efficient, particularly in terms of waste treatment and internal 

transportation, but do they bring with them the potential for social class conflicts? For 

example, the 2000 median household income in Kittitas County was $32,546 in distinct contrast to the $53,157 figure for King County. Those moving into Kittitas County 

likely will be more affluent than the average current resident. The disparity in wealth 

will be displayed in various ways and will likely cause social conflict linked to obvious 

differences in wealth. Some long-time residents resent the newcomers, referred to 

as “coasties” or “206ers” (the latter a reference to the Seattle area code). How easily 

newcomers assimilate into local communities may depend on how involved they become in local community activities.

Rapid population growth in high-amenity rural areas, owing almost entirely to net inmigration, carries many consequences of significance to residents, visitors, community 

leaders, and federal land managers. Understanding patterns of migration, the driving 

forces behind it, and the consequences of rapid population growth are critical to land 

managers. For example, simply understanding that the people moving in are different 

from those moving out may help managers prepare for additional or changing demand 

for recreational opportunities. Such understanding may help managers better understand why there seems to be a lack of cohesiveness in community voice about forest 

management.

Fuguitt and Beale (1996: 170) concluded their assessment of population migration 

trends by stating: 

There is a segment of large-scale urban society, established in career experience and family life, that seems increasingly dissatisfied by the stresses and 

costs of megalopolitan and corporate life, drawn to outdoor amenities, and 

Conclusions
16 

fully mindful of the space-negating qualities of modern information and communications technology. These conditions seem to premise a further flow of 

people to attractive areas or even, where there are personal ties, to places of 

more average image. 

Thus, we can expect questions and issues resulting from migration into high-amenity 

areas to be heightened in the future.

National forests and other public lands do not exist in isolation from the communities 

adjacent to them. Although national forests have a federal land management mission, they are impacted by shifts in local population and in addition must be responsive to community needs and desires. Understanding the questions posed above can 

lead to policies that more adequately integrate local and national interests. Inmigrants 

bring not only impacts directly related to the magnitude of population growth but also 

consequences that result from different values and ways of interacting with the environment and different expectations for public agency behavior in a planning setting. 

Understanding the questions driven by these changes is fundamental to increasing the 

efficacy of public land management.

Drivers of population growth in places like Kittitas County are predominately the result 

of combinations of factors such as comparatively lower housing and land prices in 

areas rich in natural amenities. As a result of several push and pull factors, populations increase, urbanization occurs, and some of the values inmigrants sought may 

be lost. Resource management increases in complexity as demands both rise and 

broaden, leading to more contentious decisions and greater political volatility. Although 

some may argue these are issues primarily for local governments, federal public land 

managers are inextricably drawn into them as they attempt to deal with natural hazards (such as fire and flood), meet legally mandated obligations (such as protecting or 

restoring threatened or endangered populations), and address the resource commodity needs of the Nation.

The potential for extreme value differences in how these objectives are met—and 

indeed what objectives should be pursued—is real, yet there is little understanding of 

what differences exist, what values and beliefs may be shared, and how might managers use this information. Moreover, managers are increasingly called on to make decisions at larger, “landscape-level” scales while having little understanding of both the 

ecological and social processes operating at those scales. The acceptability of those 

decisions will likely be increasingly challenged. Research can help make those decisions more informed.

1 foot = 0.305 meter

1 acre = 0.40 hectare

Aldrich, L.; Beale, C.; Kassel, K. 1998. Commuting and the economic functions of 

small towns and places. Rural Development Perspectives. 12(3): 26–31.

Alm, L.R.; Witt, S. 1996. The rural-urban environmental conflict in the American 

West: a four-state study. Spectrum. Fall: 26–36.

Amato, J.A.; Radzilowski, J. 1999. Community of strangers: change, turnover, 

turbulence and the transformation of a Midwestern country town. Marshall, MN: 

Crossings Press. 109 p.

Literature Cited

Metric Equivalents
17

Beale, C.L.; Johnson, K.M. 1998. The identification of recreational counties 

in nonmetropolitan areas of the USA. Population Research and Policy Review. 

17: 37–53.

Berry, E.H. 2000. Review essay: rural sociology, migration, and community change. 

Rural Sociology. 65(4): 658–667.

Brown, B.A. 1995. In timber country: working people’s stories of environmental 

conflict and urban flights. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. 300 p.

Clutter, S. 1998. 85 miles: that’s a commute. Seattle Times. February 16: Sec. 

A: 1 (col. 3-6), 13 (col. 1-6). 

De Jong, G.F. 1977. Residential preferences and migration. Demography. 

14(2): 169–178.

Fitchen, J.M. 1991. Endangered spaces, enduring places: change, identity and 

survival in rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 336 p.

Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J. 1990. New voices, old beliefs: forest environmental values 

among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociology. 55(2): 214–232.

Frey, W.H. 1993. The new urban revival in the United States. Urban Studies. 

30(4/5): 741–774.

Frey, W.H.; Speare, A., Jr. 1992. The revival of metropolitan population growth in the 

United States: an assessment of findings from the 1990 census. Population and 

Development Review. 18: 129–146.

Fuguitt, G.V.; Beale, C.A. 1996. Recent trends in nonmetropolitan migration: toward 

a new turnaround? Growth and Change. 27(2): 156–174.

Fuguitt, G.V.; Brown, D.L. 1990. Residential preferences and population 

redistribution: 1972–1988. Demography. 27: 589–600. 

Fuguitt, G.V.; Zuiches, J. 1975. Residential preferences and population distribution. 

Demography. 12: 491–504.

Graber, E.F. 1974. Newcomers and oldtimers: growth and change in a mountain town. 

Rural Sociology. 39(4): 504–513.

Greider, T.; Garkovich, L. 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and 

the environment. Rural Sociology. 59: 1–24.

Haas, W.H., III; Serow, W.J. 1997. Retirement migration decision making: life 

course mobility, sequencing of events, social ties and alternatives. Journal of the 

Community Development Society. 28(1): 116–130.

Jobes, P.C. 2000. Moving nearer to heaven: the illusions and dillusions of migrants 

to scenic rural places. Westport, CT: Praeger. 242 p.

Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C.A. 1992. The rural rebound. American Demographics. 

17(7): 46–52.

Johnson, K.M.; Beale, C.A. 1998. The rural rebound (revival of rural America). 

Wilson Quarterly. 22(2): 16–27.

King, G. 1997. A solution to the ecological inference problem: restructuring individual 

behavior from aggregate data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 346 p.
18 

Krannich, R.S.; Greider, T. 1984. Personal well-being in rapid growth and stable 

communities: multiple indicators and contrasting results. Rural Sociology. 

49(4): 541–552.

Martin, S.R.; McCool, S.F. 1994. Community attachment and attitudes toward 

tourism development. Journal of Travel Research. 32(3): 29–34.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.; Allen, S. 1997. Social assessment. In: Quigley, T.M.; 

Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecoystem components in the interior 

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management: 1871–2009. Chap. 7. Vol. 4. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; The 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). 

McCool, S.F.; Troy, L.R. 1998. Estimating effects of natural resource policy: the 

impact of the ecological fallacy. Missoula, MT: School of Forestry, The University 

of Montana. 68 p.

McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population change. Agric. 

Econ. Rep. 781. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural 

Economics Division, Economic Research Service. 24 p.

Rudzitis, G.; Johansen, H.E. 1989. Migration into Western wilderness counties: 

causes and consequences. Western Wildlands. Spring: 19–23.

Schwartzweller, H.K. 1979. Migration and the changing rural scene. Rural Sociology. 

44(1): 7–23.

Smith, M.D.; Krannich, R.S. 1998. Views toward public land management agencies 

in the Rocky Mountain West: Are there differences between newcomers and 

longer-term residents? Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on society 

and resource management. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia: 78.

Tremblay, K.R., Jr.; Dunlap, R.E. 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with 

environmental quality: a replication and extension. Rural Sociology. 43(Fall): 

474–491.

Troy, L.R. 1998. Recent human migration to the interior Columbia basin and 

implications for natural resource management. Missoula, MT: School of Forestry, 

University of Montana. 71 p.

Ullman, E.L. 1954. Amenities as a factor in regional growth. Geographical Review. 

44: 119–132.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. American housing 

survey for the United States: 1997. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/

ahs97. (July 17, 2001).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1999. 1998 county 

population estimates. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/

co-98-1/98C1_53.txt. (July 17, 2001).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2002. 2000 census of 

population and housing. Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov. (September 

18).
19

Zuiches, J.J. 1980. Residential preferences in migration theory. In: Brown, D.L.; 

Wardwell, J.M., eds. New directions in urban-rural migration: the population 

turnaround in nonmetropolitan America. New York: Academic Press: 163–183.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of 

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation 

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests 

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly 

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

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